Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: gchappel on August 03, 2019, 06:25:28 pm
-
I do not like glass over my images. I don't like the reflections. If I go to non glare glass, I lose some of the fine detail. It seems to put a barrier between me and seeing the work. I print on an ipf8400 using oem inks. Papers are luster to matt, epson and ilford. The gallery talks about- "Hanging without glass exposes it to heat, moisture, and pollutants which can cause destructive physical and chemical reactions." Not sure how to respond. I think if I were hanging this in a childs waiting area or carwash I could put glass over it, but in a gallery? I have dozens and dozens of images that are 5yrs old, they all look fine. I have only owned the ipf8400 for 5 years. Older images printed on HP also look fine. I do not expect my art to last 200 years, not that important. By the way, glass is not listed in the requirements anywhere. Does everyone else put glass over their images? Again, I just do not like the look. I guess if anyone actually buys one, they can put glass over it if they choose?
By the way, I donated these to a fund raiser. 6prints 24x36". My framer charges roughly $100/piece for museum glass this size so that was another issue.
Gary
-
I'm with you, Gary. Glass is heavy, fragile and distracting. I have a glassless, light-toned monochrome print in my kitchen (imagine the vapours it's exposed to) and it shows zero signs of damage after more than a year. Luster media, pigment inks. HP Z3200.
-
It seems silly to me too. Imagine framing and putting glass in front of a painting. Someday the art community will wake up. I think they still want to sell photographs like paintings. For my $0.02 I think that they forget that every photo can be reproduced pretty easily.
-
I do not like glass over my images. I don't like the reflections. If I go to non glare glass, I lose some of the fine detail. It seems to put a barrier between me and seeing the work. I print on an ipf8400 using oem inks. Papers are luster to matt, epson and ilford. The gallery talks about- "Hanging without glass exposes it to heat, moisture, and pollutants which can cause destructive physical and chemical reactions." Not sure how to respond. I think if I were hanging this in a childs waiting area or carwash I could put glass over it, but in a gallery? I have dozens and dozens of images that are 5yrs old, they all look fine. I have only owned the ipf8400 for 5 years. Older images printed on HP also look fine. I do not expect my art to last 200 years, not that important. By the way, glass is not listed in the requirements anywhere. Does everyone else put glass over their images? Again, I just do not like the look. I guess if anyone actually buys one, they can put glass over it if they choose?
By the way, I donated these to a fund raiser. 6prints 24x36". My framer charges roughly $100/piece for museum glass this size so that was another issue.
Gary
Do you coat your prints? If not then apply an initial varnish spray like Moab to seal it against water and then over that apply several coats of a water based one like Eco Print Shield or Timeless. This should address their objections.
-
It seems silly to me too. Imagine framing and putting glass in front of a painting. Someday the art community will wake up. I think they still want to sell photographs like paintings. For my $0.02 I think that they forget that every photo can be reproduced pretty easily.
Actually, some museums do put glazing in front of valuable paintings. AR coated acrylic is a modern choice by conservators. Glazing is becoming more commonplace as curators and conservators have begun to worry more today about random acts of vandalism or misguided attempts to touch the work by the general public.
That said, back in 1999 on a visit I made to the Museum of Modern Art in N.Y.C. (MOMA), the public was indeed able to walk right up to Vincent Van Gogh's "Starry Night" and other priceless works of art. I would not be surprised if such intimate viewing of the work is no longer the case today. Here's what the viewing experience was like in 1999. https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/megalux-hours-explained/ (https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/megalux-hours-explained/)
As for photos being easily reproducible, that is sometimes but not always the case. The obvious example being any signed work. Moreover, even with sentimental family photos, making a high quality copy entails both time and expense. Always easier to print more than one copy at the start and put one away in a safer environment than to try to copy/reprint after the fact. That's my 2 cents ;)
-
It's your art work. The artist should decide how he want's the public to view it and how it's displayed.
