Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: samueljohnchia on April 30, 2015, 06:42:21 pm
-
Hi everyone,
After a decade or so of dealing with reflections in glass and acrylic of my framed prints, a recent exhibition early this year gave me the push I needed to source for an affordable yet excellent anti-reflective framing glass or acrylic. Where I come from, the Tru Vue distributor has total monopoly on the product line, pricing the glazing far out of reach of most people. In the course of my research, I came across alternatives, and one of which is made by a small but vibrant company in Latvia. It is the most transparent and neutral anti-reflected coated framing glass I know of. Groglass has managed to eliminate the transmission shift in the interference coating into the shorter wavelengths as light strikes the glass at more diagonal angles, so that the glass appears more cyan tinted at 30 - 60 degrees of light incidence. Correspondingly the usually green reflection color shifts into pink/red before transiting to neutral. Groglass Artglass WW is the only glass to reflect green at zero degrees (perpenticular) and the color gradually changes to neutral at increasing reflection angles with no shift into pink/red whatsoever.
I have done quite a bit of research and digging into the subtleties of the glasses, and I delve into significantly more detail in my article I published at this link: http://cacaoeditions.com/anti-reflection-picture-framing-glass/
I will be adding to that more glasses from other manufacturers and also the anti-reflection coated acrylics in time.
I hope if you are also looking for an excellent framing glass that it will be a somewhat more objective assessment.
-
Speaking as a custom framer of over 30 years, I think you have done a very informative and objective paper on this topic.
Thanks!
PS... I hate Museum Glass ;-)
David
-
Nice write up.
we switched to all ArtGlass for anti reflective projects about a couple of years ago. The WW version without UV protection is stunning with a face mounted print under it. Not bad with the UV protection either.
-
David,
I hate Museum Glass
Why?
-
David,
Why?
One reason is is so hard to work with. You really cannot clean it without a streak. I learned to take it straight from the box, cut it, and mount it. Hopefully it won't get scratched.
Bigger issue is when the owner tries to clean their glass say about 6 months later and they use windex. What a mess.
However if you get a good mount it can look great.
Paul
-
One reason is is so hard to work with. You really cannot clean it without a streak. I learned to take it straight from the box, cut it, and mount it. Hopefully it won't get scratched.
Bigger issue is when the owner tries to clean their glass say about 6 months later and they use windex. What a mess.
However if you get a good mount it can look great.
Paul
You can and I ALWAYS do get it clean. The "secret" is to flood the glass. You can't just get the wipe wet and expect it to not streak. If I ever get a streak, I just redo the piece with more cleaner and it's gone.
I do agree that the other main problem is with customer attempts to clean... and to keep their greasy little fingers off it. Never fails when someone brings in a piece that has museum glass in it, it is covered with fingerprints.
They do have a new type of glass that is supposed to be easier to clean and handle but with a lesser amount of UV filtering. Ultra Vue and it also costs about half of what museum costs.
-
Paul, framah,
Very interesting. Thank you both very much.
-
Speaking as a custom framer of over 30 years, I think you have done a very informative and objective paper on this topic.
Thanks!
PS... I hate Museum Glass ;-)
David
Thanks David!
I hate it too :-)
Nice write up.
we switched to all ArtGlass for anti reflective projects about a couple of years ago. The WW version without UV protection is stunning with a face mounted print under it. Not bad with the UV protection either.
Thanks Wayne! That's a smart choice. I assumed you used Tru Vue previously? Did you experience problems that made you want to switch or was it because of costing reasons?
Facemounting with Artglass WW, sweet! I'm only concerned about the fragility of the glass.
David,
Why?
Paul has rightly pointed out the issue with old Museum Glass. The coating is very difficult to clean - this issue should never be underestimated. Of course it is not impossible to clean, but it does take much more care and time to get it clean. For something really masochistic, try getting a piece of Optium Museum Acrylic full of fingerprints clean ;)
I also don't like the waviness in the UV coating of Museum Glass. Very ugly. The glass used is also regular glass, not low iron glass, so the transmission is not as high as it could be.
There is a new version of Museum Glass with a much easier to clean coating and supposedly is more durable. I was sent a sample kit by Tru Vue and tested it against the old Museum Glass. The new one is truly much easier to clean but the coating was much more fragile, scratching as easily as plain acrylic. I wrote them about this and they said maybe it is an anomaly. In the course of my research I have uncovered evidence of Tru Vue's QC issues, I won't comment further. If you are a long time framer or have dealt with many batches of their glass you would know from experience, and probably better than I do. I don't sell either one of these products and could care less about such issues, except that a more problematic product translates into higher framing cost from my favorite local framers, and none of us like to pay more to receive more trouble down the road.
They do have a new type of glass that is supposed to be easier to clean and handle but with a lesser amount of UV filtering. Ultra Vue and it also costs about half of what museum costs.
I covered UltraVue extensively in my article. Something I did not call attention to is that the coatings on UltraVue (and Artglass) are applied using magnetron sputtering, and so are extremely hard-wearing and durable. More or less as durable as the glass itself, and will theoratically last forever. The coating of Museum Glass is not magnetron sputtered, is softer and scratches more easily, and will degrade over time. I won't elaborate more on this. Framers and artists will likely continue to use whatever they have decided their favourite glazing is, which probably greatly depends on access to such materials in their own local market/distributorship and the raw material cost.
-
There is a new version of Museum Glass with a much easier to clean coating and supposedly is more durable. I was sent a sample kit by Tru Vue and tested it against the old Museum Glass. The new one is truly much easier to clean but the coating was much more fragile, scratching as easily as plain acrylic. I wrote them about this and they said maybe it is an anomaly. In the course of my research I have uncovered evidence of Tru Vue's QC issues, I won't comment further. If you are a long time framer or have dealt with many batches of their glass you would know from experience, and probably better than I do. I don't sell either one of these products and could care less about such issues, except that a more problematic product translates into higher framing cost from my favorite local framers, and none of us like to pay more to receive more trouble down the road.
precisely!
-
Is the Groglass neutral in color when looking through it over the Tru-View Museum Glass? If so, I'll ask my framer to order some for the next framing run. That T-V MG stuff adds big $$$ on an order.
I know regular glass has that faint green/cyan tint that in some prints needs to be corrected for (Printed warmer.) else skin looks sickly greenish. Acrylic doesn't have it that I've noticed, just that I seem to scratch it a lot.
SG
-
I know that polycarbonate is tougher than acrylic, is it any good for framing?
-
Is the Groglass neutral in color when looking through it over the Tru-View Museum Glass? If so, I'll ask my framer to order some for the next framing run. That T-V MG stuff adds big $$$ on an order.
I know regular glass has that faint green/cyan tint that in some prints needs to be corrected for (Printed warmer.) else skin looks sickly greenish. Acrylic doesn't have it that I've noticed, just that I seem to scratch it a lot.
SG
Groglass uses low iron or 'water white' glass for Artglass, so yes it is very neutral in color, like clear acrylic. I don't know what you mean about looking through it over Museum Glass (MG) - are you expecting it to neutralise the color tinting of MG? It does not work that way. In fact, Groglass Artglass WW is so transparent and neutral with so little reflections I can clearly see the tint of MG glass when it is placed under Artglass WW. Of all the samples I have so far, it is the most neutral and transparent and also happens to be the cheapest to buy.
I do encourage you to ask your framer to get some for your work. I'm sure you will love it. Just note that when it comes to highly transparent glasses, they usually do not have such a high UV blocking ability. More effective UV blocking actually turns the glass slighly yellowish. Trade-offs...
In the case of MG, the UV coating which is orangey-brown completely neutralises and overwhelms the green tint of the soda lime glass substrate, so you cannot be seeing any green tint from the glass. The tint should be somewhat orange.
Standard acrylic reflects as much light as glass (8%) so Artglass WW will look much, much better. The anti-reflective coatings are very durable and will not scratch easily.
-
I know that polycarbonate is tougher than acrylic, is it any good for framing?
Polycarbonate is not as brittle as acrylic, and so appears to be more shatter resistant, but that means it is softer and more elastic. So it will actually scratch much more easily than acrylic. In addition, polycarbonate turns yellow over time when exposed to UV light. If you have ever seen the bubble canopies of airplanes or fighter jets that are several years old, you can clearly see just how dingy and yellow it will become. Acrylic never yellows over time.
Reflections in the glazing is by far the greatest impediment to the viewer, so only anti-reflective coated glass or acrylic are choices that I would make for all my work from now on. Once you have seen just how transparent these coated glazings are, you won't touch standard glass or acrylic!
-
My company has allays had requests for anti-reflective glazing from our photographer customers. Since we ship the frames to our customers for them to do mounting and final assembly TruVue was not an option. Since the coated side is very sensitive to scratching our customers likely scratch it during disassembly, and even if they didn't we would probably get too many questions about how to get finger prints off after they touched it. Custom framers know to take it straight from the box and quickly seal the coated side inside the picture frame.
I was thrilled when GroGlass became available in the US. It is easy for us to sell because the glass requires no special treatment. Either side can go against the artwork, and both sides are fully scratch resistant. We just have to stick with sizes 24x28 and smaller since we ship most of our orders.
We also use Cryo/Evonick Acrylite with the non-glare coating. Although it is reduces the glare some and is naturally optically pure, it does not reduce reflections nearly as well as the GroGlass Artglass.
Another advantage of the Artglass is the UV filter is not as intense as Musuem glass so their is less warming effect on papers that have a lot of optical brighteners present.
Mark,
President, Frame Destination, Inc.
-
Mark,
Thank you for being on this site and providing useful, knowledgable info for all of us. It reflects (no pun intended) well on Frame Destination.
Brad
-
Hi Mark, thank you for the information from the perspective of a framing supplies point of view. Your insight into practical issues with ease of handling the glass is much appreciated. Your comments about the fragility of the UV coated side of MG is consistent with the other reports I have read and my own samples.
I too was overjoyed to discover Groglass. Actually it was a post you made on APUG in early 2014 that first called my attention to Groglass :) I thought you might like to know.
I personally do not like non-glare glazing - just a minor correction, it is not a coating but rather an etched surface. Microscopically bumpy on one side to diffuse the reflections. Total surface reflections still remain as high as smooth clear glazing, only that the light is reflected back in more varied directions. Non glare glazing creates a foggy look over the art which gets worse the further the glazing is spaced from the art like in shadow box frames.
Acrylite has an anti-reflective coated acrylic (http://www.acrylite-shop.com/US/us/acrylite-optical/anti-reflective-ac-is0amwzt75m.html), but it is not available in more than 3mm thicknesses so making it rather useless for large pieces due to bowing. It is also slightly more expensive than Optium Museum Acrylic. OMA reduces reflections nearly as well as Groglass Artglass, in all practical situations one would say it is just as good, with all the additional goodies like anti-static, anti-scratch and near total UVA blocking. Its high cost and the sheer difficulty to get it clean from fingerprints (basically totally impossible to eliminate 100% of any marks if you accidentally touch the surface and leave an oily residue on it) makes me cringe. I look forward to the new acrylic from Groglass, which should be out some time this year.
My personal preference too is for less UV blocking to allow the glazing to remain a more neutral color, whether or not the paper contains OBAs.
-
Where can I buy Artglass in the PNW (Portland or Seattle)? I've left two "messages" on the Groglass website over the last two months, asking for US distributors, and have heard nothing. Google has been no help. Thank you.
-
Here's a thought - frame without glazing. It is a most refreshing approach. I have been doing it more often. Let's face it, our prints are not valuable art works that need to be protected from every possible insult. We can print another, or another 20. Advantages:
1) Less cost, particularly when considering the outrageously expensive museum glass.
2) Less hassle when framing.
3) Unbreakable.
4) Lighter.
5) Prints look better without glass or acrylic over them.
-
Bigger issue is when the owner tries to clean their glass say about 6 months later and they use windex. What a mess.
Paul
Is there something specific about windex that is not desirable?
-
Where can I buy Artglass in the PNW (Portland or Seattle)? I've left two "messages" on the Groglass website over the last two months, asking for US distributors, and have heard nothing. Google has been no help. Thank you.
I emailed a similar question to their national distributor a month ago about sources in southern California. Received a reply listing two sources:
CMI Moulding, 7696 Miramar Rd, in San Diego (858) 564-0380
Omega Moulding in Los Angeles
I haven't ordered anything from them yet. I hope this is helpful.
