The Ultimate Cover Up, Plastic or Glass?????

[Tom Swaman]

This thread seeks a whole lot of input on what you recommend for use infront of your photograph.

1) Do you use glass or plastic?

2) If you use plastic, do you use acrylic or a different plastic?

3) What specific glass or grade of glass do you use?

4) What specific grade of plastic do you use?

I do not know if recent information that I acquired is accurate. However, I have been told that the top grade of framing acrylic is actually better at transmitting light than is the best grade of framing glass, namely conservation glass or museum glass. Furthermore, if the acrylic is installed with the photograph with a static neutralizing gun, any contact between the photograph and the acrylic sheet is protected from condensation in the frame because the acrylic is a better thermal insulator than is the glass.

I also saw conservation grade glass that contained 'writing", i.e. partial image retention on the glass that resulted from impurities in the glass, most notably calcium content.

Yes, I realize that the front surface of a print ought best not be in contact with anything other than godd, clean, dry, non-oxidizing air. In practice this is rarely accomplished or even attempted.

How many times have you been framed with poor workmanship when you took your prints to the framers?

Tom

[blumesan]

Originally Posted by Tom Swaman

Yes, I realize that the front surface of a print ought best not be in contact with anything other than godd, clean, dry, non-oxidizing air. In practice this is rarely accomplished or even attempted.

How many times have you been framed with poor workmanship when you took your prints to the framers?

Tom

I would never dream of putting a photo behind plastic or glass without a mat. I think this is fairly common practice. As for framers, I have not experienced poor workmanship, but high prices are not uncommon.

I too would be interested in the answers to the questions you have posed.

[brian.austin]

I'm resurrecting this one after walking through a local art fair.

I was paying attention to more presentation of photography this time around. Almost every photographer had their images behind glass. Only ONE photographer had a few not behind glass and the rest of his were behind a glass product called "CrystalView". That one impressed me. I literally had to tap it to see if it was there!

On some photos, I saw condensation inside the glass since they had been left out overnight in the booths. The fairly fast changes in temperature caused moisture buildup...inside the glass next to the photo. These were not cheap photographs, either.

Given the bad glare and lack of apparent need for the glass, I'm starting to seriously question whether glass is even necessary in a framed photograph.

[Tom Swaman]

The consideration of glass versus plastic in front of a photograph has changed in the last several years because of the rapid advancement in polymer technology. There are different plastics available for use in framing just like there are different glasses. The two most common plastics used today are based in acrylics or polycarbonates. Optically, the acrylics are generally far better than are the polycarbonates. Furthermore, using the three most common parameters for optical cover comparison, namely percent transmission, percent reflection and percent UV exclusion, acrylics tend to have the edge over most glass.

There are a number of reasons for putting a cover over a photograph such as protection, protection and also protection. However, the choice between glass and acrylic or other plastic needs to be made in conjunction with the framing and the matting process. The selection ought best change depending upon how close the photograph will be to the cover when framed. In fact, it is possible today to frame photographs in contact with the cover, contrary to historical recommendation, if the cover is an anti-reflecting high grade of acrylic.

Framing and coveriung a photograph has become a relatively scientific art.

Tom

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Tom Swaman

There are a number of reasons for putting a cover over a photograph such as protection, protection and also protection.

Protection from what? That's my point: I don't see what the glass is there for if there is nothing to protect it FROM.

[Tom Swaman]

Dust, dirt, UV oxidation, rapid temperature changes or gradients, airborne greaseses, pollens, bacteria other microbiological organisms, chemical precipitation, other debris, contact with foreign surfaces and a whole lot more!!!!!

Tom

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Tom Swaman

Dust, dirt, UV oxidation, rapid temperature changes or gradients, airborne greaseses, pollens, bacteria other microbiological organisms, chemical precipitation, other debris, contact with foreign surfaces and a whole lot more!!!!!

Tom

Funny that the 50 year old photo I have hanging in my office...that's moved dozens of times between a variety of environments and climates...seems to be doing just fine with a light dusting every once in a while.

[jfrancho]

I don't think I've ever seen anything either in my own archives or here, that merits that much attention to preservation. If you like it displayed a certain way, display it that way.

[Lee4145]

It seems I've seen Mark mention that he doesn't cover his. And now that I think about it, my nicest portraits (professionally done) have nothing between them and the viewer.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

I don't think I've ever seen anything either in my own archives or here, that merits that much attention to preservation. If you like it displayed a certain way, display it that way.

When you consider the cost of some of the high end glass products (or acrylic or whatever), reprinting a 11x14 or 16x20 every few years isn't really that big of a cost anyway. Mpix shows a 16x20 on Kodak Endura paper for $19.99. I wonder what the CrystalView or Tru-Vu glass costs for a 20x24 coverage?

[jfrancho]

In a few years, I will want to display something new, something better anyway. I really think a coated E-paper print will last a lot longer than that anyway, even unprotected. I've 50+ year old pictures sitting in a rubbermaid box in my attic that look fine.

[Tom Swaman]

Not all of us have dark, sterile offices or attics. Biologically sterile that is!

Some people show there photographs illuminated or in locations that are less than ideal and they elect to put glass or plastic in the frame. Isn't it wonderful that there are different ways of doing things for different purposes, desires and people? Ah diversity!

Tom

[jfrancho]

My place is anything but sterile. If your prints are degrading that fast, I'd begin to question whether that place was suitable for people. I have stuff hanging in my family's restaurant. They get nailed with direct sunlight, ketchup, mustard, and are in a constant environment of "greasy spoon" air. Aside from the occasional wipe down with Windex, acid free matting and glare free glass has worked out fine. I really think that all of this talk of byzantine archival methods makes me think that your probably better off not printing and displaying them at all.

[Tom Swaman]

Fine art or fine food?

Tom

[jfrancho]

Hamburgers, hot dogs, plastic silverware, and my crappy pictures.