Question regarding displaying photographs

[Drew Wiley]

Those bugs would be basic Corrodentia (booklice). They eat cellulose, and sometimes
seem to like bit of old mucilage glue, which was once used to mount prints to cardboard. They're torture to old bookbindings, and sometimes sneak behind glazing and force one to take the frame apart and clean things, but otherwise aren't the same
degree of enemy to photographers as they are to librarians. They don't eat much anyway. Carpenter ants are a completely different thing, however, if they ever get to
books or boxes left forgotten in some attic. My biggest problem of late was two old
arthritic male cats we had taken indoors until they passed away. They didn't like each
other and started spraying, and got my big flat file cabinets pretty good. Besides the
stink and the rug shampooing, some of the wood finish got messed. Fortunately, none
of their sacrilege reached any mounted prints. And yes, they both died or natural
causes, though I cannot comment on how I was tempted to ....

[Pawlowski6132]

Lots of new information here on this thread. Thank you everyone.

Although, most points are made based on environmental conditions, I wonder if anyone makes decisions based on aesthetics. As that was my original concern. For example, does anyone feel that glass or even acrylic detracts from their paper's surface apperance whether Matt or Glossy?

[paulr]

I used to get those bugs in my print boxes and portfolio cases. They seemed to like the 100% rag museum board I used for mats a long time ago. When I switched to buffered board I stopped seeing them.

[paulr]

For example, does anyone feel that glass or even acrylic detracts from their paper's surface apperance whether Matt or Glossy?

Glass makes prints look glossy, no matter what the surface is like. I'm fine with this.

If you use paper whose surface characteristics are especially important to you, then glazing could be a problem. I loved the satiny surface of the old version of Agfa Portriga ... discontinued sometime in the 80s. It seemed like a shame when that went behind glass. I haven't cared that much about the surface texture of any papers I've used since then, whether silver papers or inkjet.

[ROL]

Although, most points are made based on environmental conditions, I wonder if anyone makes decisions based on aesthetics. As that was my original concern. For example, does anyone feel that glass or even acrylic detracts from their paper's surface apperance whether Matt or Glossy?

Aesthetically, clear (or museum, if you can afford it) glass – all other things being equal. But, they are not (see my brief discussion). I use clear acrylic on both mat and glossy, unreservedly.

[Drew Wiley]

Esthetically, it can get involved too. For example, there's nothing like a static-mounted high-gloss Cibachrome if someone wants a reversible mounting system and
no orange-peel. But acrylic gravitates toward its own static charge and tend to pull
the polyester film base away from its own plastic backing. So one uses glass on top,
but since this has annoying secondary reflections, the obvious answer is optically
coated glass - then we're back to square one whether or not this is suitable for the
specific display environment or for shipping and handling. Museum glass it thicker
but very heavy and with a yellowish UV layer in the middle of the sandwich, and I
don't like what it does to blues. Optically coated acrylic (not textured non-glare
plastic) is wonderful but now over $500 wholesale for a relatively small sheet. Over
the years I've developed a couple of very nice options for large glossy prints which
eliminate glare, but these are very tricky and expensive themselves. Another trick
is to use matte base for C-prints or inkjets, then make it look more glossy or liquid
with the acrylic or glass overglazing - but this is only appropriate for certain subjects. With glossy FB b&w prints, secondary reflections are almost never a problem, so I simply use ordinary 1/8" acrylic. In short, one shoe just doesn't fit
everyone or every circumstance.

[MIke Sherck]

In all honesty, my preference is to trim prints to the edge of the image, dry mount onto a white board, and just displayed that way, without mat or frame. But then, I'm a barbarian...

Mike

[paulr]

In all honesty, my preference is to trim prints to the edge of the image, dry mount onto a white board, and just displayed that way, without mat or frame. But then, I'm a barbarian...

Mike

Actually that makes you trendy.

[MIke Sherck]

Actually that makes you trendy.

Cheap is trendy? Rats -- now I have to waste time finding and even less expensive, un-trendy way. Directly stuck to the walls with bubble gum, perhaps.

Mike

[paulr]

Cheap is trendy? Rats -- now I have to waste time finding and even less expensive, un-trendy way. Directly stuck to the walls with bubble gum, perhaps.

Mike

Thumb tacks!

But sorry, those are trendy too. At least they were several years ago. Maybe gum is the future.