Brad
-
Not presenting myself as an authority, the negative discussion about the circa 2000-2014 version of Museum Glass surprises me. Just speaking anecdotally, from the two dozen or so pieces on display at our residence, most of which are about 24x36", they look quite good. I hadn't noticed much trouble getting the faces of the glass clean. The frames in question have been hanging 8 to 12 years, and I change the matted prints out every 1 to 2 years - using the same frame and piece of Museum Glass.
On the other hand, it's possible our lighting conditions don't reveal glass streaking as well as other lighting might.
John Caldwell
-
I emailed a similar question to their national distributor a month ago about sources in southern California.
Thanks Brad. I finally located a distributor in Portland - General Glass.
-
Windex isn't a problem except when cleaning acrylic. DO NOT USE IT FOR ACRYLIC!!!!
Windex has ammonia in it and the ammonia will craze the plexi.
I use Glass Plus and you can use any other cleaner as long it doesn't have ammonia in it.
-
Windex isn't a problem except when cleaning acrylic. DO NOT USE IT FOR ACRYLIC!!!!
Windex has ammonia in it and the ammonia will craze the plexi.
I use Glass Plus and you can use any other cleaner as long it doesn't have ammonia in it.
Good to know this. I assume you mean for repeated use? I've always used Windex on acrylic when I first clean it after removing the plastic film. It works great for that. I've never noticed any crazing. Once the picture is framed and hung I never wipe the acrylic again, I just dust the frame occasionally.
-
most AR glass product say dont use ammonia based cleaners
i use true view ultraview glass mainly. it rocks, waaay cheaper than museum but and water white so not tinges in colour. BUT it doesnt meet the conservation level standards for uv protection. but most people want the look rather than the protection
-
That is good to know about Windex and acrylic. Thanks for explaining it.
-
I use an alcohol-based cleaner on coated framing glass, works fine, can clean localizes smudges and fingerprints without flooding the area. My favorite is some concoction made by Xerox for cleaning copier platens, left behind at the office by some tech years ago.
-
What about vinegar based cleaners?
-
Where can I buy Artglass in the PNW (Portland or Seattle)? I've left two "messages" on the Groglass website over the last two months, asking for US distributors, and have heard nothing. Google has been no help. Thank you.
I can't speak to local sources, but Frame Destination (http://www.framedestination.com/txtsearch/art%20glass/) sells it.
-
Windex isn't a problem except when cleaning acrylic. DO NOT USE IT FOR ACRYLIC!!!!
Windex has ammonia in it and the ammonia will craze the plexi.
I use Glass Plus and you can use any other cleaner as long it doesn't have ammonia in it.
I typically use ROR (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/64495-REG/ROR_RO212D_Residual_Oil_Remover.html)for glass. If streaking occurs it is usually that not enough product was applied for the contaminant level of the surface.
It is safe to use on most glass and plastic surfaces. Never tried it on framing acrylic as I don't use that, but it is safe for TV and monitor screens.
-
The WW version without UV protection is stunning with a face mounted print under it.
I just framed a large piece with Artglass WW with no mat, so the glass is directly against the print. I'm aware that there is a consensus among some that this is not a good idea to let the print touch the glass because it might stick to it over time, but I did it anyway because I...
1) am not convinced this is really a problem with today's ink when printing on a mat surface. I printed on Moab Entrada Natural Rag 300gsm with Canon Lucia EX ink and let the print dry a week.
2) am not convinced that even if parts of the print do begin to stick to the glass that it will be noticeable; after all there is no gap there and how would that change the appearance compared to other areas? Again, this is a mat finish.
3) I am more concerned about long term delamination or other problems occurring with face mounting the print to the glass, than I am with #2 above.
So I'm interested to hear from those with strong opinions about this. The final product looks so good I'm tempted to do more without a mat. Would that be a mistake and can you provide good evidence why?
-
I just framed a large piece with Artglass WW with no mat, so the glass is directly against the print. I'm aware that there is a consensus among some that this is not a good idea to let the print touch the glass because it might stick to it over time, but I did it anyway because I...
