[alt-photo] Re: Anti-reflective glaze

pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca
Wed Nov 28 00:29:01 GMT 2012

A framer that I talked to recently provided me a price of about 
$40.00 for "museum glass" over and above a standard plate glass 
glazing. This is for a 9" x 15" piece. The glass is made by Schott 
under their brand name MIROGARD. It uses some type of sol-gel dipping 
process for the AR coating. There are different degrees of UV 
filtering offered in addition to the AR coating. This would not be a 
great expense if the prints can justify it.


At 01:52 PM 19/11/2012, you wrote:
>Hey Peter,
> >From my experience, I think there is a "good" and "bad" 
> anti-reflective glass.  "Museum Glass" (made by Tru Vue, I think) 
> is really pretty spectacular stuff-- and that is what museums use, 
> I believe.  The downside is, it's totally unaffordable for the 
> individual who does not have access to a substantial trust 
> fund.  Someone told me that the manufacturer has a patent on it, 
> which is why it's so expensive.  Not sure-- but I have bought it 
> for very small pieces, because it really is like looking at a print 
> that hasn't been glazed at all.  If I could afford it, that's all 
> I'd ever buy.  And then there's the anti-reflective (or, 
> anti-glare) glass that seems to have a coating over it, so it feels 
> like you're having to wade through a slight film to see the 
> image.  I think it might have a color cast to it as well.  It's 
> affordable, but pretty horrible stuff.  I'd never use 
> it.  Personally, I'd rather use regular glass with all its glare 
> than use that stuff.
>I did have a show of alt process work a while ago, where I did not 
>use glass at all.  The work was matted and framed traditionally, but 
>no glass.  It turned out fine, and I actually had more people asking 
>about my work at the opening than I've ever had; I can only believe 
>that's because I didn't use any glazing.  If doing that and using 
>mat-board, an 8-ply mat would be preferable; otherwise, a 4-ply 
>would buckle under changes in humidity.  But my prints and mats came 
>back in pristine shape, so you could think about doing that, too.
>I've been on the search for getting away from traditional matting, 
>glazing, and framing for what seems like eons now.  Still found no 
>perfect substitute.
>On Nov 19, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Peter Friedrichsen wrote:
> > Just wondering if anyone is willing to share opinions on the use 
> of anti-reflective glass for use as a glazing.
> >
> > I seem to be getting mixed responses. One person suggests that 
> their framer doesn't recommend it.
> >
> > What glass should one look for to produce optimum results? Is the 
> AR coating easily scratched? Easily cleaned?
> >
> > I see it used in museums and galleries so someone must be happy 
> with it, in contrast to the comment I mentioned above.
> >
> > Maybe there is good and bad AR glass?
> >
> > Anyone?
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo

More information about the Alt-photo-process-list mailing list