Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Museum Glass  (Read 10743 times)

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Museum Glass
« on: May 02, 2012, 10:13:15 AM »

Is anyone framing their work using Museum Glass?  It's really expensive, but I can't argue with the results.  To me, there is a huge difference between Museum Glass and other non-reflective glass.  I'm curious how others feel about it.  Thanks.

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15305
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2012, 12:25:28 PM »

I wish I could afford it. It makes a HUGE difference. With decent lighting, it looks as if there is no glass in front of the print at all.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4121
    • waynefox.com
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2012, 01:17:24 PM »

Use it all the time and many customers will choose it when framing their work.  I have also found a slightly less expensive alternative which I like quite well from Claryl.  It has similar anti-reflective qualities but cleans much easier, less prone to surface damage when cutting and has a more neutral color of reflections of light sources instead of the weird green color with museum glass.

It's amazingly clear, one reason is it has no additional UV inhibitors.  Their rationalization is each piece of glass absorbs as much as 50% of the UV so by the time any external light get's to the artwork after passing through various windows etc, their isn't much UV left.   Not sure how much I buy that one, still evaluating how I feel.
Logged

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2012, 01:32:28 PM »

When I looked at the glass display at the frame shop at first I couldn't tell there was a glass sample in the slot marked Museum Glass.  I had to touch it to know there was actually a sample sheet of the glass there.  That sold me on it regardless of the UV qualities.  When you look at the samples and the standard glass reflects a lot, the non-glare glass much less so and the Museum Glass looks as if there's nothing there, the choice was easy.  I hope I can see some savings when I start framing myself.

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3010
    • http://www.unit16.net
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2012, 01:50:13 PM »

I had to touch it to know there was actually a sample sheet of the glass there...

And therein lies the problem!  You are every Museum Glass user's worst nightmare.   :)

I have found that the little spray bottle of LCD monitor cleaner I bought several years ago is very effective at cleaning cleaning greasy fingerprints on Museum Glass.  Spray a light patch on a spotlessly-clean-and-grit-free very soft t-shirt and wipe ever so gently.  But first carefully use a blower to remove any grits that might be on the glass.

Also, as Wayne implied the stuff needs to be handled with velvet gloves, if not a good grade of cotton.  Practice cutting and snapping glass on clean, relatively thin towels before you move on to the actual Museum Glass.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 01:55:32 PM by bill t. »
Logged

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1486
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2012, 02:43:10 PM »

A cheaper alternative to Museum Glass is Tru-Vue's AR Reflection-Free (I think that's what it's called) glass.  It has the same anti-reflective coatings as Museum Glass but doesn't have the UV-blocking layer.  It's somewhere between 50% to 40% less expensive, as I recall.  The color tends towards the green, whereas Museum Glass's color tends to the brown/orange.  Tru-Vue also makes glass called Ultra Vue, which is like the AR, but on slightly thinner water white glass, so presumably it has less of a color cast.  I haven't tried that one, I use AR now, I won't frame with regular glass any more.

Wayne - thanks for the tip on Claryl, I see there is a distributor here in So. Cal., I will have to check it out.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 03:01:42 PM by AFairley »
Logged

nairb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2012, 03:28:26 PM »

tru vue now also makes a product called Ultra-vue which has the same anti-reflective coatings and 65% UV protection with water white glass.

http://www.tru-vue.com/Tru-Vue/Products/ultravue/



claims to be scratch resistant too.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 03:30:02 PM by nairb »
Logged

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1419
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2012, 04:11:31 PM »

Use it all the time and many customers will choose it when framing their work.  I have also found a slightly less expensive alternative which I like quite well from Claryl.  It has similar anti-reflective qualities but cleans much easier, less prone to surface damage when cutting and has a more neutral color of reflections of light sources instead of the weird green color with museum glass.

It's amazingly clear, one reason is it has no additional UV inhibitors.  Their rationalization is each piece of glass absorbs as much as 50% of the UV so by the time any external light get's to the artwork after passing through various windows etc, their isn't much UV left.   Not sure how much I buy that one, still evaluating how I feel.


The problem with their theory is what UV wavelengths do each block?

Yes, plain glass blocks a certain % of UV but the added layer blocks different wavelengths... the more destructive ones. That is why the two combined block in the upper 90% of the most harmful wavelengths.
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3010
    • http://www.unit16.net
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2012, 04:28:17 PM »

Two sheets of regular glass will reflect 180% of UV light, resulting in a picture frame that is a net generator of UV radiation.

There's a lot of voodoo wrapped up in glass manufacturer's claims, and I am skeptical.

You know those little TruVue demonstration cubes where one side of image is covered by UV glass, and the other side by regular glass?  On the two examples that I have seen in frame shops recently, both sides are badly faded.  I don't understand why they are still on the counters.

If you're worried about UV, the only real way to control it is to remove it from the light source long before those photons hit the print.  And that's expensive.  But your designer furniture will thank you, as will your epidermal cells.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 04:31:17 PM by bill t. »
Logged

elolaugesen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2012, 04:32:55 PM »

Most of the suppliers now have their own anti-reflective glass in addition to the more expensive, museum glass.

several advantages
- the glass, White Water Glass,  does not to have the greenish tint and  colours of art and the mat boards carefully selected now show the real colour.
- the anti reflective works but you get what you pay for.  the less costly is not as good as the very expensive museum glass
- Normal glass have (I believe) 30-35% UVA protection, Anti-Reflection 65%, 70% and 85% all depending on supplier. while Museum starts at 90% and upwards.

sometimes the additional protection for UVA is a result of thicker glass.

