Digital BW, The Print

Tom,

You wrote:

>Given all the negatives associated with coatings, does anyone EVER
>use the museum glass (I think this is the correct terminology) as an
>alternative when framing photographs? ...

I have been considering the issue and decided to use standard acrylic for
most of my framing.  The main reasons are that glass tends to get broken and
has too much color.

In researching the information I've found that standard glass absorbs a
little less than 50% of the UV.  Acrylic absorbs more than 60%.  The UV
absorbing glass and acrylic absorb 97%.  However, since I already have UV
absorbing glass in my home, and I use incandescent spots for most picture
lighting, I don't think UV is a major issue for me.  Visible light,
especially blue light, causes damage also.  So, even UV glass or acrylic
will not protect against strong sunlight.

The main disadvantage to acrylic is the scratching.  There is now a
scratch-resistant silicone coating that some acrylic has.

In standard form the acrylic is slightly more expensive than glass, but in
UV form the glass is apparently much more expensive.  I didn't find any
readily available source of UV glass that was appropriate.

Here are the prices for 22x28 inch acrylic that I use for my framed 16x20
prints.

Light Impressions:  $39 for Acrylite OP-3 UV acrylic; $50 for the scratch
resistant "AR OP-3."

My Los Angeles supplier (Solter on Pico in West L.A.): $9.36 for standard
acrylic; $23.44 for Acrylite OP-3 UV acrylic.

Standard acrylic from other sources can be over $20 for a 22x28 piece -- so,
shop around.  The best internet prices I found were at
www.pictureframe-usa.com.  However, my L.A. supplier is cheaper.

So, for my uses, the $9 standard acrylic for a 22x28 will do just fine.  But
if someone wants to pay big bucks for the ultimate protection, the Light
Impressions $50 AR OP-3 is the ticket.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com