Non-green glass for frames?

[Mark Sawyer]

The common window/picture-frame glass from the usual sources has a green cast to it that's bad enough on conventional silver prints, but really kills wet plates on metal. Does anyone know of a source for a higher-quality glass that won't have that green tinge to it?

[anchored]

I use only Tru-View brand glass in frames, which doesn't have a green cast. If you want the best, look at Tru-View's Museum glass for your frames... quite expensive (to say the least) but you cannot see the glass at all. For sources, find a framing supply company in your area... not a good idea to mail-order glass.

[Drew Wiley]

There are all kinds of picture frame glass, including optically-coated varieties which
have significantly better light transmission, but at a much higher price. Some of these
require a different kind of cutter than regular glass, so should be sized at a properly
equipped shop.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Another vote for Tru-View. I mostly use the UV blocking with reflectance control. Use the museum glass on your finest presentations. Very spendy.

[Brook Martin]

Tru-View Museum glass in front of wet plate, truly delicious. I once lost a piece on the table I was framing on, had to find it with my fingers cause I couldnt see it right in front of me.

[Jon Shiu]

Acrylic sheets don't have the green color.

Jon

[Mark Sawyer]

Acrylic tends to scratch too easily for me.

After researching the Tru-View (thanks for getting me pointed in the right direction!), I think I need some simple, reasonably-priced low-iron (non-green) glass. The AR and UV coatings on the museum glass make it too expensive for regular use on my budget, I'm afraid.

Anyone know of a reasonably-priced source for low-iron glass?

[Sal Santamaura]

...The AR and UV coatings on the museum glass make it too expensive for regular use on my budget, I'm afraid...There's no need for museum glass' UV coating when framing black and white or even chromogenic color.

Price out the Tru Vue AR; it's more reasonable and even more invisible than museum glass, which has a plastic coating to absorb UV. The AR coating is vacuum-deposited, just like on lenses.

[chris_4622]

I wouldn't recommend buying Tru-View through a retail outlet such as a framing shop because they will mark up the price too much. Find a local small glass business and negotiate the mark up and buy a case.

Try here for a cheaper solution:
http://howardglassco.thomasnet.com/viewitems/schott-b270-drawn-crown-glass/schott-b270-drawn-crown-glass-2?&forward=1

[Toyon]

I find that regular UV framing glass makes prints about 1/2 stop darker. Does Tru-Vu do this as well?

[Brook Martin]

The tru view AR is REALLY easy to scratch, if you look at it wrong it scratches. Worse than museum glass.It is coated on both sides so you are never really safe, as the museum has the coating on the inside once framed.
The Tru-View Conservation Clear is a really good product and is quite a bit cheaper than museum glass and wont have the green tint and is a quite a bit more forgiving than AR. It does not have a non reflective coating though.

For little ambros in small frames a single sheet of the museum glass goes a long ways, and they are so gorgeous under it. I think every serious photographer should see their work under museum glass at least once. It looks so good you will forget for at least a moment how god awful expensive it was.

For any of this stuff, I clean with 50/50 distilled h2o/everclear gently using a kimwipe tissue.

[Drew Wiley]

The last type of optical glass I acquired has a dipped titanium-based coating, and is
actually harder to scratch than ordinary float glass, as well as being about 8%
clearer or brighter with respect to light transmission. The downside of this kind of
glazing, or any kind of picture glass for that matter, is that it is hard to handle in
larger sizes, will shatter upon impact, and does not insulate nearly as well as acrylic. Unfortunately, the cost of optically coated acrylic is really steep - around $550 for a sheet sufficient to glaze a single 30X40 or two 20X24's, and that wholesale! Retail would be at least double. A few years back I did some static
mounting of Cibachromes, which are notoriously difficult to light due to their reflective surface, under optically coated glass. This newer type is even better at
reflection control than the older Denglas, and the prints really stand out. I just pulled
a drawer in one of my files open where I still have one of these framed examples
stored. The superior glass generated some impulse sales because the gloss or glow
of the print itself didn't have to compete with background reflections on the glass,
and there was no loss of detail or brightness like with ordinary nonglare.

[Brook Martin]

Drew, do you have a trade name for the product

[lloyd]

Try here for a cheaper solution:
http://howardglassco.thomasnet.com/v...s-2?&forward=1


these guys are great to deal with. Schott B270 is clear, no green cast.

[Mark Sawyer]

Thanks, all! So far the leading possibilities are from Howard Glass, specifically the 2.5mm B270 crown glass @ $9.50 a square foot, ("One of our largest sellers, it is by far the most optically clear sheet glass on the market. "), although I'll probably give them a call about the Optiwhite glass, just to see what it is.

There's also a local place that sells "museum glass" for $12 a square foot, so I'll look into their glass too. The museum glass I remember from twenty-some years ago had an objectionable (at least to me) irridescent sheen to the coating, almost as if someone had put an oil coating on it. I'm curious to see if that's still the case.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Just curious, why do you put glass in front of your tin(alumi)types? Once they are varnished they are pretty resistant to atmospheric or UV damage. For larger ones, I really like how they look set into in a glassless deep wooden frame.

[anchored]

Mark - you say Tru-View glass is too expensive... but $9.50 a square foot is reasonable?

If you have the means to purchase wholesale and are willing to buy more than you need for just one photo... Tru-View glass, with the exception of their Museum glass, is MUCH cheaper than that! I buy wholesale through a moulding/framing supply company in Dallas (relatively local for me). I generally use Tru-View Conservatory UV/Anti-Glare glass, buy in 24"x36" sheets and cut to suit. Cost of a box of 8 sheets costs $126.

That's 6 sf per sheet x 8= 48 sf in a box. $126/48 = $2.62 per square foot. And this is for Conservatory UV Anti-Glare... more expensive than standard Tru-View glass.

I also would suggest you also will likely have problems with breakage ordering glass and having shipped. The company I buy from... and other wholesale suppliers I've talked to in the past... refuses to even ship glass. You'll be far better off trying to find a local source and picking it up yourself I believe.

And cutting glass to suit is not much of an issue. On coated glass like the Tru-View UV on simply has to be careful to score the correct side (coated side) and carefully snap. I've converted an old Logan small mat board cutter to a glass cutter for perfect scoring.

[anchored]

And a note about the Tru-View Museum glass... there's no sheen or color to it at all... it cannot be seen unless one literally touches their finger on it.

[Jon Shiu]

In my experience, the tru vue museum glass does have a purple color that is picked up in the reflection of light sources, ie gallery lights. It is after all, like the anti-reflective coating on lenses.

Also, the lower end Tru View glass does have a greenish cast to it.

Jon

[Sal Santamaura]

In my experience, the tru vue museum glass does have a purple color that is picked up in the reflection of light sources, ie gallery lights. It is after all, like the anti-reflective coating on lenses...The blue/purple reflection color of Tru Vue museum glass comes from the applied plastic UV coating. It's not like the anti-reflection coating on lenses.

Tru Vue AR's hard anti-reflection coatings (both sides) are like the coatings on lenses. They don't reflect blue/purple at all.

Again, unless one is framing dye transfer or Ilfochrome prints, there's no reason for museum glass with photographs. UV isn't a concern for black and white, while chromogenic color paper has UV blockers built in.

[Drew Wiley]

Sal - in my numerous tests I found out that about all the UV shield did for color photos
is to so marginally increase their display life that it was inconsequential. At the same time they did spoil the visual vibrancy of the blue and green hues. Gave up on that idea. The only smart thing is to keep valuable color prints away from UV light (direct sunlight, halogens, etc) to begin with. But you are correct - optically coated is so
much better. But I don't recommend glass period anywhere there are significant day/night fluctuations in temp or humidity, or there can be a risk of condensation
behind the glass and potentially mildew on the print. Acrylic is much better in this respect.

[Brian K]

If you care about the photograph don't use glass. If the glass breaks it will most likely destroy the print. You can get acrylite OP-3 AR plexiglas. It is anti UV, abrasion resistant and completely clear. And if over time the plexi does get scratched up, replace it. But it will most likely require abuse to get damaged, the same type of damage that might shatter glass.

[Drew Wiley]

Again, Brian, abrasion-resistant OP3 is so damn expensive that it is out of reach for
routine usage. I'd rather just spend the extra and get the anti-reflection coating as
well, which is also scratch-resistant. Otherwise, just buy 1/8" acrylite FF or some other
good basic acrylic sheet and toss or polish it if it gets nicked. At least that's what works for me. And if someone wants to pay the EXTRA $500 or so for the framing grade for anti-reflective acrylic, I offer it as an option. When shipping is not an issue,
and condensation is not as risk, it is much cheaper to offer the optically-coated glass
option, although I'll only personally do this for prints up to 20X24 due to breakage
hazard. The whole technical problem as I understand it is that only a small percentage
of acrylic sheet is flat enough to optically coat. Quality control is very difficult. It must
also be baked out prior to coating. This material was originally designed for covering
instrument panels in aircraft and luxury cars, and has only recently been available for
picture framing. Most framing distributors were paranoid of carrying it due to a single
scratch invalidating its saleability. But it is available here in No. Calif due to museum
and high-end framing demand.

