Non-glare glazing

[fdi]

If you use non-glare glass or acrylic, which do you feel is more important: less reflections or better sharpness?
(Non-glare glazing used a matted finish to reduce the glare)

 

[ROL]

Unquestionably sharpness.

 

[brian steinberger]

Sharpness.

 

[DWThomas]

I prefer sharpness. Be advised, there is also "anti-reflection" glass which is more like a lens coating and has little effect on sharpness and detail. Unfortunately the last time I encountered it, it was over $30 for a 16 x 20 inch sheet.

 

[fdi]

I prefer sharpness. Be advised, there is also "anti-reflection" glass which is more like a lens coating and has little effect on sharpness and detail. Unfortunately the last time I encountered it, it was over $30 for a 16 x 20 inch sheet.

Thanks Dave. I am familiar with anti-reflective technology and agree if you have the money it is a better way to go. Due to breakage of glass in shipping and extreme cost of Optium acrylic I am only able to offer non-glare technology to my customers at this time.

I currently carry Acrylite non-glare and I am considering switching to Plexiglas non-glare. Acrylite has less reflections but the Plexiglas has a little better clarity and if you look real close it has a little better sharpness with 8-ply matting. If you could combine them into one it would make it harder to pay the extra money for the Tru-Vue.

 

[tkamiya]

If they are really close in sharpness as you seem to imply ("if you look real close it has a little better sharpness"), then I'd take one with less reflection.

Rational being if I really needed the absolute maximum sharpness for the application, I wouldn't be choosing a type with non-glare treatment in the first place - which usually visibly reduce clarity over regular type.

If I did need anti-reflective quality for a particular application, being sharpness being close, I'd be choosing the one with maximum anti-reflective quality. Little (very little) less sharpness is a price worthy of not having a presentation where details are hard to see anyway due to heavy reflection of existing harsh and uncontrolled lighting or what-not.

 

[fdi]

If they are really close in sharpness as you seem to imply ("if you look real close it has a little better sharpness"), then I'd take one with less reflection.

Rational being if I really needed the absolute maximum sharpness for the application, I wouldn't be choosing a type with non-glare treatment in the first place - which usually visibly reduce clarity over regular type.

If I did need anti-reflective quality for a particular application, being sharpness being close, I'd be choosing the one with maximum anti-reflective quality. Little (very little) less sharpness is a price worthy of not having a presentation where details are hard to see anyway due to heavy reflection of existing harsh and uncontrolled lighting or what-not.

Taka, I agree with your reasoning. If it were just the sharpness I would say for sure the Acrylite is the better product. It is difficult to see the reduced sharpness. At normal viewing distance I can't tell the difference. Close up, I have to carefully search the photo for enough fine detail. There is however also a difference in what I decided to call clarity because it is similar to the clarity control in Lightroom. This difference in clarity can be seen at normal viewing distance. The Acrylite has noticeably more aggressive matte finish that I believe is reducing edge contrast inside the image and or slightly reducing the light reflected back from the image so it is just not as bright.

 

[jeffreyg]

I think with proper lighting reflection is not a problem with plain glass. How does acrylic hold up to cleaning and with what? It is lighter than glass so if shipping is an issue it might be worthwhile. I would also go with the sharpness folks.

At exhibitions I have attended it appears that most viewers are interested in the content of the images as opposed to technique. A serious purchaser would probably scrutinize more closely and possibly want to see the image unframed.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[fdi]

I think with proper lighting reflection is not a problem with plain glass. How does acrylic hold up to cleaning and with what? It is lighter than glass so if shipping is an issue it might be worthwhile. I would also go with the sharpness folks.

At exhibitions I have attended it appears that most viewers are interested in the content of the images as opposed to technique. A serious purchaser would probably scrutinize more closely and possibly want to see the image unframed.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

My personal favorite for good viewing and low cost is proper gallery lighting (eliminating the reflections) and regular acrylic which is more optically pure than glass (non green tint). In regards non-glare technology it is the same for glass and acrylic, a matted finish which can reduce sharpness and clarity. Of course there are lots of other pros and cons for the choice of glass vs acrylic. It is sort of like the choice of prime lens vs zoom. Neither is perfect for everything. It depends on what you are doing and what you are most comfortable with. My company has an extensive list of the pro's and con's here: glass vs acrylic for framing

 

[DWThomas]

Glass versus acrylic could also depend on where the artwork or photo is going. I have heard some national shows for paintings require acrylic to avoid possible safety issues. Acrylic is lighter and less likely to shatter and scrape up the artwork if the piece is dropped.

 

[tkamiya]

Maybe offer both for a while and decide based on buyer feedback? Send a few to your large and usual customers and let them pick? I'm thinking internet is not the best medium to make informed decision on something this subjective, especially when we can't see the product ourselves.....

 

[jp80874]

Sometimes it doesn’t matter what we want. I had a 15 month, thirty picture, museum show of 7x17 contact prints in 23 7/16” x 14 1/8” mats and Nielsen frames. They said we will buy mats, frames and museum glass. I said thank you.

John Powers