[alt-photo] Re: Anti-reflective glaze
dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net
Wed Nov 28 16:38:24 GMT 2012
Yes; I think that a local frame shop here where I buy glass (Frame Warehouse chain) would also charge about $40 or $41 for a 9x15 sheet of museum glass (Tru-Vue). And I have bought it when I've had small pieces to frame, and only a few pieces to frame-- so it's not so painful.
But if you're also over-matting your print, that's a relatively small print-- which is great-- but not always the case. And then if you're making 20+ of them, even if they're small-- it gets to be expensive. Compare the $40 to probably $10 (?) for regular glass that size, and that can get unaffordable in short order (for me). The issue I've found with the museum glass is that once you start framing a piece that's 16x20 or larger, the price just skyrockets. It makes no sense.
Anyway-- yeah-- just add the cost to your sales price and then hope you sell it. ;)
On Nov 27, 2012, at 7:29 PM, <pfriedrichsen at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 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
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list