I recently visited two photography galleries and in the process have begun to question how best to display one's prints. In John Fielder's beautiful gallery in Denver, most framed prints were laminated. A few were also under acrylic, and the differences when viewing them side by side were striking. The laminated prints looked much better, by a wide margin. The laminate was invisible and the annoying glare from the acrylic was absent. In the second gallery I visited, owned by Brad Nordlof in Rockford, IL, every framed print was uncovered. No glass, acrylic, or laminate. His rationale was that the Epson inks on luster paper were durable and scratch-resistant, though I suspect that the cost savings is the biggest factor. Like John Fielder's prints, these looked excellent owing to the absence of glare and other ways in which glazing can detract from the look of a print. However, from my own experiences with luster paper I suspect these unprotected prints are extremely vunerable to scratching.

I'd be interested in hearing from others about preferences for displaying your prints. Until now everything I've done has been matted under acrylic, but I'm strongly leaning toward laminating my prints (at least the big ones) and framing them with a simple linen liner. Are there any considerations that make this route unadvisable? And what about the practice of leaving framed prints unprotected?

Thanks,

Brett Deacon