From: Kate Mahoney (kateb@paradise.net.nz)
Date: 10/26/03-03:02:50 PM Z
Most public galleries have shied away from non-reflective glass because of
the haze it imparts to the work. I haven't seen the coated glass myself, but
I imagine it would be hideously expensive....
Kate Mahoney
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Dreyer" <publications@penland.org>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 7:19 AM
Subject: More on framing
> What about the glass? I never quite know what to do about that. I don't
> much like the glare of regular glass. I've framed a few images with
> non-glare glass that has a matte finish that scatters the light. It
> looks pretty good but just a bit hazy. I've often wondered about the
> glass I've heard about that has a coating like the coating on lenses
> (now also available for eyeglasses), that's thinner than the wavelength
> of light. I recently saw an exhibition of prints by O. Winston Link
> which I suspect used this glass. It was not completely free of
> reflection, but the reflections were not bright and had a slightly
> greenish cast not unlike the reflections on my "antireflection"
> eyeglasses. It was really quite nice--very sharp for viewing the image
> and no real glare despite a little bit of reflection. I have, however,
> heard that this glass is quite expensive.
>
> Any thoughts on this aspect of framing?
>
> Robin
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST