Why do we mount photographs behind glass?

[ageorge]

The experience is so much better without the glass in the way. Other framed art is presented without glass. So why do we? Sans Verre anyone?

[naturephoto1]

Glass or other glazing materials are used to protect the photo from dust, scratches, fingerprints (particularly for glossy papers), sunlight/UV, moisture, .....

Rich

[Bruce Watson]

Glazing protects the (fragile) print from touch and from environmental polution. Not to mention UV. In other words, it keeps the print and its mounting system clean.

You can show prints without glass. Nothing to stop you. That's one of the reasons I like inkjet printing on canvas. I can varnish the print and stretch it like a painting. The varnish protects the print from sticky little hands, UV, and all the rest so you don't have to show it behind glass. It makes a nice presentation IMHO.

[ageorge]

Glass or other glazing materials are used to protect the photo from dust, scratches, fingerprints (particularly for glossy papers), sunlight/UV, moisture, .....

Rich

Very expensive paintings are presented without glass. Would they not suffer from these same conditions? It seems to me that a photograph would be more robust than a painting that is several hundred years old, no? Is it just tradition to mount behind glass?

[Aender Brepsom]

I always frame my pictures without glass, even for exhibitions. I prefer it very much that way, because I don't like the reflections of the glas. The print itself is not that expensive. Should it get damaged, you can always print a new one.

[Oren Grad]

Very expensive paintings are presented without glass. Would they not suffer from these same conditions? It seems to me that a photograph would be more robust that a painting that is several hundred years old, no? Is it just tradition to mount behind glass?

Precisely. The interesting question is not why photographs are presented behind glass, but why paintings often are not. The environmental insults that we worry about with photographs are problematic for paintings too, though the degree of susceptibility to different types of damage varies with the specific materials used.

[Toyon]

Paintings definitely do suffer from being mounted without glass. Ask any restorer the problems with atmospheric pollutants, smoke and other contaminants that they must clean off periodically. On the other hand, in the environmentally controlled conditions of a museum painting are often presented without glass. The trade off is deemed worth it.

[Bruce Watson]

Very expensive paintings are presented without glass. Would they not suffer from these same conditions? It seems to me that a photograph would be more robust than a painting that is several hundred years old, no?

No. Painters have, for hundreds of years, varnished their paintings as the final step. Some kind of protection is needed between the outside world and the paint. Most modern painters use an archival varnish -- one that can be removed without hurting the paint underneath.

[Sal Santamaura]

The experience is so much better without the glass in the way...

Not if one uses the right glass. Check out Tru Vue AR. It's coated to eliminate most reflections and, for the last few years, has used a low-iron substrate to eliminate any green cast (of the glass, not the coating). Unless a viewer is strongly illuminated, the experience is almost like no glass at all. I'm a satisfied customer not connected with Tru Vue in any other way.

[Oren Grad]

Not if one uses the right glass. Check out Tru Vue AR. It's coated to eliminate most reflections and, for the last few years, has used a low-iron substrate to eliminate any green cast (of the glass, not the coating). Unless a viewer is strongly illuminated, the experience is almost like no glass at all. I'm a satisfied customer not connected with Tru Vue in any other way.

Tru Vue AR is fabulous, as was the late, lamented Denglas. But it's very expensive.