Digital BW, The Print

> From: <hogarth@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:59:54 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Interesting comment re UV filtering
> 
> Well, there's more to this I think.
> 
> First, it's not just the UV frequencies that do damage to artworks on
> paper. Visible light does a fair amount of damage on it's own. The
> intensity is also important. This is why interior carpets still fade -
> direct sunlight still fades, even when you lop off all the UV. I've got
> carpet fade in a room where I've got double glazed low-E glass. The
> carpet gets little UV, but it gets full-intensity direct sunlight during
> the afternoons.

I agree that fading is likely not caused by UV alone but it is an
interesting fact to note given the amount of fuss that's been made with
respect to UV.  Even three panes of ordinary glass (two in the windows and
then one on the print) blocks an enormous amount of UV.


> 
> Second, glass breaks. Drop a framed print and you not only loose the
> frame and the glass, you almost certainly loose the artwork being
> "protected" by the frame. It'll be cut to pieces.

Don't drop them/knock them off the wall. ;-) Yes that is the single biggest
drawback.  There are water white safety glass options but the pricing is
extraordinarily expensive. The issue with Acrylic is that it is so easily
damaged through simple scratching/improper cleaning.  However the risk of
damage to the image itself is a lot less.

> 
> Third, using one of the anti-reflective coated glasses for framing big
> works is amazingly expensive. But I'm sure this has nothing to do with
> why some framers and framing suppliers like it so much ;-)

Check out the stats on Denglas re low reflection (less than 1%).  Low
reflection is so much better than diffused glare as more than 99% of the
light gets through to illuminate your artwork.  I've not seen anything like
it for looks.  (I have used CYRO also.)   Personally I'd prefer no glazing
but I think that's a little impractical in many situations.


> 
> Fourth, big glass for framing big works is really heavy. This makes
> framing difficult, and hanging the frame awkward. And awkward is a
> recipe for dropping a frame (see "second" above).

Should be fine for my frame sizes:  max 24x31.5 ish

> 
> Fifth, some lighting gives off a fair amount of UV. MR-16 quartz
> halogens can do this if you don't put a filter in front of them. If you
> are lighting your prints directly (spot lights) this can be a problem if
> your glazing doesn't knock down the UV.

Never buy any bulbs/fittings without UV filters fitted as standard.  I just
have MR-16 lighting and so this is not an issue.

> 
> I've asked my local art museum what they use and why. The answer was
> OP-3 UV acrylic, mostly because of "second" above. Where the art work is
> valuable, you can't allow it to be hurt in an accident.

I'd be interested to hear what other museums/high end galleries are using.
> 
> Of course, YMMV. I'm still using OP-3 myself, and don't see any real
> reason to change. I put money into decent lighting (tracks, 30 degree
> angle to avoid reflections) instead. I don't have a problem with
> "dulling" but will acknowledge some warming - either yellowing from the
> OP-3 or from the 3000K tungsten halogen bulbs.

You ought to think about bumping your lighting up to 5300K.  There are a few
MR-16 options available now but I suspect that your track lighting may not
be quite so flexible re high K bulbs.  It does, however, make a huge
difference to the look, and feel, of a room.

Cheers

Steve