Glass or not? Spray or not?

[CRFTony]

After a few months of work, I'm getting my home studio pretty much finished. I hooked up with a framing company which has supplied me with a few dozen frame corners to show my portrait clients.  I don't know how many will take me up on the framing option, but I can do it cheaper than Michael's, plus I like having the option available. 

I started off with framing a few of my own prints (general landscape/scenery).  The question I have now is whether to include glass or not.  Regular glass glares terribly in my main room where the prints will be hung.  I don't really care for non-glare glass and I also don't have the money for museum glass.  I'm printing on Epson Luster paper right now, so can I go with a framed and mounted print on the wall without glass?  And if I go the no glass route, should I spray the prints for extra protection?

[howardm]

some people use glass and others do not.  it's really a personal choice as long as you understand that the print will be subject to air pollutants etc etc.

If it was me and it was on that lustre paper and I didn't like glass, I'd just hang it 'naked' w/o varnishing.  Dust it and reprint if it gets damaged.

[BobShaw]

It will deteriorate very quickly uncovered. Even plain glass absorbs a lot of UV. To me a picture without glass is not very professional and glass is the cheapest part of the framing. Bad glare is probably a lot to do with bad lighting but reflection control glass is very nice.

[bill t.]

Anti Reflective glass can work pretty well against most eye-level light sources you find in apartments, condos, and other interiors with low ceilings and big windows.  TruVue Museum Glass is very effective against any kind of reflections about about $22 wholesale for a 16 x 20 sheet.  Its exotic design is completely transparent.  For some reason people can not resist poking it to see if anything is there.  It takes fingerprints all too well on its very delicate surface.  A few gentle dabs from a tissue slightly moist with LCD cleaner will save the day.

Lower grades of anti reflective glazing slightly haze the back of the sheet to suppress reflections.  For just under $4 a 16 x 20 sheet, TruVue Reflection Control glass reduces reflections by a lot, at the cost of introducing a slight haziness over the print.  The haziness gets much less apparent if you can move the sheet close to the print, as with a thin single matte rather than thick or double mattes.  I'm not too shy about pressing matte prints right up against the surface, I've had several prints like that in my shop for almost a decade and they are in great shape.  However, glossy prints will adhere to the surface within a few weeks.

There are slightly more expensive acrylic versions of anti reflective materials as well.  If you plan to show in galleries, you will want the acrylic versions as many galleries can not insure large glass frames.

[AFairley]

Tru Vue also makes a glass called AR, it has the same anti-reflecting coating as Museum Glass but without the UV filtering (and, incidentally, without the slight orange/brown color cast of museum glass) and is if I recall right about 2/3 the cost of Museum Glass.

[chez]

It will deteriorate very quickly uncovered. Even plain glass absorbs a lot of UV. To me a picture without glass is not very professional and glass is the cheapest part of the framing. Bad glare is probably a lot to do with bad lighting but reflection control glass is very nice.

Why is it that other forms of art like paintings are presented professionally without glass yet photos require glass to look professional. I've been selling prints for years without glass and no one seems to think they are not professional.

[bill t.]

Why is it that other forms of art like paintings are presented professionally without glass yet photos require glass to look professional. I've been selling prints for years without glass and no one seems to think they are not professional.

+1.

The biggest bastion of the "must have glass" meme is photographers themselves.  Just another reason to avoid photo clubs.  It might go back to the days when photography was seen as an unworthy, price-cutting trespasser trying to steal thunder from painting, etc.  To get into shows you had to clearly delineate your work as a print in a print-like presentation such as a matted, glassed frame.  In some very conservative venues that's still an issue.  Some shows still have old boilerplate text in their applications about black frames etc, but for the most part one can safely ignore that.

[BobShaw]

Why is it that other forms of art like paintings are presented professionally without glass yet photos require glass to look professional. I've been selling prints for years without glass and no one seems to think they are not professional.

Oils are framed without glass because they are oils and because they generally have a lot of relief in the brushstrokes of the painting itself that people want to see. Watercolours are usually framed under glass. Glass is part of the sealing process. It helps stop silverfish eating it. If you disagree then terrific.

[brntoki]

+1.

The biggest bastion of the "must have glass" meme is photographers themselves.  Just another reason to avoid photo clubs.  It might go back to the days when photography was seen as an unworthy, price-cutting trespasser trying to steal thunder from painting, etc.  To get into shows you had to clearly delineate your work as a print in a print-like presentation such as a matted, glassed frame.  In some very conservative venues that's still an issue.  Some shows still have old boilerplate text in their applications about black frames etc, but for the most part one can safely ignore that.

I get it. But then again, there is a difference. Paintings are generally going to be more robust, and surface debris can more or less be easily wiped/brushed off. This can potentially be very bad for photographic prints. Paint on a canvas, for example, is also much more stable than ink on paper. It depends on how you're printing and what type of painting (or other artwork) you want to compare that to. I love matte prints with no glass (not much point in matte if the glass is there), but they do get damaged fairly easily.

[bill t.]

The durability of photo media has gotten a lot better over the last few years.  I use a lot of Silver Rag and it's very robust compared to the same media at its introduction a few years ago.  I'm not the gentlest media handler yet I have not lost a print to a scratch, dent, or fingerprint in a long time.

The Premier lacquer coated glossy test prints banging around the shop are amazingly resistant to scratching and scuffing.  Fingerprints?  Wipe 'em off with a paper towel!  No scratches!  Caught me by surprise and it's changing my game.

Unfortunately I have not been able to find a similar protector for bare matte prints that can survive even trivial scuffing.  Would be nice to be to show bare matte papers, there are so many now with beautiful, subtle tonality, but all the protective treatments I am aware of compromise the image by dragging down highlights and hazing the darkest areas which also kills fine texture, and scuffing is still an issue.

