Thoughts on Anti-Reflection Picture Framing Glass

[John Caldwell]

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

[pcgpcg]

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.

[framah]

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.

[pcgpcg]

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.

[stcstc31]

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

[Otto Phocus]

That is good to know about Windex and acrylic.  Thanks for explaining it.

[AFairley]

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.

[Otto Phocus]

What about vinegar based cleaners?

[dwswager]

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 sells it.

[dwswager]

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 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.

[pcgpcg]

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?

[Wayne Fox]

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.

[pcgpcg]

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.

[Jim Pascoe]

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

[Morris Taub]

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

[Jeff Fenske]

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.

[Wayne Fox]

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 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.

[deanwork]

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.

[samueljohnchia]

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.

[Jeff Fenske]

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