with or without glass...

[RalphLambrecht]

I don't want to start a discussion about the benefits or disadvantages of glass or glassless framing and ,I'm also well aware of the differences between glass or plastic glazing, but ,I like to know what people's current precise is. I frame with glass because, that's how I was taught and always did. What do you do?

 

[Tony Egan]

I am currently showing an exhibition of 22 silver gelatin prints in a very light, airy gallery with a large glass window facing the street. All prints are matted and framed in simple black frames under standard glass. During the day the reflection from windows on the glass is quite annoying and does not do justice to the prints. It's fine at night with the lights directed appropriately throughout the gallery. If I was starting again I would remove the glass for the purpose of the exhibition only. Framing under glass and sealing the back of the frame will protect the print from moisture and development of fungus etc. I have prints hanging in my hallway subject to rising damp and unsealed prints have developed some unpleasant growths particularly in the darkest shadow areas. If I sell work it is always framed behind glass with foamcore behind the archival matboard and then well sealed with framers tape.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I don't want to start a discussion about the benefits or disadvantages of glass or glassless framing and ,I'm also well aware of the differences between glass or plastic glazing, but ,I like to know what people's current precise is. I frame with glass because, that's how I was taught and always did. What do you do?

thanks for the reply

 

[removed account4]

glass
but for IDK 12 years now i present work on a "plak mount"
it's uv non glare glass and looks nice...

 

[Ces1um]

I use glass, and if it's something particularly important I use the archival type. I have a 12 year old fingerpainting done by my daughter that still looks brand new because of it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Coated anti-reflective glass is my recommendation (not the awful textured stuff) - though as always it's budget dependent. Ideally the stuff with the best UV rating. If money's not a problem, the anti-reflective coated acrylic is the ultimate answer, but it is excruciatingly expensive. If good glass or acrylic is going to be too expensive, make smaller prints, or look at display methods other than traditional frames!

 

[BrianShaw]

Glass

 

[DDTJRAC]

I like glass

 

[Ian Grant]

Always glass.

Ian

 

[Bob Carnie]

I always used AR glass, but now am using Plexi more often as I ship my work around more and Plexi is lighter and will not break in shipping.
Some of the best galleries and museums are using plexi in our area on all their work and I am kind of following suit .

 

[jim10219]

I hate glass. It always makes a photo look worse. Even the best AR glass has a weird texture to it that I find distracting. And clear glass is a nightmare for reflections. There's a reason why you don't put glass over a beautiful oil painting. It ruins the painting. However, it does preserve the life of the photo. And it's a lot easier to clean a beautiful oil painting without ruining it than it is to clean a photo.

So my theory is, glass is best for long term exhibitions, and no glass is best for short term. So if you're hanging a photo up in your living room or selling it to a client, then go glass. If you're displaying it for an exhibition at a gallery for something like a month, then I say no glass.

 

[nmp]

I would be fearful of people sneezing or talking with spit showering on the precious bare print that you spent days making. I also think matte prints look better behind glass.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The AR glass I use at home helps with reflections.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I hate glass. It always makes a photo look worse. Even the best AR glass has a weird texture to it that I find distracting. And clear glass is a nightmare for reflections. There's a reason why you don't put glass over a beautiful oil painting. It ruins the painting. However, it does preserve the life of the photo. And it's a lot easier to clean a beautiful oil painting without ruining it than it is to clean a photo.

So my theory is, glass is best for long term exhibitions, and no glass is best for short term. So if you're hanging a photo up in your living room or selling it to a client, then go glass. If you're displaying it for an exhibition at a gallery for something like a month, then I say no glass.

I just finished a huge show at the Stephen Bulger Gallery for Rita Leistner, Treeplanters, we did not use glass and it was incredible to see the prints without anything in front, but I must say that I freaked out that evening as the show was probably the most people for any one show I have ever seen with people inches away from the surface in some cases, ( not bullshitting ) and it really scared the crap out of me as I knew how expensive those prints were to replace.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I frame with glass because it keeps dirt, pollution and finger prints off. I use anti reflective UV blocking glass. It coast more but my prints are worth it.

 

[Chan Tran]

I wouldn't know as you post this in the "Presentation & Marketing" section. I don't know which is more effective to the viewers. I frame my pictures only for myself to see I frame them with glass.

 

[Sirius Glass]

glass
but for IDK 12 years now i present work on a "plak mount"
it's uv non glare glass and looks nice...

I have used that too. I recommend it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Glass is far more thermally conductive than plastic, so distinctly more prone to condensation and mildew in susceptible locations. It also has the risk of breakage when a print is shipped fully framed. The cat's meow is optically-coated acrylic. Note that this is NOT textured non-glare plastic. You can tell by the price - that is, of the ambulance ride after you glance at the cost of the material itself. I have done considerable testing of so-called UV-blocking "Museum" tweaks of both glass and
plastic. With reference to color photographs, their ability to deter fading or color shifts is marginal at best. Anything that is hung in direct sunlight or under high UV halogens or newer e-lighting is going to fade regardless. Even so-called pigment images. And the yellowish tint of these types of glazing can dull blue hues when one views the image. They're no substitute for outright avoiding UV exposure.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Nothing but glass (TruVue UV retardant, 4 variants) framed with 9 ply cotton rag mat and black 2.5" molding.

 

[jim10219]

I just finished a huge show at the Stephen Bulger Gallery for Rita Leistner, Treeplanters, we did not use glass and it was incredible to see the prints without anything in front, but I must say that I freaked out that evening as the show was probably the most people for any one show I have ever seen with people inches away from the surface in some cases, ( not bullshitting ) and it really scared the crap out of me as I knew how expensive those prints were to replace.

Oh I bet! But galleries tend to have a more respectful clientele than retail stores or museums. Plus, the beauty of photography is that you can (almost) always reprint something in the worst case scenario. And besides, maybe you get lucky and somebody sneezes on one of your prints and is forced to buy it at full retail! I’ve never had anything of mine damaged at a gallery. In fact, my biggest complaint with galleries is getting everything back in perfect condition. Sometimes I wish people would at least steal my stuff. It feels good when someone is willing to part with a few hundred bucks for one of your works. It feels even better to know they were willing to part with their freedom for it!

 

[bernard_L]

For what it's worth, an amateur chimes in. Why agonize about the surface texture, sheen, gloss, etc? Why agonize about the Dmax, low values separation, etc? Why agonize about lens flare, multi-coating, etc? If the end result is to be viewed through a piece of glass.
Agreed, vacuum-coated "museum" glass is almost invisible. But I just can't justify the cost. I once had a show of 20-something 30x40cm baryta prints; Dibond-mounted, borderless, no glass. No sale, no damage. And I had extra un-mounted prints for each photo.

 

[naaldvoerder]

Without glass. I want to see the texture of the paper. That is what the whole printing on baryta is all about.

 

[removed account4]

I have used that too. I recommend it.

YOU recommended them to me !

 

[Bob Carnie]

For what it's worth, an amateur chimes in. Why agonize about the surface texture, sheen, gloss, etc? Why agonize about the Dmax, low values separation, etc? Why agonize about lens flare, multi-coating, etc? If the end result is to be viewed through a piece of glass.
Agreed, vacuum-coated "museum" glass is almost invisible. But I just can't justify the cost. I once had a show of 20-something 30x40cm baryta prints; Dibond-mounted, borderless, no glass. No sale, no damage. And I had extra un-mounted prints for each photo.

What material did you use to hot mount silver prints onto Diabond??

 

[Sirius Glass]

YOU recommended them to me !

Of course, silly me.