[alt-photo] Re: Anti-reflective glaze
vedos at samk.fi
Wed Nov 28 21:27:11 GMT 2012
Hmm... I could not show any of my alt prints with no glass... makes them look 'cheap' and 'ordinary' IMO... but I want them look brilliant and unique... and want ordinary reflecting glass... but that is just me.... ;)
-- If you only look at what is, you might never attain what could be --
V E D O S
Alternative Photographic Processes
Satakunta University of Applied Sciences
vedos at samk.fi
From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org [alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of Diana Bloomfield [dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net]
Sent: 28 November 2012 21:19
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Anti-reflective glaze
Thanks for that explanation, Etienne. I was mostly making the case that "it makes no sense" to use museum glass-- if your pieces are in those (relatively) larger frame sizes. To recoup your costs, you'd have to price your pieces accordingly, and I'm not sure most people would "get" the difference in cost (and how much better the print looks), unless they view a side-by-side comparison (as Clay had done).
Still -- as much as I love the museum glass-- let's face it-- glass is glass, and it actually makes no sense to me that it would cost that much to make a piece of great looking UV protected non-glare glass. As I mentioned before, someone who works at a museum told me that it doesn't actually cost that much to make -- but that there is a patent-- hence, the high cost. Not sure if that's the really the case or not.
As an aside, the museum glass itself is not totally non-glare. Depending on where you hang it, you will still get some glare. Obviously, it's a vast improvement over regular glass-- but still not perfect. It's also a pain to work with and clean and touch (which you can't really do). I like the results, but I do think the cost is ludicrously high. Again, the better option is to show it with no glass if you can- or start printing on fabric or some other substrate that needs no glass.
On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:52 PM, etienne garbaux wrote:
> Diana wrote:
>> 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.
> It does, actually. As you increase the linear dimensions, the area (and, hence, the amount of glass you are getting) increases by the square of the linear increase, and price tends to track area (amount of glass).
> To the extent that the price of regular float glass does not exhibit this sharp increase in price, it is because you are overpaying for small pieces or because the cost of cutting, which does not increase by the square of the linear increase, becomes a larger part of the total.
> Best regards,
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list