Do you use glass or acrylic?

[coops]

I make my own frames to keep costs down and for the most part, do a decent job. But I am thinkjing about using acrylic for frames larger than say 24x30. It is lighter but more expensive. I can get 5 32x40 sheets of glass for about $25, where a 24x30 peice of acrylic runs about $22.
I have this fear also of a customer buying a large frame and the damm glass breaking or falling out. Has not happened in 3 years but it does bother me.
Thought I would ask for your thoughts and suggestions.

Thanks

[vinny]

I've had one frame fall off the wall and it was glass. Messy and can ruin a print. It does hold the mattes against the prints better though. I use acrylic for everything so far. No worries when shipping a framed print or hanging a show.

[coops]

Where do you get your acrylic from?

[Pat Kearns]

I do my own framing to hold down some of the costs as well. My own work which is
11x14 or smaller I use glass. I do have a few Curtis prints framed 28x22 that I have with acrylic. I used the acrylic for uv protection and if the frame does fall off the wall it shouldn't shatter and damage the print. I got the acrylic from Light Impressions.

[mrladewig]

I use glass for 18X24 and smaller. I use acrylic for larger sizes to keep the weight and shipping cost down, plus it reduces the risk of the print being damaged.

[Ralph Barker]

Acrylic only, for all print sizes.

[Michael Gordon]

As Dakotah mentions, viewing through acrylic (or TruVue - if you can afford it) is a much better experience than viewing through plain green window glass. $22 for a 24x30 is too much; check out these sources:
http://www.documounts.com/content/plexiglass-pricing-table
http://framingsupplies.com/AcrylicForPictureFraming/ClearAndNonGlareAcrylic.htm

Be sure you clean your acrylic ONLY with a microfiber cloth and acrylic cleaner to prevent scratches.

[coops]

Thanks for links Michael.

[al olson]

Why use glass or acrylic at all? I ceased using glass several years ago except when exhibiting in locations such as restaurants where the protection is needed.

Very seldom do you see paintings under glass. Why? I think the same reasons apply to photography.

I have found that the reduced light transmission makes the print look flatter or muddier. Glare will diminish the image and reflections can change the mood. Nonglare does what it is supposed to do, but it reduces transmission even more.

Many of the digital printers are using canvas these days without the imposition of glass. I have discussed this issue with a number of local colleagues and they are in agreement that their prints exhibit much more to their liking without glass.

[IanG]

Have used glass for about 25 years with only a couple of breakages (cracked glass) in that time in over 200+ frames. Far better optically than acrylic, and nothing isn't an option.

Ian

[Vaughn]

Glass except when shipping, then plex.

Al -- I have shown work w/o glass. It is a nice way to go, but generally photos are more likely to be damaged by air-born pollutants than most paints. The gloss of photopaper is more likely to show damage than that of textured surface of paintings. One can use a feather duster on an oil painting -- but that is risky for a glossy photo.

Vaughn

[Jim Graves]

What do museums use? Any curators out there?

[Michael Gordon]

What do museums use?

Museum Glass, of course! :D
http://www.ilovemuseumglass.com/

[Andrew Eschbacher]

If I do the framing (or have it done) I use glass for 8 x 10 and smaller. Anything bigger or anything shipped, I use Acrylic. The exception is for shows in galleries or museums then I use Museum Glass for all sizes.

[redrockcoulee]

Why use glass or acrylic at all? I ceased using glass several years ago except when exhibiting in locations such as restaurants where the protection is needed.

Very seldom do you see paintings under glass. Why? I think the same reasons apply to photography.

I have found that the reduced light transmission makes the print look flatter or muddier. Glare will diminish the image and reflections can change the mood. Nonglare does what it is supposed to do, but it reduces transmission even more.

Many of the digital printers are using canvas these days without the imposition of glass. I have discussed this issue with a number of local colleagues and they are in agreement that their prints exhibit much more to their liking without glass.

Almost all the times I have ever seen a watercolour if framed than it is under glass. Same has gone for prints (serigraphs, woodcuts etc) or any other works on paper.

[SamReeves]

Another vote for arcylic. Easy, no shattering, and it keeps the frame lightweight.

[Photojeep]

I'm new to the world of framing photographs but I am no stranger to the effects of UV on inkjet prints. I use UV acrylic and never used glass. Besides, I'm so clumsy that if there is a piece of glass that requires my touch, I will bleed...:eek:

[QT Luong]

Acrylic. I print relatively large and my prints are meant to travel.

[matthew050204]

Oh, I’ve been looking for this practically everywhere on this forum, I have been wondering about that. I see why one wouldn’t be able to access other user’s profiles, but it does seem kind of weird that one is even unable to see one’s own profile if one clicks on it? I mean, surely nobody would send themselves spam and I would just like to see what my profile looks like to other users when they view it. Guess I’ll just have to wait.

