Non-reflective glass

[Trevor Crone]

Thank you John and Ian for your very comprehensive and helpful replies. With regard to me framing unglazed this would be a temporary measure simply for the duration of an exhibition I have later this year and would really be a last resort. I must say what I've seen of AR glass at a few photographic exhibitions of late has really impressed me.

I assume TrueVue Museum quality AR glass is the top of the range so to speak and therefore the most effective at reducing reflections, distortion free and also offers UV protection.

[Ian Marsh]

Originally Posted by Trevor Crone

I assume TrueVue Museum quality AR glass is the top of the range so to speak and therefore the most effective at reducing reflections, distortion free and also offers UV protection.

Yes Trevor you are perfectly correct.

Please though bear in mind my comments regarding the coating and be careful cleaning the coated side.

One other thing this glass in sheet form has writing along one edge indicating the coated side. some times this is included in the cut pieces and can be seen on frames with narrow rebates. If this is the case it can be easily removed with a drop of acetone or nail polish remover.

[Trevor Crone]

Originally Posted by Ian Marsh

Yes Trevor you are perfectly correct.

Please though bear in mind my comments regarding the coating and be careful cleaning the coated side.

One other thing this glass in sheet form has writing along one edge indicating the coated side. some times this is included in the cut pieces and can be seen on frames with narrow rebates. If this is the case it can be easily removed with a drop of acetone or nail polish remover.

Many thanks Ian, most helpful. What would you suggest using if cleaning the coated surface is required.

[Ian Marsh]

Most glass cleaners are suitable, I always recommend ammonia free cleaners because although ammonia is an excellent cleaner there are conservation issues with potential residue being left on the glass and trapped within the frame.

Care is the keyword. Newly cut glass can have small class splinters on the surface and edges; previously cleaned glass should be free of these.

Our method was as follows:

Stand the glass upright and lightly brush edges and both surfaces with a soft brush, Clean the surface beneath.

Lay the glass on a clean piece of paper and apply the cleaner. Clean with a clean cloth or paper towel, dry and polish with another. Micro-fibre cloths are good for this. Try to hold the glass still and not let it move about which may cause abrasions.

One last word about cleaners some types need to be mixed with water, and sometimes people prefer to use a mix of water and meths. If this is the case make sure you use distilled or softened water to avoid streaking.

[Argentum]

I'm amazed at how many photographs have survived in such good condition for over a 100 years without all this modern protection.

[Trevor Crone]

Thanks again Ian.

Rob, with regard survival, a lot of photographs have survived because they have not been exposed to extended periods of UV light. A lot of the major photographic exhibitions these days have controlled environmental conditions relating to lighting and humidity. UV radiation has a cumulative effect in degrading a photograph, particularly colour.

A friend who worked with the Hayward Gallery in London when they were staging the exhibition, "Ansel Adams at 100", told me the AA trust were very strict about lighting and humidity conditions. It was the same when I saw the Edward Weston exhibition in Edinburgh 2010, the light levels were very low, diffusion blinds on every window/sky-light.

However for my own exhibition I more concerned with the aesthetics, I really do want to remove as much reflection as possible. I'm not concerned about UV as I'm no AA or Edward Weston.

[Argentum]

Originally Posted by Trevor Crone

Thanks again Ian.

Rob, with regard survival, a lot of photographs have survived because they have not been exposed to extended periods of UV light. A lot of the major photographic exhibitions these days have controlled environmental conditions relating to lighting and humidity. UV radiation has a cumulative effect in degrading a photograph, particularly colour.

A friend who worked with the Hayward Gallery in London when they were staging the exhibition, "Ansel Adams at 100", told me the AA trust were very strict about lighting and humidity conditions. It was the same when I saw the Edward Weston exhibition in Edinburgh 2010, the light levels were very low, diffusion blinds on every window/sky-light.

However for my own exhibition I more concerned with the aesthetics, I really do want to remove as much reflection as possible. I not concerned about UV as I'm no AA or Edward Weston.

Of course art works of great cultural significance need to be protected but we all know, pretty much, that putting anything in direct sunlight is not good for it. Museums paid from the public purse have an obligation to protect what they have in their care. That is one of their prime functions. But for the rest of us I'm of the opinion that since the advent of inkjet printing which had such poor keeping qualities using dye based inks, the resulting sales patter of archival keeping qualities has permeated everything display related to rediculous levels. Fact is, a well processed silver gelatin print which is hung in a modern house will last a very long time without any special treatment providing a little care is taken not to put it in direct sunlight or above a heat source.
Modern living has massively less pollutants floating around than 50 years ago. City dwellers have far less car pollutants but maybe a lot more than those in the countryside. But generally speaking household environments are a lot cleaner than 50 years and especially 100 ago. But even so, there are plenty of over 100 year old images still in good condition. My conclusion is that there is archival paranoia amongst a lot of photographers for no good reason, unless they are producing inkjet prints.

[Stoo Batchelor]

Originally Posted by Trevor Crone

I'm no AA or Edward Weston.

Some may disagree Trevor

Good luck with your exhibition, and I shall look forward to next months B&W magazine, well done mate.

Best

Stoo

[Trevor Crone]

Originally Posted by Stoo Batchelor

Some may disagree Trevor

Good luck with your exhibition, and I shall look forward to next months B&W magazine, well done mate.

Best

Stoo

Bless you Stoo - perhaps I better invest in UV glass after all

[Martin Aislabie]

Originally Posted by Trevor Crone

I'm no AA or Edward Weston.

You do have one major advantage over those other two guys Trevor.

You are still active in the Darkroom, so if you were worried about UV degradation you can always re-print some more originals.

Those other guys (sadly) hung up their Lab-Coats a few years ago.

Martin