There are some benefits to open face prints that make up for some of the jeopardy.  Since it will probably be coated, if also mounted a bare print is isolated from whatever is wafting in the air.  Sealed, glazed frames act as greenhouses that can cook spotlighted prints up to surprising temperatures, while open faced presentations are much cooler.

FWIW several recent multi-million dollar, facemounted photographs are essentially bare prints, the permanently bonded acrylic is the new face of the print.  Be sure to tell the cleaning staff to say the heck away from it!

[huguito]

Hi Bill
Sorry to deviate from the main subject, but just read that you mentioned paying less than $4 for a 16x20 sheet of True Vue Reflection Control.
Do you mind sharing the name of your supplier?
I have not found prices as good, not even near that.
Thanks

Hugo

[bill t.]

Omega Moulding.  $3.35 each if you buy a case of 23, 16x20 lites, aka sheets.  Omega is relatively low ball on pricing, although they're asking a lot for Gator and Mighty Core.

Here's the catch: glass is heavy and costs a lot to ship.  It is also easily damaged in shipping, which can lead to a lot of hassles.  You're almost always better off paying a little more to a local supplier for your glazing needs, let them deal with the shipping headaches.  That's also true for moulding and matte paper and foam core stuff.  I'm pretty sure Omega ships glass from New Jersey, although they also have a few warehouses across the US.

Edit: HOWEVER, TruVue "AR Reflection Free Glass" is closer to $14 a 16x20 sheet, in boxes of 3.  All those names sound alike.  If I were using glass, I'd go with the AR Reflection Free in most cases.  Mere "Reflection Control Glass" is the lowest grade that pretends to solve reflection problems.  8% reflect versus 1%.

[huguito]

Isn't also a True Vue line of acrylic glazing?

[bill t.]

Artglass Water Whie AR UV Glass, 1% reflection or less, 12, 16x20s for $156.  Not a TruVue product.  Competes with Museum Glass.

Acrylite FF3 (framing grade) 1, 32 x 40 $22 each

Acrylite Non Glare Acrylic (aka P99) 1, 48 x 96 $94.

Optium 1, 48 x 96 (are you sitting down?) right under $800.

[John Nollendorfs]

Yes, you should put inkjet prints under glass, and treat them as any other fine art print to afford them maximum protection. The reason being, that pigmented inkjet papers are coated with a microporous layer to absorb and nearly instantly dry the ink. This of course allows these papers to absorb whatever else is in the atmosphere, like ozone, an oxidant which can degrade the ink very rapidly.

Of course, this means reflections, even with the expensive low reflection glass! Regular window glass absorbs about 80% of UV. But UV protection for most indoor displayed prints is not the primary reason for using glass--it's for physical protection of the print surface. One reason canvas prints have become so popular, is they are typically finished with a vinyl acrylic spray that seals the microporous coating and provides a good physical protection of the canvas surface. Just printing with glossy type canvas material does not provide the protection of sealing the surface!

People have been experimenting with spraying light coats of vinyl acrylic, or products like Clear Shield on matte art paper prints. But you have to be very careful in applying these sprays for the surface to retain it's original look. A heavy coat looks awful.

I have decided that glass tends to be heavy, fragile, and detracts from my prints, and I do not use it in my annual photography exhibitions. Also, I tend to make quite large prints, adding to the problems of using glass. I treat the display prints as "expendable". If someone wants to buy an image, I make a print to suite their particular display needs and charge accordingly on top of the aesthetic price of the print.

[alan a]

To the experts who posted above:

I recently moved up from a 24" format printer to a 44" Canon 8400.  Really large prints from that printer are spectacular -- such as 39" by 52".  Framing such a print would also be spectacular in terms of the expense involved.  Therefore, for my own personal use, I used spray adhesive to glue the print to 2" thick foam core, which actually looks OK.  I assumed this would not be permanent, and since it is for my own use, I can always reprint and do it again as the case may be.  I might give away a few such prints to friends, so knowing how fast such prints would fade -- if NOT exposed to direct sunlight -- would be appreciated.  (I deliberately put the print on a wall that never receives direct sunlight.)  Other amateurs who read this forum might be interested in that alternative, especially for really large prints where the expense of framing is impractical, so your response to the below would be most appreciated.   

(1)  How well does PremierArt Print Shield work if applied to such a print?  Does it really increase the longevity if not framed under glass? How easy is it to evenly apply the spray out of a can?  Premier also makes a liquid version, and I assume it could be applied with a foam roller?

(2)  How much does the adhesive contribute to deterioration?  I used a spray version made by Elmer's that claims to be acid free.  There is also a Scotch product made for prints, but it has much stronger fumes when it is sprayed, and appears to not work as well.

(3)  Finally, I used Epson Exhibition Fiber for this purpose, as I thought that the thicker paper-like base would work better with a spray adhesive, and I thought the surface would look nicer.  But it occurred to me, after doing so, that there is another issue -- OBAs.  How fast do OBAs fade and do they fade unevenly if not under glass?  I know there is considerable discussion about this, and paper manufacturers advertise that their paper is "OBA free."  But is this just hype or does it really matter?  Would it be better to use a paper that is free of OBAs? Any specific recommendations for a thicker OBA-free paper with a paper base like Exhibition Fiber that has that type of appearance on the surface,that does look nicer if not under glass.

Many thanks for your responses. 

P.S. -- By the way, for smaller prints I frame using Museum Glass, and agree with that recommendation posted above by some of you.  A print on mat paper, under Museum Glass -- so the paper itself does not create a reflection -- looks like there is no glass at all, it works so well.