1) am not convinced this is really a problem with today's ink when printing on a mat surface. I printed on Moab Entrada Natural Rag 300gsm with Canon Lucia EX ink and let the print dry a week.
2) am not convinced that even if parts of the print do begin to stick to the glass that it will be noticeable; after all there is no gap there and how would that change the appearance compared to other areas? Again, this is a mat finish.
3) I am more concerned about long term delamination or other problems occurring with face mounting the print to the glass, than I am with #2 above.
So I'm interested to hear from those with strong opinions about this. The final product looks so good I'm tempted to do more without a mat. Would that be a mistake and can you provide good evidence why?
Personally I like to do as much as I can to get depth when framing under glass and not face mounting, including double or triple matting. This allows the surface and character of the paper itself to be easily distinguishable from the surface of the glass. I often even place the glass on the top of a cloth liner so the print is 1/2" or more behind the glass.
As far as whether it sticks or not, if it does stick then eventually you may see some cracks because of the expansion/contraction of the glass over time. But I believe the paper you mentioned isn't as likely to stick as an RC based paper.
Side by side, the Entrada without matting won't look the same as a face mounted print... nothing wrong with that. But framing without space just doesn't look the same as face mounting, unless the print itself is ultra high gloss as well, such as fujiflex or Kodak Metallic.
-
Thank you Wayne.
You're right, the look is not the same as face mounting. It does not have as brilliant a look, but I find it still looks striking. My main goal was to eliminate the look of the mat itself and take full advantage of the 60" Artglass for a panorama.
Your comments are encouraging. I'm hopeful that the matte finish paper will prevent a sticking problem down the road.
-
Here's a thought - frame without glazing. It is a most refreshing approach. I have been doing it more often. Let's face it, our prints are not valuable art works that need to be protected from every possible insult. We can print another, or another 20. Advantages:
1) Less cost, particularly when considering the outrageously expensive museum glass.
2) Less hassle when framing.
3) Unbreakable.
4) Lighter.
5) Prints look better without glass or acrylic over them.
Yes Peter - I am with you on this - for prints for my own use.
Otherwise a very interesting thread.
Jim
-
Here's a thought - frame without glazing. It is a most refreshing approach. I have been doing it more often. Let's face it, our prints are not valuable art works that need to be protected from every possible insult. We can print another, or another 20. Advantages:
1) Less cost, particularly when considering the outrageously expensive museum glass.
2) Less hassle when framing.
3) Unbreakable.
4) Lighter.
5) Prints look better without glass or acrylic over them.
Yes. A few years ago I saw a photo exhibit by Sabine Weiss here in the south of France. Everything framed without glass. It was great to see the prints this way. A terrific surprise.
http://sabineweissphotographe.com/portfolio/223-paris
-
I have done quite a bit of research and digging into the subtleties of the glasses, and I delve into significantly more detail in my article I published at this link: http://cacaoeditions.com/anti-reflection-picture-framing-glass/
I will be adding to that more glasses from other manufacturers and also the anti-reflection coated acrylics in time.
Samuel,
I just now saw this post and read your excellent article!
Have you tried Tru Vue's AR Reflection-Free glass? http://tru-vue.com/solution/ar-reflection-free-glass I would like to know how it compares to those you tested. I've found it to only have a slight tint and is very transparent.
Also, you mentioned anti-reflection coated acrylics. Are there any that are reasonably priced? I'm having difficulty finding any other than Tru Vue's TruLife, which apparently has to be fastened to the print with an adhesive to be used.
Thanks for doing such a detailed study and sharing it!
This seems like such an important topic, yet it's hardly discussed. It seems that many still think Tru Vue's Museum Glass is state of the art; though, its strong tint changes the hue of the print and obscures it.
-
Also, you mentioned anti-reflection coated acrylics. Are there any that are reasonably priced? I'm having difficulty finding any other than Tru Vue's TruLife, which apparently has to be fastened to the print with an adhesive to be used.
Thanks for doing such a detailed study and sharing it!
This seems like such an important topic, yet it's hardly discussed. It seems that many still think Tru Vue's Museum Glass is state of the art; though, its strong tint changes the hue of the print and obscures it.