[t9mike]

I buy wholesale through a moulding/framing supply company in Dallas (relatively local for me). I generally use Tru-View Conservatory UV/Anti-Glare glass, buy in 24"x36" sheets and cut to suit. Cost of a box of 8 sheets costs $126.


Hi Glenn. Can you share the company you buy from? I am also in Dallas.

Thanks,
-Mike

[BetterSense]

Why use glazing at all?

Just wondering. I can't think of anything clearer, cheaper, lighter, safer, less likely to create condensation, and easier to find than no glazing at all.

[t9mike]

Why use glazing at all?

Just wondering. I can't think of anything clearer, cheaper, lighter, safer, less likely to create condensation, and easier to find than no glazing at all.

I'm want to hang (4) 24x36 prints I've done for my home in a 2x2 group on a large wall. I'm considering three options:

1) Mount on 13mm Sintra PVC or 3/4" standout equivalent with laminate. Can never change this out, but very contemporary finish and should hold up well. But matte lamination I have seen does dull image considerably. Glossy lamination is, well, glossy as heck but has a contemporary look that is pretty cool.

2) Very simple (non-archival) framing: no matte, just glass+print+mount board. Nielsen Profile 33 looks nice.
http://www.contemporaryframe.com/images/Metals/Nielsen/Thumbnails/N33.jpg


3) Print on canvas and mount inside of a floater frame.

I like (2) because I can change prints out from time to time. Costly for more expensive glazing, but I'd be using this for a lifetime. I'm not a big fan of the canvas texture so I don't think (3) is for me, but the floater frame look is striking. I don't like the gallery wrap look.

I do not like the prospect of how unprotected prints wear. I imagine my nephew will ding it in no time, it will get a scratch, etc.

Considering my options now, but I am leaning towards (2).

-Mike

[Drew Wiley]

Sintra and all vinyls contain chemical residues which can seriously affect print longevity.

[t9mike]

Sintra and all vinyls contain chemical residues which can seriously affect print longevity.
Thanks Drew. I thought I read that Sintra is also used in many museums. But perhaps for temporary exhibits. Plastic == off gasing I suppose? They do appear to be structurally rigid and so warping/etc is not an issue.

I like the look of the 3/4" standouts, especially the white since we have white walls. For example:

http://www.whcc.com/uploads/images/products/thumb_StandoutEdge_White_depths.jpg

from http://www.whcc.com/products/prints-finishing/standout/

But WHCC said they do not do lamination on standouts.

[Sal Santamaura]

The blue/purple reflection color of Tru Vue museum glass comes from the applied plastic UV coating. It's not like the anti-reflection coating on lenses.

Tru Vue AR's hard anti-reflection coatings (both sides) are like the coatings on lenses. They don't reflect blue/purple at all.

Again, unless one is framing dye transfer or Ilfochrome prints, there's no reason for museum glass with photographs. UV isn't a concern for black and white, while chromogenic color paper has UV blockers built in.


"Again, unless one is framing dye transfer or Ilfochrome prints, there's no reason for museum glass with photographs."

The visual difference using TruVue museum glass and most other options is night and day. In showing them side by side most viewers opt for museum glass. It is like your image has nothing in front of it. Nothing to hide the fine detail and subtle tonal transitions...Dan, you quoted only part of my post #20, with no attribution. I clearly stated, and still maintain, that Tru Vue AR is less visible than museum glass. Museum glass' bluish plastic UV coating does hide subtle tonal transitions that AR passes. Museum glass may be the best choice for dye transfer or Ilfochrome, but black and white and chromogenic color papers don't need its UV protection.

[Drew Wiley]

Gotta agree with Sal. Optically coated glass is distinctly clearer. So-called museum glass with a built-in filter will noticeably mute the intensity of blues and certain other
hues, but unfortunately, will do very little to protect Ilfochrome or dye transfer dyes
(based on personal testing, not guessing!). Direct sunlight or halogen light sources are
simply voodoo to color dyes, and the degree of protection afforded by UV-inhibiting
glass or plastic is negligible.