Not that long ago I was in a show of my night photography. The glass/plexiglass killed the viewing experience. I decided to show without the glass. The work stood out and popped visually on the wall, and everyone commented. It was a pleasure viewing the work and not seeing yourself and the gallery reflected (and competing) with the photograph. I now refuse to put glass over my images for a show, especially if they are dark images.
-
It's your art work. The artist should decide how he want's the public to view it and how it's displayed.
Not always is that possible. The museum and the gallery's insurance company will dictate what the policy will be. Or, no payment for damages.
Peter
-
4 of the 6 images are very dark black and white. Glass really detracts from how I want them to look.
I already signed waivers for insurance, so not the issue.
At least my works I can easily reprint if damaged.
Thanks for the support. I wrote back that basically it is my choice to be without glass or cover.
I am waiting to see what they say.
Gary
-
4 of the 6 images are very dark black and white. Glass really detracts from how I want them to look.
I already signed waivers for insurance, so not the issue.
At least my works I can easily reprint if damaged.
Thanks for the support. I wrote back that basically it is my choice to be without glass or cover.
I am waiting to see what they say.
Gary
I don't see any reason why they wouldn't accommodate your desire to display without glazing. IMHO, it's all about artist's original intent. If the artist wants the presentation to the viewer to be without glazing, then so be it. There's no wrong answer here.
A major museum once had an exhibit of an artwork created by the Starn Brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_and_Mike_Starn). Pieces attached with cellophane tape started to fall off the work as the exhibit carried on. Conservators asked the artists "what should we do about this?". The Starn brothers replied (I'm taking some liberties here to paraphrase), but the gist of it was "let the bits and pieces now on the floor in the gallery be part of the work. It's performance art". ;D
As you are the artist of the work in this discussion, It's your call! The gallery may reject you, but it shouldn't. There's plenty of precedent long established in favor of artist's original intent.
good luck,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Not always is that possible. The museum and the gallery's insurance company will dictate what the policy will be. Or, no payment for damages.
Peter
One can then choose not to exhibit at that gallery.
-
Actually, some museums do put glazing in front of valuable paintings. AR coated acrylic is a modern choice by conservators. Glazing is becoming more commonplace as curators and conservators have begun to worry more today about random acts of vandalism or misguided attempts to touch the work by the general public.
That said, back in 1999 on a visit I made to the Museum of Modern Art in N.Y.C. (MOMA), the public was indeed able to walk right up to Vincent Van Gogh's "Starry Night" and other priceless works of art. I would not be surprised if such intimate viewing of the work is no longer the case today. Here's what the viewing experience was like in 1999. https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/megalux-hours-explained/ (https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/megalux-hours-explained/)
I've just been to an exhibition of paintings like Starry Night - same vintage and genre - although perhaps not quite that valuable. Many were glassed (or acryliced), but with the right lighting and the right glass it wasn't a problem. In fact it was a bit of a game to work out which ones were glassed and which ones not, so good was the glass and light. But with less than ideal glass and light then it would be a distraction. The unanswered question for this exhibition was why only some?
-
One can then choose not to exhibit at that gallery.
Exactly...
-
Curious what you all think for pictures mounted at home? Would you leave them unglazed or not?
-
Curious what you all think for pictures mounted at home? Would you leave them unglazed or not?
I have only been printing with proper technique and pigmented oem inks for about 10 years, hp9180, epson 3800, canon ipf8400.
I have at least 60 large framed prints that are rotated seasonally, about 10 hanging at any one time.
A few are 10yrs old, most are 3-5yrs.
I live in Florida. These hang in the sun, in the kitchen, in harsh environments.
I have never had one damaged yet, nope- not one.
I have had to replace the matboard twice. One got dirty in storage, one got a grease smear from someones finger. But I have never replaced a print.
I have one print of peeling paint on an old wall that is so 3d people are constantly wiping at it, thinking something is stuck to the print. It is 3yrs old and fine. This did have to have the mat replaced.
Your mileage my vary, but at least in my environment I see no reason for protection or glass.
Gary
-
Curious what you all think for pictures mounted at home? Would you leave them unglazed or not?
