[alt-photo] Re: Anti-reflective glaze

[Diana Bloomfield]

Yes-- I think that's really the way to go.  I like showing alt process work without glass, too, though I know some galleries won't allow you to do it.  But in my experience, that seems to make a big difference in how people view the work and their response to it-- and it saves a boatload of time and money not glazing everything.

Diana
On Nov 28, 2012, at 12:13 PM, clay harmon's personal website email account wrote:

> The really good museum glass is certainly expensive, especially if you have 30-40 pieces in a show. A few years ago, I was in a show that had a lot of my work. What I did was settle on about 3 standard sizes of frames for the show, and showed everything un-glazed. For the pieces that sold, I gave the buyer the choice of regular float glass or the museum glass for an additional 'upcharge'. In every case, when the buyers looked at the two types of glass side by side on the same print, they opted to pay the additional money for the museum glass. But by making this a post-sale decision, I did not have to buy a whole bunch of the stuff for the show. Plus, everyone seemed to like viewing my alt-process work without any glass on top of it. This strikes me as a very cost-effective way to do it, unless you are one of the lucky artists who sell 100% of the work they show.
> 
> -Clay
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
>> 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. ;)
>> 
>> Diana
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Diana
>>>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo