glass needed when framing a photo?

[JohnKRZ]

I have a query about placing photos under glass?

Is it still necessary for uv purposes (fading of inks or pigments) or is there another reason that it is still done? A photo I took was given to me as a present, enlarged and professionally framed, but the glass reflects although I guess it is meant to be non reflective. Just wondering what to do. Thanks for any help.

John

 

[Zone8]

JohnKRZ wrote: I have a query about placing photos under glass?

Hi John,

Basically, glass provides protection (ideally would either be UV resistant - or the print sprayed first with a UV resistant protective spray) but even plain glass helps keep airborne pollutants away from the print. There should always be a gap between print and glass - glossy prints could otherwise (in effect) weld themselves to the glass - and glass generally does have some acidic content, so harmful. In a similar way, if a wooden frame - always avoid OAK as that contains acidic compounds (makes steel nails/screws rust).

The mount material should be at least archival in some form - no need for actual museum quality (expensive) boards though - always keep in mind that acid-free is a good guide. Most photo-type plastic based papers, despite claims, are generally not ideal for any long term stability of the image. Such papers are made to easily absorb the dye inks if used, so can thus easily absorb any pollutants around. For longest stability for prints, pigment inks are the real answer but even dye images can be relatively long lived if the paper is of the mentioned types - as all acid free. Paper is a major factor in the quest for image stability.

 

[JohnKRZ]

Thanks Zone8,

that's what I was wanting to know plus more. -)

John

 

[Truman Prevatt]

For longevity, pigment inks are better than die base inks. Everything, paper, mounting board, mat, etc. should be acid free and archival. As far as glass, the prime factor in fading is UV so a UV blocking glass is a good idea. Glass also protects the image from environmental contaminants. It also protects it from bugs. Of course reflection off of glass can be an issue and we all don't have the facility to hang photographs where there will be no reflections which would be the best solution.

I have a query about placing photos under glass?

Is it still necessary for uv purposes (fading of inks or pigments) or is there another reason that it is still done? A photo I took was given to me as a present, enlarged and professionally framed, but the glass reflects although I guess it is meant to be non reflective. Just wondering what to do. Thanks for any help.

John

 

[PicOne]

I have a query about placing photos under glass?

Is it still necessary for uv purposes (fading of inks or pigments) or is there another reason that it is still done? A photo I took was given to me as a present, enlarged and professionally framed, but the glass reflects although I guess it is meant to be non reflective. Just wondering what to do. Thanks for any help.

John

Couple things I'd add..

1. It's your image; you could always print more

2. Also, many images may look better printed on a matte stock and/or with texture. IMO, putting this type of printed photo under glass, takes away from the point of having printed on the matte/textured paper in the first place since the glass exists as a reflective barrier to your print.

I don't know the specifics of your print/image, but for my own stuff, and because of #1 above, I prefer to choose mounting and/or framing solely based on what does the image the most justice. Seems kinda silly to sacrifice viewability (ie. lots of reflections) and therefore ability to appreciate the photo, all for the sake of longevity. OTOH, some images work fine under glass if the content and the way they're lit is controlled.

--
'Everything in photography boils down to what's sharp and what's fuzzy.'
-Gaylord Herron

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

<...>

I don't know the specifics of your print/image, but for my own stuff, and because of #1 above, I prefer to choose mounting and/or framing solely based on what does the image the most justice. Seems kinda silly to sacrifice viewability (ie. lots of reflections) and therefore ability to appreciate the photo, all for the sake of longevity. OTOH, some images work fine under glass if the content and the way they're lit is controlled.

This is a really good point I think - if you are printing for your own display, f the image starts to fade you can just print another! It's not like the barriers are what they once were...

Also, modern pigment inks are supposedly able to go 100 years or so without fading (when printed on an approved paper).

 

[dmaclau]

everything fades. More light means more fading but as we need light to see the prints we're stuck with it. ANYTHING between us and the print diminishes viewing. Glass will offer some protection but reflects. Non-reflective glass just isn't as clear as "regular." Also, dependent upon the paper/ink choices it is quite possible to frame a print under glass too soon...I've done it.

Just like the Dye vs Pigment ink issue...you get something over here but have to give up something over there. If the print can be replaced later though, as mentioned above, you have a remedy.

 

[mike earussi]

There is also a type of glass with an actual optical coating (not the sand blasted look of cheap anti-reflective glass) on both sides that produces no reflections at all. But it's usually only used for really professional work because of its expense (about 4x regular glass). But if you want UV resistance you need either glass or UV coated acrylic. But FYI, UV coatings, on either glass or acrylic, usually impart a slight yellowish cast to the photo. So for the clearest look non-UV coated glass with the optical coating works best.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Yes, if you display it - without UV protection it will fade. Even the finest paper will yellow if it is mounted to a board that is not 100% acid free and archival. Most of the longevity numbers are for storage in an acid free archival box - that is in the dark. As soon as UV hits - it will fade some. Pigment will fade less and much slower than dye ink but even pigment ink will fade in UV. UV is high energy radiation which causes skin cancer, eye cancer, caused resins to age, become brittle and break.

It will fade photographs. UV filters help. However, the best way to display is out of any direct sunlight using artificial lighting as done in good galleries and museums. Inkjet prints will fade more than silver images since the silver is more resistant to UV than inks.

If it is your print - you can print it again if it fades to the point it is detracting from the image. I expect that high quality matte papers will fade less than a paper with any gloss since the gloss is produced applying a chemistry to the surface of the paper which will be vulnerable to UV deterioration.