I think Groglass (http://groglass.com/home) options are equal to and perhaps better than Tru-vue. they have several options, their ArtGlass WW is amazingly clear and reflection free, they also have various version with UV protection, and I have some of their newest glass coming in, ARTGLASS WW PROTECT 99, which is apparently 2 laminated sheets of their WW glass so it resists breaking and shattering and has 99% uv absorption.
As far as acrylic, Tru-Vue Optium is the leader with anti reflection/anti scratch/UV coating on both sides of the acrylic. The TrueLife version is the same except they only coat one side of the acrylic, leaving the other side for the art to be bonded to. Not sure why it wouldn't work fine as a standard glazing though, haven't gotten any in to test with yet.
-
This is what has become the trend here in Atlanta for the last couple of years.
Even the blue chip photography gallery Jackson Fine Art here has saved a lot of money by having prints mounted and nicely framed with no plexi or glass. Often you can't tell whether they are using museum glass or not because when mounted the museum glass in really invisible. For larger prints they are going to have to be mounted anyway so you can't really get away from that.
I've printed many exhibitions framed this way, especially ones printed on the fiber semi-gloss media, and it has really become my favorite method of presentation for big work. I prefer doing it with really nice frames, but often people by pass even the frame and just mount to dibond and put an aluminum bracket on the back to keep them flat.That looks excellent as well. For small things especially bw I like framing with the water white glass because it really focuses the light and gives them a more precious vibe. HOWEVER, I always tell the galleries to make sure they communicate to the art buyer that these works need to be framed with some kind of glass or plexi for long term display. Some ignore that and put them on the wall as they are. That is their responsibility. For glass I would like to be using the museum plexi because of the weight but it's just too expensive unless the work is very small. I wish they could bring the prices down on that plexi. The water white glass stuff is really great when resolution is one of the primary aspects of the work. We often ignore just how destructive reflections can be in viewing a work.
john
Here's a thought - frame without glazing. It is a most refreshing approach. I have been doing it more often. Let's face it, our prints are not valuable art works that need to be protected from every possible insult. We can print another, or another 20. Advantages:
1) Less cost, particularly when considering the outrageously expensive museum glass.
2) Less hassle when framing.
3) Unbreakable.
4) Lighter.
5) Prints look better without glass or acrylic over them.
-
Samuel,
I just now saw this post and read your excellent article!
Have you tried Tru Vue's AR Reflection-Free glass? http://tru-vue.com/solution/ar-reflection-free-glass I would like to know how it compares to those you tested. I've found it to only have a slight tint and is very transparent.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the kind words. I have not tried TV's AR Reflection-Free but I do not need to - the base substrate is regular float glass (greenish-cyan tint). Note the transmission rating is only >97% compared to Artglass WW >99%. I am only interested in low iron float for anti-reflective glass. You may not see the difference on its own but side-by-side and with a critical eye the difference is visible. The density loss on dark areas is also quite obvious. Artglass WW is coated low iron float and its clarity is unmatched, even after comparing with all the other anti-reflective glass from other manufacturers besides TV (the directly competing product is UltraVue), at a price that is also the lowest I've found. I will be updating my article with all the competing glass soon.
Also, you mentioned anti-reflection coated acrylics. Are there any that are reasonably priced? I'm having difficulty finding any other than Tru Vue's TruLife, which apparently has to be fastened to the print with an adhesive to be used.
As Wayne has pointed out, at the moment there is only Optium and Optium Museum Acrylic which may be very expensive or relatively affordable depending on where in the world you are (and your budget). Tru Life is usable too but the anti-reflection is not good enough for me unless stuck directly to the print. We need less than 1% reflection to look really good. Groglass is making a new anti-reflective acrylic to compete with the Optiums, which should be cheaper too. If you are not in a hurry, I would wait for it. I have found both Optiums extremely difficult to clean perfectly. I was told the Groglass Acrylic would improve on that, and as is typical of Groglass, I expect the anti-reflective coating to be superior. Tru Vue and several of the other manufacturers have not solved the problem of the interference coating's reflectance band shifting into the longer wavelengths (the reflection color turns to reddish-magenta) at more oblique angles. Thus the transmission shifts into the higher wavelengths, and the transmitted light color has a cyan color cast. In galleries where the spots are hitting art at 45 degree angles or thereabouts, this matters. Groglass anti-reflection coatings do not have this issue. It is not yet clear to me why. Interference-based coatings must behave this way since the coating is thicker at sideways penetration. The technology remains secret with Groglass. They are rightly proud of it and is their crowning glory. Not even Zeiss, the inventor of interference-based anti-reflective coatings, have solved this.
