Glass

[RalphLambrecht]

...Regular glass allows about 92% transmission of light through it and regular glass has a slight greenish tint to it unless it is iron free. Acrylic is certainly clearer and has a bit better UV protection, but the downside is it's easier to scratch and does eventually yellow over time...

Acrylic (Plexiglass) has roughly the same same light transmittance as glass (92%).

http://www.rplastics.com/plexiglass-transmittance.html

 

[fdi]

Unfortunately the question of glass vs acrylic is similar to which type of lens - prime or zoom. It depends on what you are doing. I have a decent amount of info about the pro's and con's of glass vs acrylic here:
Glass vs Acrylic

Cheers,
Mark

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Unfortunately the question of glass vs acrylic is similar to which type of lens - prime or zoom. It depends on what you are doing. I have a decent amount of info about the pro's and con's of glass vs acrylic here:
Dead Link Removed

Cheers,
Mark

That's what I got:

You are not authorized to view this page

The Web server you are attempting to reach has a list of IP addresses that are not allowed to access the Web site, and the IP address of your browsing computer is on this list.
Please try the following:

Contact the Web site administrator if you believe you should be able to view this directory or page.
HTTP Error 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address of the client has been rejected.
Internet Information Services (IIS)

Technical Information (for support personnel)

Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search for the words HTTP and 403.
Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and search for topics titled About Security, Limiting Access by IP Address, IP Address Access Restrictions, and About Custom Error Messages.

Do you have a clean link?

 

[jp80874]

When visiting Dick Phillips the camera builder I was surprised to see that none of the many framed prints on the walls had glass. He listed all the complaints given by others here and said that this was the way he liked it. I don't argue with a man who has built six hundred of the finest cameras in his basement over the years and whose year's production sold out one year in the first three days of the year. The following year they sold out in the first half day of the year. They were very nice photographs. I would have been very proud if I had shot and printed them that well.

Perhaps in museums we are putting glass around the wrong object. If people are going to do such terrible things as have been mentioned, perhaps we should put each patron in a glass box with casters so that for an additional fee they can be wheeled about to see the images in frames without glass.

John Powers

 

[Vaughn]

I prefer no glass -- but the d**n fly s**t is a PITA.

 

[fdi]

Hi Ralph,

I am very sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know.
This will work much better:
glass vs acrylic

I was testing new product pages on our staging website. I checked the link and of course it worked fine for me. I also changed it my original post.

Cheers,
mark

That's what I got:

You are not authorized to view this page

The Web server you are attempting to reach has a list of IP addresses that are not allowed to access the Web site, and the IP address of your browsing computer is on this list.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I just paid $50 for a piece of glass to protect a mid sized watercolor. Having printed on the old tektronix iiiPXi for some years, in which the magenta ink was extremely transient, I am suspicious about glass or plastic that doesn't offer lots of uv protection. For any purpose, pigment, dyes, or prints made by conventional chemical means.

Reflections are no fun. However, a lot depends on HOW displays are lit. The best lighting considers the way reflections work. Angle of incidence = angle of reflection. A spotlight mounted overhead which illuminates the art at an angle of 45° or so will reflect that light down toward the viewer's feet and won't be visible as a distraction. Then, if the room itself is kept fairly dark, the light coming from the viewer which would cause the viewer to be reflected on the surface will be insignificant, and will be overcome by the light on the subject. Little or no distracting reflection.

By the way, this is a great way to photograph art under glass, or which has a highly reflective surface of its own. Better than polarizers on a copy stand or copy board in most studios, a single spotlight as far from the copy as possible in an otherwise darkened room works great. If the light is far enough from the copy, the difference in illumination on the near and far sides of the copy will be so trivial as to be undetectable. I've done this in the summer outdoors on dark nights. The only issue there is that the light attracts moths. They get toasted and smell bad.