For pictures at home I use poster hangers that Jorgen Moller (https://posterhanger.com/) designed. Prints can be swapped in and out in less than a minute. No frames, no plexi, no mats, no sprays at all.
-
My studio workshop has 137 hanging images plus another 52 in my house, none with glass. (My kids know what they are getting when I die!)
All are either canvas or dye sublimated products. Some over 10 years old and they all look great.
Any paper or canvas prints have some sort of protection, spray or vinyl laminate.
I have about a half dozen paper prints with a satin vinyl laminate attached and they hold up as good or better then the sprayed canvas.
Canvases are sprayed with either Timeless or Glamor II.
These prints may not be covered with glass but they are all protected one way or another.
-
For pictures at home I use poster hangers that Jorgen Moller (https://posterhanger.com/) designed. Prints can be swapped in and out in less than a minute. No frames, no plexi, no mats, no sprays at all.
Alan, what covers the picture if anything. Does it reflect, etc.?
-
Thanks all, I am truly trying to learn.
I have done photography for a long long time.
It took a couple of years, but my printing is now ok.
Framing and hanging is a new world for me.
Dan, may I ask what laminate you are using? I have access to a cold roll laminator and could give that a try.
I use the poster hangers at home as well, works great for a few areas I like to look at images, then change them.
Gary
-
I have a hot roll laminator for Seal's Print Guard Luster or Matte. Great stuff!
Seal's Print Shield Luster or matte is the cold roll material.
Plenty of other manufactures have similar products.
Do not like any of the matte laminates.
Like looking through wax paper.
-
It seems silly to me too. Imagine framing and putting glass in front of a painting. Someday the art community will wake up. I think they still want to sell photographs like paintings. For my $0.02 I think that they forget that every photo can be reproduced pretty easily.
Well, not quite every image - think an original Paul Strand. But for most others, exactly right.
-
Well, not quite every image - think an original Paul Strand. But for most others, exactly right.
As it happens, I was researching Paul Strand yesterday, and found many high res images (Hasselblad H4D) of his prints online. Likewise Edward Weston and Frederick Sommer. Everything is reproducible.
-
As it happens, I was researching Paul Strand yesterday, and found many high res images (Hasselblad H4D) of his prints online. Likewise Edward Weston and Frederick Sommer. Everything is reproducible.
Well, if you have a vintage signed print by Strand or Weston, I would be happy to take it off your hands in exchange for an exactingly reproduced facsimile of the same image on a new silver gelatin or "baryta" inkjet paper of your choice :)
-
Most modern inkjet media are microporous to properly absorb the ink and dry almost instantaneously. The downside to not protecting inkjet images with glass, laminate or sprays, is that this leaves the image open to atmospheric contaminates. Some of you may remember that Epson had a problem with what was called "orange fade", 15-20 years ago, that was traced to ozone in the air causing dye inks printed on microporous papers to fade to orange colors within a week or two. Although modern pigmented inks have acrylic coated pigment particles to help prevent such fading, the open nature of microrous papers still presents this problem.
I agree that glazing distracts from images, especially with dark content. I chose to display my exhibiition prints with no protection, labeling them as "display copies". Anyone purchasing prints receives new prints, made to their specifications. For small prints I encourage framing and matting with glazing. For larger prints, I recommend stretched canvas prints, that are sprayed with acrylic protective sprays.
-
Most modern inkjet media are microporous to properly absorb the ink and dry almost instantaneously. The downside to not protecting inkjet images with glass, laminate or sprays, is that this leaves the image open to atmospheric contaminates. Some of you may remember that Epson had a problem with what was called "orange fade", 15-20 years ago, that was traced to ozone in the air causing dye inks printed on microporous papers to fade to orange colors within a week or two. Although modern pigmented inks have acrylic coated pigment particles to help prevent such fading, the open nature of microrous papers still presents this problem.
I agree that glazing distracts from images, especially with dark content. I chose to display my exhibiition prints with no protection, labeling them as "display copies". Anyone purchasing prints receives new prints, made to their specifications. For small prints I encourage framing and matting with glazing. For larger prints, I recommend stretched canvas prints, that are sprayed with acrylic protective sprays.
