OP
OP
Hi all,
To be honest, I need to revise my last post and opinion a bit. Since I had an exhibition running during part of August and Septembre, and couldn't afford museumglass for all these frames, I decided to go with the Claryl. I did have a few older frames that did have true museumglass for comparison, and that were on display as well.
However, since I now had the need to work longer with it, and see it in a different situation than at home, I have to revise my opinion somewhat.
I think CMO stated it best: "It is something inbetween"...
It definitely does not reach the very good anti-reflective properties of museumglass. You will see reflections. It still is an improvement over normal glass, mainly due to the fact that the glass does not contain iron, and hence does not have a color cast. And the coating does some work.
BUT, the glass could use a serious upgrade of the anti-reflective coating. I think the main difference with museumglass, althought I do not know this for sure, is that museumglass is probably multi-coated, and Claryl probably only single coated. This makes a considerable difference in the anti-reflective properties.
In addition, the Claryl glass can be quite difficult to clean, and the coating has a tendency to show leopard skin like spots, something I have seen reported in other forums as well. Fortunately, under normal circumstances you don't see this, and I definitely did NOT see it when the exhibition hang, but it did show under strong light while trying to clean it.
I followed DSM's instructions for cleaning, but would recommend using plain 70% alcohol in de-mineralized water instead of spirit, as the latter house hold variant at least seems to contains some kind of colourant.
Using a circular movement with a microfibre cloth, directly followed by a similar procedure with a clean cotton tea-towel, seemed to work quite well for cleaning. Anyway, I am not an expert on glass cleaning, so probably some other people can do a better job, but cleaning Claryl may be a bit more difficult than other types of glass...
Anyway: did I regret getting it? No, not at all, and I still enjoy watching a number of the Claryl framed pictures in my house.
But if you can afford it, or have clients willing to pay for it, I would recommend the museumglass.
I think DSM had some plans for a variant with an UV coating as well, let's see what the future brings and how that glass turns out to be... And maybe the pressure this introduction puts on the framing glass market, will lead to better and more affordable other glass types of other manufacturers as well... lets cross our fingers, because there is a dire need for this in my opinion...
Marco
To be honest, I need to revise my last post and opinion a bit. Since I had an exhibition running during part of August and Septembre, and couldn't afford museumglass for all these frames, I decided to go with the Claryl. I did have a few older frames that did have true museumglass for comparison, and that were on display as well.
However, since I now had the need to work longer with it, and see it in a different situation than at home, I have to revise my opinion somewhat.
I think CMO stated it best: "It is something inbetween"...
It definitely does not reach the very good anti-reflective properties of museumglass. You will see reflections. It still is an improvement over normal glass, mainly due to the fact that the glass does not contain iron, and hence does not have a color cast. And the coating does some work.
BUT, the glass could use a serious upgrade of the anti-reflective coating. I think the main difference with museumglass, althought I do not know this for sure, is that museumglass is probably multi-coated, and Claryl probably only single coated. This makes a considerable difference in the anti-reflective properties.
In addition, the Claryl glass can be quite difficult to clean, and the coating has a tendency to show leopard skin like spots, something I have seen reported in other forums as well. Fortunately, under normal circumstances you don't see this, and I definitely did NOT see it when the exhibition hang, but it did show under strong light while trying to clean it.
I followed DSM's instructions for cleaning, but would recommend using plain 70% alcohol in de-mineralized water instead of spirit, as the latter house hold variant at least seems to contains some kind of colourant.
Using a circular movement with a microfibre cloth, directly followed by a similar procedure with a clean cotton tea-towel, seemed to work quite well for cleaning. Anyway, I am not an expert on glass cleaning, so probably some other people can do a better job, but cleaning Claryl may be a bit more difficult than other types of glass...
Anyway: did I regret getting it? No, not at all, and I still enjoy watching a number of the Claryl framed pictures in my house.
But if you can afford it, or have clients willing to pay for it, I would recommend the museumglass.
I think DSM had some plans for a variant with an UV coating as well, let's see what the future brings and how that glass turns out to be... And maybe the pressure this introduction puts on the framing glass market, will lead to better and more affordable other glass types of other manufacturers as well... lets cross our fingers, because there is a dire need for this in my opinion...
Marco