Another as the poster said - there are many compromises. if you own the image and like it better without glass, by all means display it that way knowing that it might get damaged but if it does - you can print another maybe even giving it a different interpretation.

--

Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 

[JohnKRZ]

PicOne wrote:

I have a query about placing photos under glass?

Is it still necessary for uv purposes (fading of inks or pigments) or is there another reason that it is still done? A photo I took was given to me as a present, enlarged and professionally framed, but the glass reflects although I guess it is meant to be non reflective. Just wondering what to do. Thanks for any help.

John

Couple things I'd add..

1. It's your image; you could always print more

2. Also, many images may look better printed on a matte stock and/or with texture. IMO, putting this type of printed photo under glass, takes away from the point of having printed on the matte/textured paper in the first place since the glass exists as a reflective barrier to your print.

I like the above points, but in this case the photo was enlarged and framed as a present with the reason and presenters on a plaque on the passe-partout, so my options are a bit limited.

I too like my photos matte or canvas and then glass just does not help at all. They glue up nicely on MDF board, spray on glue and a vacuum bag.

John

 

[PicOne]

PicOne wrote:

I have a query about placing photos under glass?

Is it still necessary for uv purposes (fading of inks or pigments) or is there another reason that it is still done? A photo I took was given to me as a present, enlarged and professionally framed, but the glass reflects although I guess it is meant to be non reflective. Just wondering what to do. Thanks for any help.

John

Couple things I'd add..

1. It's your image; you could always print more

2. Also, many images may look better printed on a matte stock and/or with texture. IMO, putting this type of printed photo under glass, takes away from the point of having printed on the matte/textured paper in the first place since the glass exists as a reflective barrier to your print.

I like the above points, but in this case the photo was enlarged and framed as a present with the reason and presenters on a plaque on the passe-partout, so my options are a bit limited.

I too like my photos matte or canvas and then glass just does not help at all. They glue up nicely on MDF board, spray on glue and a vacuum bag.

John

In that case, for this instance, perhaps spring for museum glass?

Museum Glass

 

[JohnKRZ]

In that case, for this instance, perhaps spring for museum glass?

Museum Glass

 

[Nicholas Johnson]

Also, dependent upon the paper/ink choices it is quite possible to frame a print under glass too soon...I've done it.

Do you have anything I could read to back that up? I know when I made my wedding album I let my prints cure for a few days (it was years ago, bad memory) but I forget why. This was Epson pigment on Luster style paper.

 

[Tom Schum]

There are several grades of glass, and I had a piece of art framed with the best of it one time. Really incredible how well it worked, very low reflectivity, complete UV blocking, and no color shifts.

Otherwise, I've found regular glass not good for display. Much better to just not use any glass if you don't want to pay $$ for the best, in my opinion. Let it fade, and enjoy it better!

 

[PicOne]

Also, dependent upon the paper/ink choices it is quite possible to frame a print under glass too soon...I've done it.

Do you have anything I could read to back that up? I know when I made my wedding album I let my prints cure for a few days (it was years ago, bad memory) but I forget why. This was Epson pigment on Luster style paper.

About Outgassing

 

[dmaclau]

no. I don' have anything written but it's probably on the net somewhere. Several years back I had printed all night and framed under glass immediately after for a display and several images didn't fare well. I'm imagining that paper & inks are better now but I learned to let the prints "breathe" for a while.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Also, dependent upon the paper/ink choices it is quite possible to frame a print under glass too soon...I've done it.

Do you have anything I could read to back that up? I know when I made my wedding album I let my prints cure for a few days (it was years ago, bad memory) but I forget why. This was Epson pigment on Luster style paper.

It is known as outgassing. It is the process of the solvents that are used in the paper/ink will evaporate or "outgas." Some papers are worse than others.

Loading…

www.luminous-landscape.com

 

[mike earussi]

Also, dependent upon the paper/ink choices it is quite possible to frame a print under glass too soon...I've done it.

Do you have anything I could read to back that up? I know when I made my wedding album I let my prints cure for a few days (it was years ago, bad memory) but I forget why. This was Epson pigment on Luster style paper.

It is known as outgassing. It is the process of the solvents that are used in the paper/ink will evaporate or "outgas." Some papers are worse than others.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47191.0

 

[Truman Prevatt]

I will allow mine to air dry for a duple of days then store them in an archival storage box until I am ready to frame some. Most of my prints don't get framed but those that do have probably been in the box for several months since I don't frame that often. I've never had a problem with the haze build up most likely because my prints have had several months to outgas before I frame them.

The only images I have behind glass are silver on fiber black and white I have bought over the years or shot myself and had professionally framed (which is expensive). I have started putting my inkjet prints up without glass - I can always reprint them and often do when I decide I want a different interpretation.

Also, dependent upon the paper/ink choices it is quite possible to frame a print under glass too soon...I've done it.

Do you have anything I could read to back that up? I know when I made my wedding album I let my prints cure for a few days (it was years ago, bad memory) but I forget why. This was Epson pigment on Luster style paper.

It is known as outgassing. It is the process of the solvents that are used in the paper/ink will evaporate or "outgas." Some papers are worse than others.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47191.0

 

[PicOne]

Also, dependent upon the paper/ink choices it is quite possible to frame a print under glass too soon...I've done it.

Do you have anything I could read to back that up? I know when I made my wedding album I let my prints cure for a few days (it was years ago, bad memory) but I forget why. This was Epson pigment on Luster style paper.

It is known as outgassing. It is the process of the solvents that are used in the paper/ink will evaporate or "outgas." Some papers are worse than others.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47191.0