Microporous paper prints can easily be sprayed with Moab, Hahnemuhle or Premier Art spray and be fully protected from atmospheric pollutants.
-
Still learning a lot. I do not have a good area to spray large prints, so I would be looking for a non spray solution. I may try laminations, as I do have access to a cold roller. But, again, I am not sure what I am protecting from. 10yr old prints hanging without any protection still look great.
Gary
-
Fully protected? Not at all.
I have seen prints done with the best Vivera gray inks on Canson Rag Photo turn brown when shown in a restaurant gallery for a couple of months with no plexi and also pinned on the wall of an art department office. They were all sprayed with three coats on the front with the Hahnemuhle uv spray. The same prints in a portfolio were not changed at all.
There are so many kinds of pollutants floating around that we can’t detect, such as from air conditioners, heaters, cleaning chemicals, autos, etc,etc, that we are just beginning to learn about.
I’m not against people mounting to dibond with a cold adhesive , spraying the front with the solvent uv sprays and showing briefly in a gallery. I’ve printed shows shown that way, but you are taking a risk, so just beware, and never ever let the gallery sell them to hang permanently that way. These receptor coatings are magnets for all toxins. Rc papers are a little better protected, but I personally would never recommend hanging one of those without plexi for very long either. Just because you have not had issues doing this doesn’t mean it’s safe.
I wish it was as easy to spray these prints with a good canvas acrylic latex varnish like Timeless, or have them laminated with a satin laminating material, but that just destroys the dmax and surface of the print. If you are going to do that you might as well print on plastic paper because that’s what they look like. I’ve tried it many times.
Believe me we will be hearing a lot more about this in the future. Wilhelms “ bare bulb” years of display figure are a joke in my opinion. It all depends on the particular location the work is being hung in, and that varies widely!
I would much rather frame a print with the plexi touching the face of the print in a show than leaving them naked with just the spray.
John
Microporous paper prints can easily be sprayed with Moab, Hahnemuhle or Premier Art spray and be fully protected from atmospheric pollutants.
-
Wilhelm's tests are "comparative" tests, a well regarded way of comparing products under consistent testing conditions. That way, the better performing products can be compared with everything else - the only variable in tests being the paper/ink sample being tested.
-
Bare bulb in an atmospherically isolated controlled setting is not the real world. Just so people realize that.
Wilhelm's tests are "comparative" tests, a well regarded way of comparing products under consistent testing conditions. That way, the better performing products can be compared with everything else - the only variable in tests being the paper/ink sample being tested.
-
Fully protected? Not at all.
I have seen prints done with the best Vivera gray inks on Canson Rag Photo turn brown when shown in a restaurant gallery for a couple of months with no plexi and also pinned on the wall of an art department office. They were all sprayed with three coats on the front with the Hahnemuhle uv spray. The same prints in a portfolio were not changed at all.
There are so many kinds of pollutants floating around that we can’t detect, such as from air conditioners, heaters, cleaning chemicals, autos, etc,etc, that we are just beginning to learn about.
I’m not against people mounting to dibond with a cold adhesive , spraying the front with the solvent uv sprays and showing briefly in a gallery. I’ve printed shows shown that way, but you are taking a risk, so just beware, and never ever let the gallery sell them to hang permanently that way. These receptor coatings are magnets for all toxins. Rc papers are a little better protected, but I personally would never recommend hanging one of those without plexi for very long either. Just because you have not had issues doing this doesn’t mean it’s safe.
I wish it was as easy to spray these prints with a good canvas acrylic latex varnish like Timeless, or have them laminated with a satin laminating material, but that just destroys the dmax and surface of the print. If you are going to do that you might as well print on plastic paper because that’s what they look like. I’ve tried it many times.
Believe me we will be hearing a lot more about this in the future. Wilhelms “ bare bulb” years of display figure are a joke in my opinion. It all depends on the particular location the work is being hung in, and that varies widely!
I would much rather frame a print with the plexi touching the face of the print in a show than leaving them naked with just the spray.
John
John brings up a very good point.