This seems like such an important topic, yet it's hardly discussed. It seems that many still think Tru Vue's Museum Glass is state of the art; though, its strong tint changes the hue of the print and obscures it.
Indeed, it is sad that there is not more good information about it, hence why I felt the need to write up the article. For those who want to go glassless, that's fine, as long as the artwork can be adequately protected in other ways. That is, thoroughly seal the hydrophillic coating of aqueous inkjet papers with something durable and ideally with some form of UV-protection unless you can dictate the illumination of your prints (unlikely if you sell to private individuals). UV-curable printing on metal is one way of several ways to go glassless, but most of us cannot make the prints ourselves that way. There are other methods, but after some thought I still do not prefer them over aqueous-pigment-on-paper-inkjet.
You are right, Museum Glass is not state of the art. But until January this year there was no competition from anyone. All the other glass coating manufacturers were using interference-based UV filtration instead of absorption, which makes them essentially worthless in most real world situations, not to mention they were a lot more expensive and still did not filter out enough UV to matter. The ripples in the old Museum Glass coatings are extremely unpleasant. But when Groglass pushed their new Artglass UV99 to compete directly against Museum Glass, it had a totally ripple-free coating and Tru Vue responded immediately with their own "ripple-free" coating. Why did they not improve their product all this time? Museum Glass has been around for many years. Some days I feel that Tru Vue is messing with us. So many things are wrong. We need competition, good competition in the market to keep every one on their toes. Complacency is a bad thing. I have one sample of Museum Glass with the 'new' coating in 2015, not the newer year-2016 ripple-free version, which was supposed to be much more durable. It wasn't - in fact it was a lot less durable than the older version. I'm trying to get samples of the newest version and I'm told the coating still has ripples, just much lower frequency and harder to detect. None of this inspires confidence in me.
Edit: BTW the strong tint you refer to, if it's yellowish in color, is the UV filtration doing its work. All the 99% UV filtering glass and acrylic look this way. Which is why I greatly prefer Artglass WW for regular work as it does not attenuate so much of the visible spectrum, which is necessary to achieve sufficiently good cut-off in the UVA band of wavelengths.
-
Thanks for the replies. :)
I just now wrote GroGlass to find out how much Artglass WW actually is. I'm glad that Tru Vue has competition, but here in Anchorage, Alaska, Tru Vue is all the framers have so far, as far as I know.
It's great to hear that Groglass is developing an alternative to the way too expensive Optium acrylic. To me, keeping prices low so the average person can by a print is very important. Money is so tight these days.
I'm looking for inexpensive alternatives to spraying with PrintShield. I like its result, but the spray is pretty toxic. Not spraying or covering prints at all may be an option for Epson's latest HD inkset, which is supposed to be water resistant and have a lot more longevity, but for other inksets, probably not.
Metal seems to be the rage, but many don't realize it has a lower color gamut, using only 8 inks max, and I have a hard enough time getting a big enough gamut with Epson's HDR 10 inks. And metal's longevity isn't what Chromaluxe outright claims on their site, according to Wilhelm Research's tests, which states 64 and 65 years, depending on inkset, and that's with an up to 35% color fade. Hopefully, Aardenburg Imaging will do a more precise test soon.
It's also really nice to be able to print at home, to be able to really dial in color accuracy.
I think metal has caught on largely because standard glass obscures prints terribly. People like the vivid look, where the colors can pop.
Acrylic prints seem to be really nice, and dont' have the color gamut drop off (depending on which printer is used), but no one does them locally here.
I imagine that Tru Vue's TruLife acrylic shouldn't be laid on top of the print without adhesive connecting the two together, which is similar to the question asked above regarding glass laid directly on top of the print. Acrylic of this thickness may not lay flat enough too.
High quality pigment inkjet prints are still state-of-the-art in terms of longevity, color gamut and detail. Their biggest disadvantage seems to be that they've been obscured by glass, and with canvas, the water based spray coating, which I don't find as transparent as PrintShield.
Covering prints with standard glass may be a huge reason that inkjet prints have dropped in sales tremendously, once people saw metal prints that aren't obscured at all — while they're also often told false claims about metal's superiorior longevity, etc..
Presenting pigment inkjet prints as vividily as possible is tremendously important, while keeping the cost as low as possible so the average person can buy them instead of metal.
People are used to looking at super vivid and bright LCD displays. Prints behind standard glass probably look like dullsville in comparison. Standard glass can't cut it anymore.
Thanks for really diving into this, Samuel!
I found this video on GroGlass' Facebook page. Less than 3 minutes and impressive: "GROGLASS - corporate video" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQdNLW7apqk&t=2s
-
I guess it all depends on what appeals to you. I find aluminum prints to be much less attractive than a mounted print behind glass. But that's what makes the world go round! I don't quite understand selling a paper print without glass. I mean if the purchaser wants to display it that way fine, but that print just won't last unprotected - it will buckle, get dirty, etc. And it won't take 50 years for it to do that.
Thanks for this great discussion on non-reflective glass. It is much appreciated!!
Sharon
-
I have grown quite adverse to spraying prints. The water-based coatings may be less toxic, yet one still should never inhale the spray. I'm not a fan of Timeless spray-coated prints. And I wouldn't display that or Print Shield coated prints bare. Imagine taking a wet cloth to it to clean it from spit, sticky dust, fumes from traffic or cooking etc. Wouldn't it be great if the printer could coat the print for us! I had hopes that the new Canon LUCIA PRO Chroma Optimizer ink could be used to seal the hydrophilic coatings of aqueous inkjet papers. I don't know all the ways the envrionment can degrade the coatings or even crack and delaminate them and how long it will take or how bad it could be. Scary.
Ultimately, there is no really cheap option when it comes to anti-reflection acrylic. It will be much more expensive than Artglass WW, but the situation may force one to use it (overly large for glass or customer living in an earthquake-prone area). Custom framing where I am with "museum quality" materials is already extremely expensive, far more than what my clients pay for me to make prints for them. Then jump to Artglass WW and add another 25% to the framing cost. It is not for everyone, but for the obsessed it is a godsend. I consider AR framing glazing to provide possibly the single greatest leap in visual image quality - not being able to see virtually all the print to being able to see virtually all of it.
-
I have done quite a bit of research and digging into the subtleties of the glasses, and I delve into significantly more detail in my article I published at this link: http://cacaoeditions.com/anti-reflection-picture-framing-glass/
This valuable article is currently not available. Any ETA on when we might be lucky to access it again, or perhaps have a PDF file or similar? Thanks.
-
This valuable article is currently not available. Any ETA on when we might be lucky to access it again, or perhaps have a PDF file or similar? Thanks.
Hi Henrikolsen,
Thanks for bringing to my attention that the site has crashed. It turns out that the hosting company's servers got hacked, and they migrated all our sites to new servers, but then my site broke in the process. It has since been restored.
In addition to the original article, I have published a follow-up which includes the new Groglass Artglass UV99 glass, the alternative to Museum Glass. I much prefer it to Museum Glass for several reasons which I detail in the new article. There is also a big comparison of most of the other anti-reflective glasses on the market, and some commentaries which may interest you and others. Here is the link to it: http://cacaoeditions.com/anti-reflection-picture-framing-glass-part-2/
-
In addition to the original article, I have published a follow-up which includes the new Groglass Artglass UV99 glass, the alternative to Museum Glass. I much prefer it to Museum Glass for several reasons which I detail in the new article. There is also a big comparison of most of the other anti-reflective glasses on the market, and some commentaries which may interest you and others. Here is the link to it: http://cacaoeditions.com/anti-reflection-picture-framing-glass-part-2/
Thanks for getting the article online again, Samuel. And kudos for the follow-up which I've just enjoyed. It's quite an observation with the "ripple-free" Tru Vue Museum Glass, which still isn't ripple-free at all. That's, IMHO, outside reasonable creative freedom of wording from their marketing department, when it's that far from the truth.