Why do we mount photographs behind glass?

[roteague]

I mount all of my prints behind, because I like the way they look and the way the prints are protected. Since all of my prints are silver prints, I worry about protecting the surface. I also use the Tru Vue glass - it is just wonderful.

[naturephoto1]

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

I prefer, for my best finished framed images to be behind Tru Vue Museum Glass which is even more expesive than even their regular AR glass but less expensive than the equivalent Denglas. I have found that when the lighing is placed properly for images behind Museum Glass there is very little reflection and the images almost look as there is no glass in the frame. Museum Glass allows 96% of the visible light to be transmitted, the images appear sharper, with better color and contrast. Additionally, Museum Glass will remove or block 97% of the UV light. My intent for Galleries is to either supply images unframed or framed in Museum Glass. For direct marketing to businesses and the public, they have a coice of Tru Vue Conservation Clear (UV) glass or Museum Glass.

Rich

[ageorge]

I mount all of my prints behind, because I like the way they look and the way the prints are protected. Since all of my prints are silver prints, I worry about protecting the surface. I also use the Tru Vue glass - it is just wonderful.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard "once behind glass, you won't notice the difference" implying that some subtle difference will not be noticed because the glass subtracts from the experience enough the negate the differences. This is my experience as well. There is some subtraction no matter how good the glass. My question is why do we do this? Many other forms of art are presented without being under glass, why should we. Most photographs are not sealed from the environment so pollutants can and do come into contact with the surface of the print. If it is to protect from finger prints, scratches or other physical contact, well I will just take my chances with all the other art. I would rather give my viewers the full experience.

[David_Senesac]

TruVU Museum glass or Acrylite OP-3 are both very expensive, especially for large prints I tend to market. Actually I only market rolled unframed prints and let the customer make that framing choice with their framing shop of choice. For my master prints I use for exhibit and display purposes, I prefer not using any glazing material not only for the purpose you noted george, but also because it is lighter logistically. ...David

[naturephoto1]

As has been mentioned, Oil Paintings are protected with a varnish. Acrylic paintings are sometimes not behind glass. However, most (or a high percentage) of acrylic paintings, water colors, pastels, charcoal are generally displayed behind glass. Therefore, it would appear that the majority of 2 dimensional types of art work is in fact displayed behind glass (or possibly acrylic- plexiglass),

Rich

[roteague]

There is some subtraction no matter how good the glass. My question is why do we do this?

That is true, but since all printing methods are not capable of conveying the true image as represented in the transparency, I don't see this as a big issue. Since I have no intention of offering any prints in ink (other than posters), I need someway to protect the prints themselves. Why? Because I want my images to convey a sense of quality - and this is what I think quality should look like.

[naturephoto1]

Additionally, my work is printed normally on Fuji Crystal Archive Glossy photo paper, but is available on the Fuji Crystal Archive Super Gloss and used to be printed on high gloss Ilfochrome. The Fuji Crystal Archive Photos are printed off of a Chromira (or if need be larger images off of a LightJet). Robert prints the same way and unless mistaken his work is also printed on the same paper. The Fuji Glossy and Super Gloss Crystal Archive and Ilfochrome high gloss papers are quite fragile and subject to scratches, dust, and fingerprints. These papers are best displayed behind glazing materials.

Rich

[roteague]

Rich is correct, we do use the same printing techniques and papers.

[ageorge]

That is true, but since all printing methods are not capable of conveying the true image as represented in the transparency, I don't see this as a big issue. Since I have no intention of offering any prints in ink (other than posters), I need someway to protect the prints themselves. Why? Because I want my images to convey a sense of quality - and this is what I think quality should look like.

So "behind glass" equates to quality. Actually for me, not behind glass is a better way to experience a print. When I am evaluating one of my prints, I don't get out a piece of glass and put it behind it, that would be silly. So why should I display them that way? I think behind glass is just what we are used to.

[Helen Bach]

Another vote for Tru-Vue Museum and the acrylic version, Tru-Vue Optium Museum. I'd love to be able to show my prints without glazing, and I've used the "I will replace any print damaged during the exhibition" argument only to be told, very politely, that that was unacceptable practice for the venue. I saw the light. In the right location and circumstances, however, I would show without glazing.

Between 'non-glare' (textured or etched surface to diffuse reflections, but not reduce them); 'anti-reflective' (coated surface that cuts down reflections, eg Museum and the even more expensive Optium Museum) and 'abrasion resistant' (eg OP-3 AR, for acrylic/'Plexiglass'; much cheaper than anti-reflective acrylic) there seems to be a lot of opportunity for confusion.

Best,
Helen