UV protection may not be the uv protection you think.
In my cabinetry days I sprayed hundreds of gallons if not thousands of catalized topcoat products, typically 5+ gallons a week.
The last 15 years we were using a water white (Not water based-called water white because it is crystal clear non yellowing.) conversion varnish with UV protection slathered all over the labels and document sheets.
My district salesman was in one week and I asked him about the UV protection as I wanted to know a little bit more about this to pass on to my customers.
His response was that the UV in the finish was to keep it from yellowing. To keep it's crystal clear finish and it had nothing to do with protecting the wood from
changing color from the sun. An eye opening statement to say the least.
Maybe the exact same thing is going on with the print sprays of today. Has nothing to do with protecting the print (From the sun) but everything to do with keeping the finish from yellowing..
-
John brings up a very good point.
UV protection may not be the uv protection you think.
In my cabinetry days I sprayed hundreds of gallons if not thousands of catalized topcoat products, typically 5+ gallons a week.
The last 15 years we were using a water white (Not water based-called water white because it is crystal clear non yellowing.) conversion varnish with UV protection slathered all over the labels and document sheets.
My district salesman was in one week and I asked him about the UV protection as I wanted to know a little bit more about this to pass on to my customers.
His response was that the UV in the finish was to keep it from yellowing. To keep it's crystal clear finish and it had nothing to do with protecting the wood from
changing color from the sun. An eye opening statement to say the least.
Maybe the exact same thing is going on with the print sprays of today. Has nothing to do with protecting the print (From the sun) but everything to do with keeping the finish from yellowing..
The UV protection from those spray cans is certainly not as good as a water based coating, but it does help some. Jose did a test demonstrating this. But my primary purpose in using them is to add water resistance and some protection from atmospheric pollutants. And spraying them is certainly better than leaving them unsprayed.
-
I would much rather frame a print with the plexi touching the face of the print in a show than leaving them naked with just the spray.
John
A print TOUCHING GLASS can trap moisture and cause blooming. It appears as a hazy film and will ruin any paper stock.
Peter
-
I’ve come to realize that blue light, uv light, and light in general is not our biggest problem issue with these inkjet papers. Our biggest issue is toxins in the atmosphere which they are extremely sensitive to, even with the wrong adhesives in portfolio boxes or mounting materials.
Yes I do spray my prints but we really need to be spraying the back which is probably just as important.
We need to have more serious tests done, and the paper manufacturers who I’m sure are well aware of these things should be paying for it. It does little good to use a pigment rated at 200-400 Wilhelm years
if the inkjet receptor coatings don’t hold up.
John
The UV protection from those spray cans is certainly not as good as a water based coating, but it does help some. Jose did a test demonstrating this. But my primary purpose in using them is to add water resistance and some protection from atmospheric pollutants. And spraying them is certainly better than leaving them unsprayed.
-
I agree 100% with regards to a protective coating from the everyday elements, fingerprints, dust, spray cleaners, etc.
Agree more with the Sherwin Williams expert that the UV coatings of today are not protecting what is underneath from fading.
-
Analogue yes, but not inkjet prints sprayed with the uv sprays, in my experience of the last 10 years. Haven’t lost a one. But I have not framed rc prints that way, only fiber matte and gloss. And I always use plexi.
A print TOUCHING GLASS can trap moisture and cause blooming. It appears as a hazy film and will ruin any paper stock.
Peter
-
Analogue yes, but not inkjet prints sprayed with the uv sprays, in my experience of the last 10 years. Haven’t lost a one. But I have not framed rc prints that way, only fiber matte and gloss. And I always use plexi.
Great to know, Thanks...
Peter
-
Wilhelm's tests are "comparative" tests, a well regarded way of comparing products under consistent testing conditions. That way, the better performing products can be compared with everything else - the only variable in tests being the paper/ink sample being tested.
Indeed, comparative only! Here's my concern about expressing relative values on an absolute scale (i.e. years on display). How many people read about those 100+ year ratings and say, "Oh, ignore the years on display claims, just compare the results of one system to another on a relative basis only".
kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com