My artist partner/wife now only uses the anti-reflective glass.  the work sells better.  We went to an exhibition and the hall had glass windows all around.  Instead of viewing  art all you could see was reflection of the sky outside.      From that day on  Anti-reflective glass.

One thing to look out for is the size of the glass.  In the UK you can get suppliers (all different brands) offering 39.5"by 29.5", another 44"by 32" and then 48"by 36" each priced differently.  check the work you do as sometimes(?) you can get more glass pieces out of the larger size yet sometimes the smaller is more economical.  Draw out some charts for cutting before you start.

Most of my customers are more interested in the anti reflective  than the conservation.

Prints can always be reproduced while original art obviously is one of a kind.  Check the medium and decide if UVA protection is needed.

Finally do not user abrasive glass cleaners.

cheers elo






« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 04:36:23 PM by elolaugesen »
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2012, 05:16:47 PM »

The problem with their theory is what UV wavelengths do each block?

Yes, plain glass blocks a certain % of UV but the added layer blocks different wavelengths... the more destructive ones. That is why the two combined block in the upper 90% of the most harmful wavelengths.

Actually, just the opposite of what you said. Plain glass (soda lime) blocks UVC and UVB rays 100% (wavelengths <315nm). These are the most harmful. Plain glass also blocks considerable UVA energy (400-315nm) because the cut-off (50% transmission inflection point) occurs at about 340 nm. Again, this means blocking of the most destructive UVA wavelengths as well. Standard acrylic has more UVA blocking efficiency and will reach the 50% cut-off of UVA at about 360 nm, allowing just enough transmission at 365-370 nm to enable optical brightener fluorescence. OBA activation generally peaks at 370 nm.  In the 380-390 nm band (i.e., the weakest UVA component) plain glass transmits 80-90%. Museum glass or OP3 plexi is designed to cut off essentially all UVA energy, so its cut-off curve inflects right at or near 400 nm. Hence, full UV block glazing is designed to block all UVC, UVB, and UVA whereas other glazings all do UVC and UVB but only various percentages of UVA.  However, there's no free lunch. When blocking all UVA  the spectral transmission inflection point at 400 puts a slight yellow tinge into the viewing condition since the UVA-block glazing's spectral transmission starts to significantly decline in the visible blue wavelength region as well.

What many conservation professionals have failed to grasp over the years in this whole "UV is really damaging" argument is that ordinary window glass and even painted walls, carpeting, fabrics, etc (titanium dioxide used to make white paint is a strong UV absorber) already absorbs a very large percentage of UV energy entering homes and offices. Hence, art that is only indirectly illuminated by natural daylight scattered within an interior environment is already much reduced in the UV/ViS ratio compared to objects exposed outdoors to direct sunlight.  Moreover, when indoor UV energy is at its highest ratio with respect to visible light, this condition also precisely correlates with sunlight coming through windows and directly striking the artwork!!!. Wherever that happens, overall light intensity is also incredibly high on the artwork, often up 1000x over other indirectly illuminated areas even in the same room.  In these situations, full UV blocking glazing helps reduce fade rates at best 2-3x over plain glass, but it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The absolute intensity associated with the direct sunlight goes up 100-1000x, and it is this peak intensity (UV filtered or not) that causes the primary damage to the artwork.

To put this argument in perspective, just 6 minutes average per day of sunlight streaming directly through a window onto a work of art will typically produce a 2x increase in average daily illumination (because the sunlight is so intense compared to indirect daylight conditions) and thus a 2x increase in fade rate on average.  Moral of the story: Use UV blocking glazing if you want the absolute maximum amount of light fade protection, but pay even closer attention to where sunlight reaches actual surfaces in your home, even for just a few minutes per day on average. These are the locations, UV protected or not, where you are going to see faded art, faded upholstery, faded drapes, etc.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 05:41:25 PM by MHMG »
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4121
    • waynefox.com
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2012, 09:40:36 PM »

another enlightening post, Mark.  thx.  sounds like Claryl's claim of leaving the UV out because most circumstance it is unnecessary is actually legitimate.

Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2012, 09:48:02 PM »

...  sounds like Claryl's claim of leaving the UV out because most circumstance it is unnecessary is actually legitimate.



Yes! The anti-reflection characteristics of these glazings is the real value-added feature, IMHO, not the UV absorbing properties.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 09:52:15 PM by MHMG »
Logged

elolaugesen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
Re: Museum Glass
« Reply #13 on: May 03, 2012, 08:51:51 AM »

I agree with all the comments re UVA. 

While we are now in England.   We had a gallery outside Toronto, Ontario for 20 years and we constantly ran into the UVA question.  Will it save my art work will it  help?   Of course it will but as said earlier think of where the work will be hanging before you decide.  The standard UVA glass actually changes the colours that you slightly as it does/did not use the WaterWhite Glass.

Also  think of the lights in your house.  One of the most damaging lights is Fluorescent lights.  They generate more UVA than any other light source that I know off .  My wife is sensitive to UVA we actually bought special sleeves for the tubes to protect her and UVA protective film from 3M to cover the gallery windows. 

We found out about when we went to London, UK  on a holiday stayed in a hotel and she felt very uneasy.  Guess what,  they had installed the new fluorescent light bulbs in all the lamps.   As soon as we blocked off the lights no problem.

the same lights will damage art work etc....

cheers elo
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up