When framing pictures do you use glass or not....

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - I'd be concerned about the solvents. A number of years ago I did an experiment
just for the hell of it, and set up a spray booth and proper ventilation and respiratory
gear, taking a clue from the trade which bascially applies mirror-gloss veneers of mylar
of thin stainless on display walls - it's tricky. So I figured out how to permanently mount a large Ciba print absolutely smooth - no orangepeel whatsoever, using this
nasty industrial contact adhesive. Obviously, I wasn't experienting with my best prints,
but with big "test" prints. One of them I hung indoors for a client who understood the
archival risk, but where it sits unfaded to this day. The other I propped up in the window where it received moderate direct sunlight, and it faded out in a week! This
showed me just how stressed the dyes can get - or how close to the threshold of
failing, from just a single exposure to hostile solvents (even those which dry in a matter of minutes). But I would have never offered that display technique anyway,
even if it had proven OK for the print, because the solvents were so unhealthy.

[ataim]

As to being replaceable, some of mine are not. Also, vintage prints are not replaceable, as the replacement would not be a vintage print. My prices reflect that they are not easily replaceable..... however, whe my prints are returned from exhibition with the acrylic scratced and gouged, I am glad the emulsion had protection

I agree that exhibitions should be protected. But in my own house, there little to zero chance that a pictures when properly hung will ever fall of the wall or be damaged. Well maybe from UV rays, but none have direct sunlight hitting them.

[Jim Jones]

If you do, what kind do you like?

I don't like window glass, but it is appropriate here. I just finished replacing broken glass in 7 16x20 frames that were mishandled in a move. It's an acceptable risk for us with unsophisticated and low budget clients. Using proper glass or Plexiglas might increase costs severalfold. I'd rather make photographs available to many than affordable to only a wealthy few.

[paulr]

I switched years ago from glass to plexi.

But the best looking options I've seen are museum glass, and another similar product whose name I forget.

The stuff is so glare-free it's practically invisible. I first saw it at a high end gallery showing Steven Shore prints ... for a minute I thought there was no glass at all. The gallery director looked annoyed when she found out I was interested in the glass, not in buying a print ...

The stuff has no color cast and it blocks UV. It is not shatter resistant, so I wouldn't ship anything in it. It's also really expensive.

[Drew Wiley]

Paul - there is a shatter-resistant plastic equivalent to this - optically-coated acrylic.
But it's much more expensive than even optically coating picture glass. At the moment it's probably around six hundred bucks for a small sheet big enough to
make glazing for two 20X24 prints, or one 30x20, and that's wholesale!

[polyglot]

I use museum glass but that's for display at home where the air is not necessarily clean. I have some canvases unprotected but they're trivially replaceable by sending a file to the printers again. Given that my 16x20s represent an hour or three of work, I'm not keen to redo them though it's physically possible.

[Arne Croell]

My preference is the coated glass, like the Museum glass mentioned, followed by acrylic. Btw, there are more manufacturers in addition to Tru-Vue, the maker of Museum glass, Ultravue (same thing as Museum glass but with less UV protection and cheaper), and Optium (the insanely expensive coated acrylic version). Schott makes Mirogard, which comes in different thicknesses and also in a thicker shatterproof laminated version, and there are also ArtGlass by Groglass and Luxar by Hy-Tech-Glass. In addition to the antireflective coating, those glasses are also low in iron, removing the greenish tinge of regular window glass.

[lloyd]

Pollutants in the air, dust, fingerprints, etc., I would personally not display without glazing. That being said I agree with Merg and Arne, can't have that green tint of window glass screwing up my hard won toning, so acrylic it is. Optionally, Howard Glass in Worcester MA sells schott 270 optically clear glass-no coloration-for pretty reasonable prices in a variety of thicknesses.....I use this for contact frames, glass neg carriers etc. Not sure how it compares to the Mirogard Arne mentions.

[Drew Wiley]

Optically coated glass is considerably cheap than optically-coated acrylic and lies nice and flat, and is conspicuously clearer
than ordinary float glass; but besides being fragile, it is much more prone to condensation than acrylic. This fact can be a big deal in display environments where the temperature or humidity can fluctuate. It's a magnet for mildew.

[Kirk Gittings]

Coming up in the next couple of years with 100 shows of my work since 1972 (not including restaurants or such) many not framed by me but by the museum or gallery, everyone of them has been glazed, if large with UV Plexi (above 16x20) if small with a clear glass. Caveat when I sell prints framed, if the print, no matter what the size, will be hung in a high traffic area I always use UV Plexi, with inkjet no matter what I use a uv blocking glass or Plexi.