Protecting an archival pigmented ink print

[bob carnie]

Thats news to me, we purchase this glass this month, I will check this out with our supplier.
thanks for the heads up.

According to this distributor, Claryl has gone out of business: http://www.warehouseframingsupply.co.../claryl-glass/

[Lenny Eiger]

Yes Lennie, you can get and do this yourself. You won't have the overhead a custom frame shop has. When you chip or scratch the surface of the glass and can't use it, you lose a sheet. When you discover the coating has defects or the glass has bubbles you can't use it. Museum Glass has these problems and they raise the cost per sheet as one has to get the maker to replace the defective glass which eats time and money both. If you think you will get the full sheets and cut to size with all being perfect... good luck with that one.

A good mat cutter is worth the cost if you do much framing. Fletcher, C&H, KeenKut or Chronomat(my personal favorite - and made in the USA) are all much better than anything Logan makes.

Unless you are framing Carbon prints and want the relief or surface to be open to close inspection you frame and put the print behind glass. Museum glass if you care about it looking as good as possible without the green color of plate glass and reflections killing the print.

Bainbridge Alpharag Artcare mat boards provide active protection to the artwork from atmospheric pollutants and even outgassing from the print or frame. (You do use metallic tapes on the Rabbit for sealing purposes if you use wood frames, right?)

If you are looking for a "good deal" from your custom framer and it is based only on price you most likely won't get it without doing a fair amount of business with them. Why would they discount everything for someone who is not going to provide the profit margin needed to stay in business?

Dakotah,
I do actually do most of this, tho' I haven't graduated to metallic tape as yet.... My favorite frames have been the ones I made myself, from maple or even spalted maple. (Unfortunately, they take a very long time to make.) I had my framer cut my glass, and cut my mats. I am happy to pay a fee to keep them in business. However, I think the fee should be reasonable. A 500% markup on glass isn't reasonable to me.

Generally when I decide to do business with someone, especially someone local, and I get treated well, am happy with the product/service, I make a point to get them additional customers if I can. I have been on the board of the local arts association for years and could steer people their way. This shop just went out of business, I would say mostly from their attitude.


Lenny

[Bruce Pollock]

What's the difference between 'museum glass' and regular 'glass glass'? Or did I misread the earlier post?

[Jim Andrada]

Aside from the cost I assume.

There are a bunch of different framing glasses - I think Conservation and Museum are most pricey with Museum the most expensive.

I'm not an expert by any means but last time I ordered a framing job we specified the Museum glass after discussion with the framer.

It has great UV protection (as does Conservation Clear) but there seems to be less coloration in the glass and the nature of the reflections is quite different - sort of diffuse and non distracting for the Museum glass. You can tell there's glass in the frame but you can't really see anything reflected in it - maybe a few diffuse highlights. Colors seem to have more snap and richer appearance, at least to my eye. It isn't the fuzzy sort thing you get with a non-glare glass at all.

For an 8 x 10 print mounted with about 2 inches all around the Museum glass added $40 to the bill compared to the Conservation Clear.

If by glass glass you meant what the hardware store sells, it's awful - I wouldn't even think of using it. Striations, non-uniform refraction, - awful stuff.

[uphereinmytree]

My approach is to use cheap glass for large prints on display. If someone buys one, then I could offer them an upgrade in glass, but only the most discriminating buyers will balk over the glass. I also display without glass especially with smaller prints. If it's a digital print you could print it again exactly the same way. A darkroom print is a bit different story. The best glass is too highly marked up. There is a difference between a frame shop staying in business and making a huge profit off of me. I do all my own work matting, framing, glass cutting, even custom 16 ply cotton rag mats at 20x30 etc. After all it is MY work and not a collaborative effort. Most importantly, none of it is difficult!

[Ken Allen]

I guess my situation is different that many of you. I print for photographers and artists and even the ones with a decent amount of resources sometimes can't afford the beautiful custom frames that you typically find in the best galleries and museums. Buying glazing through one of my distributors does not change the fact the a custom frame job is expensive. I've framed my own work for decades and I would not try to do the work that the good custom framers do.
SO, my artists pick and choose when they will do custom framing and when they will choose another method to produce an exhibit. Commercial laminates are easy, but they have been know to shrink or de-laminate, or if you scratch the laminate you can't remove it. I have seen commercial laminates on artwork in major museums... and this still confounds me. Some artists have decided to use it.
I like the idea of a high quality spray lacquer (Lascaux) or a poly from Clearshield. It will not de-laminate. And I like to think if there is a scratch it might be able to be repaired with a local buff and spray. But the space requirement for a professional spray booth is a challenge because I'm located in NY City/Brooklyn.
That's why I posed the question to see how many people are going through the effort to pursue spraying paper prints. Hanging them without protection is a problem, because it was not cheap to get the print on the wall. Are there any other people that are printing professionally that would care to chime in?

[bob carnie]

Many commercial labs ,, wedding labs have been spraying for years... looks great for a couple of years then attacks the print.. maybe there is a current version that does not harm the photograph or ink print but I am not aware of one.
I have sprayed big prints in a booth and its no fun, lots of photographers are using thick resin to protect their work.. looks great but I have the same misgivings about its longevity.

[Ken Allen]

Many commercial labs ,, wedding labs have been spraying for years... looks great for a couple of years then attacks the print.. maybe there is a current version that does not harm the photograph or ink print but I am not aware of one.
I have sprayed big prints in a booth and its no fun, lots of photographers are using thick resin to protect their work.. looks great but I have the same misgivings about its longevity.

True. I'm very familiar with the old lacquer on a c-print process, I also was not impressed. A pigment ink print from the modern aqueous printers from Canon and Epson is different than a c-print. In our test's spraying is the most promising to add a layer of protection. Our challenge is going from testing to production requires space and equipment.

[Ian Gordon Bilson]

Has anyone considered " Renaissance Wax "?
Plenty of information available on the World-Wide-Wait..

[bob carnie]

About a year ago , here or on APUG I am not sure an interesting post on a new material that essentially promoted as liquid glass, this product was to be used on sides of vehicles as a very thin flexible protector that to my thinking would be incredible if re configured for display prints.
Yesterday some of you comments made me think of it... google Nanopools I did not get very far with my search , and it seems this technology has not gotten so far in its world wide launch, maybe you can find something I quickly did not.
We make wall paper***yes wall paper*** for some of our clients using our 60 inch printer and are trying a product called ClearJet Clear coating.. seems to work very well for our
end purpose of protecting our prints... but I am very leery of any solvent base UV Protective Coating . this is put on with a brush and roller.

the liguid glass really interested me as we get asked every day to face to plexi and even in Toronto the rent and space issues create a problem for us to allocate 1000 sq ft for a ISOLATED CLEAN room that is justifiably required to do this type of work day in day out.
This glass coating that is sprayed on and not intrusive to the image below with archival qualitys would be interesting indeed. I am sure it would not be cheap , but neither is optically clear face mounting tissue and good plexi.

True. I'm very familiar with the old lacquer on a c-print process, I also was not impressed. A pigment ink print from the modern aqueous printers from Canon and Epson is different than a c-print. In our test's spraying is the most promising to add a layer of protection. Our challenge is going from testing to production requires space and equipment.