[Drew Wiley]

This is an area where I have extensive experience. Acrylic scratches easily, attracts
dust (is electrostatic), and bows toward the light due to differential heating. However,
it's difficult to break and is a much better thermal insulator than glass, hence less
possibility of condensation and mildew on prints. Ordinary non-reflective acrylic and
glass obscure fine detail in the image. So-called UV-inhibiting acrylic actually has a
slight tint, enough to alter hues, and is of limited value with direct sunlight or halogens
(the newer CFL's are also very high in UV). Optically-coated glass (yes, just like your
lenses) is far better but fragile and quite expensive. The best of all is optically coated
acrylic, which sells for over $500 a sheet, if you can find it. "Museum glass" is just
two thin sheets of glass cemented together with filter material between, much like a
Tiffen camera filter, giving larger sizes of glass better strength, and is inevitably being superseded in high-end applications by coated acrylic. In general, acrylic glazing
is preferred for photographs, especially if framed prints are being shipped. For routine
commercial work, it is common to apply a clear laminating film directly to the face of
Type C and digital prints. This requires special equipment.

[David_Senesac]

Why use glass or acrylic at all? I ceased using glass several years ago except when exhibiting in locations such as restaurants where the protection is needed.
Very seldom do you see paintings under glass. Why? I think the same reasons apply to photography.
I have found that the reduced light transmission makes the print look flatter or muddier. Glare will diminish the image and reflections can change the mood. Nonglare does what it is supposed to do, but it reduces transmission even more.
Many of the digital printers are using canvas these days without the imposition of glass. I have discussed this issue with a number of local colleagues and they are in agreement that their prints exhibit much more to their liking without glass.

Nice to finally hear someone else with a similar opinion. When one moves up to large format and begins to print some really large prints, the cost of framing materials goes up in area as a square factor. These days most of my prints are about 37.5x30 inches that means a matted frame size of say 46x38 inches. Thus just below the size to be able to cut from standard 60x40 matt and framing materials. Glass and acrylic costs are of course significant at those large sizes. And pricy glare proof Museum glass becomes disgustingly expensive. And glass is also heavy and again the weight goes up as a square factor that means all frame materials need to be heavier duty to deal with even more weight. Additionally for one's own exhibition masters at such sizes due to bulk and weight, shipping and simply moving frames about becomes increasingly difficult and expensive.

Well as someone that has long mail ordered and framed some of my own work, I tried continuing to do so with my big prints but it was unrealistic. I also tried thinnner acrylic but the extra inherent glare, tendency to statically attract dust, and that it is so so easily scratched was too much also. Conversely an open print simply displays better without glaring glass or acrylic in the way. Thus decided during this third incarnation of my print business, I would instead as Al mentions, forgo the glass that also included some of the logic he mentions. But then I decided to stop shipping framed prints at all and instead only ship rolled prints in shipping tubes. Thus give the task of framing to customers. Makes business life much simpler. Professional consumer framing businesses are more likely to do a better than me and a customer can make all the aesthetic and expense choices themselves.

But I still have large print masters made for my own exhibiting and for those, do not bother to put them under glass. I specifically indicate during exhibitions that such masters are not for sale thus there is not an issue of custormers considering them cheaply displayed as what they buy would need to be ordered, printed, tubed, and shipped. Significantly I sell Lightjet prints that come on the quite bombproof Fuji Crystal Archive digital media. I keep such prints bagged in poly when not in use and have found cleaning dust off such open prints rather easy without noticeable scratching. I've even kept one print hanging in my bathroom for several years now that of course gets a big dose of regular high humidity and it still look fine. Of course all those that are using pro ink jet printers end up with media that makes sealing mandatory. A reason I'm happy to remain in the Lightjet camp.

[Drew Wiley]

Different kinds of prints require different strategies. Cibachromes for example are quite
sensitive to handling, and are not easily mounted; so it is wise to sell them fully framed. Fuji C prints, inkjet,etc are amenable to more options. Roll-mounting equipment
from Daige is relatively inexpensive and works fine if one does not want to consign this
step to a frame shop. One of the biggest problems overall is that there is an enormous
amount of disinformation extant, and I have had to spend many years and thousands
of dollars learning the practical facts. Even if you send your work to a frame shop,
do your homework first, learn the distinction between commercial mounting and archival, and keep some dud prints around to practice on and to place in actual display
circumstances for long-term observation. Fortunately, for black and white work the
old-time drymounting press is still excellent. The market also dictates what needs to
be done. But with the cost of mats and mount board way above the net cost of
producing a C-print, not the mention the framing and acrylic, I can certainly sympathize with anyone needing to sell the print bare, leaving the framing as an
option for the customer to assume.

[mdd99]

Non glare has texture. Museum glass is coated like your photographic lenses.

Which likely means the museum glass is the most expensive part of the cost of a print price. I always wonder why frames and glass are so darn expensive. It causes the print price to go up and buyers to flinch.