Digital BW, The Print

I was chatting with a UK glass supplier yesterday about glazing for some prints.  He made 
a comment that I thought was interesting with respect to UV filtering.  Ordinary glass will 
apparently filter approximately 40-45% of UV light.  So in a modern house/building with 
double-glazed windows more than 64% of the outside UV light doesn't even make it 
indoors - even in  an interior with many windows.  (He actually said 80%, ie 2 x 40%, but I 
assume the relevant maths is multiplicative rather than additive.)

He rated the UV filtering of Denglass Water White, for example, at 40%.  Schott Miroguard 
Plus he rated at 84%.  (Apparently Denglass is a Schott product made under license.)  In 
the context of interior exhibited prints we chatted about what was more important, UV 
filtering or the clarity and light transmission of the print glazing.  He was very much in 
favour of the latter - poor quality glazing (even if UV) can dull (by blocking too much light) 
and colour shift prints.

For UK listeners, Glass & Mirror will supply cut-to-size WW Denglass at £75/m2+Vat and 
Schott Miroguard Plus at £99/m2+Vat.  For a 16x20 print with a good border that's 
roughly £38 and £50, respectively.  Not cheap but the very best materials and a lot 
cheaper than what a frame shop will charge - likely only half as much.  I find it much 
cheaper to do my own framing, sourcing pre-cut mats and boards from the US (a bit 
cheaper than I can buy uncut boards here), chop to size moulding from Ashworth & 
Thompson, and, if desired, glazing from the above.  Assembly is easy with some basic 
equipment.  The above works out considerably cheaper and uses better materials than a 
frame shop in London.

>...
> Ordinary glass will apparently filter approximately 40-45% of UV light.
>...

And that may understate the actual difference between indoor and outdoor
display in terms of fading.  My understanding is that glass is opaque to the
shorter UV wavelengths, and those are the most damaging.  Acrylic apparently
blocks even further up the wavelength scale (and is more colorless than at
least cheap glass).

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Steve,

Can I have contact details for Glass & Mirror please? A google UK search did
not identify them.

Thanks,

John T

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Kale
Sent: 01 April 2006 11:43
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Interesting comment re UV filtering

I was chatting with a UK glass supplier yesterday about glazing for some
prints.  He made 
a comment that I thought was interesting with respect to UV filtering.
Ordinary glass will 
apparently filter approximately 40-45% of UV light.  So in a modern
house/building with 
double-glazed windows more than 64% of the outside UV light doesn't even
make it 
indoors - even in  an interior with many windows.  (He actually said 80%, ie
2 x 40%, but I 
assume the relevant maths is multiplicative rather than additive.)

He rated the UV filtering of Denglass Water White, for example, at 40%.
Schott Miroguard 
Plus he rated at 84%.  (Apparently Denglass is a Schott product made under
license.)  In 
the context of interior exhibited prints we chatted about what was more
important, UV 
filtering or the clarity and light transmission of the print glazing.  He
was very much in 
favour of the latter - poor quality glazing (even if UV) can dull (by
blocking too much light) 
and colour shift prints.

For UK listeners, Glass & Mirror will supply cut-to-size WW Denglass at
£75/m2+Vat and 
Schott Miroguard Plus at £99/m2+Vat.  For a 16x20 print with a good border
that's 
roughly £38 and £50, respectively.  Not cheap but the very best materials
and a lot 
cheaper than what a frame shop will charge - likely only half as much.  I
find it much 
cheaper to do my own framing, sourcing pre-cut mats and boards from the US
(a bit 
cheaper than I can buy uncut boards here), chop to size moulding from
Ashworth & 
Thompson, and, if desired, glazing from the above.  Assembly is easy with
some basic 
equipment.  The above works out considerably cheaper and uses better
materials than a 
frame shop in London.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND
“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 31/03/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 31/03/2006

Here you go:

http://www.glass-mirror.co.uk/profile.html

> From: John Tunley <john.tunley@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 17:17:55 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Interesting comment re UV filtering
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Can I have contact details for Glass & Mirror please? A google UK search did
> not identify them.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John T

If you get the chance take a look at the Denglass stuff.  Quite amazing.

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 07:59:05 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Interesting comment re UV filtering
> 
>> ...
>> Ordinary glass will apparently filter approximately 40-45% of UV light.
>> ...
> 
> And that may understate the actual difference between indoor and outdoor
> display in terms of fading.  My understanding is that glass is opaque to the
> shorter UV wavelengths, and those are the most damaging.  Acrylic apparently
> blocks even further up the wavelength scale (and is more colorless than at
> least cheap glass).
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

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.

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.

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 ;-)

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).

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.

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.

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.
--
Bruce Watson


Steve Kale wrote:

> I was chatting with a UK glass supplier yesterday about glazing for 
> some prints.  He made a comment that I thought was interesting with 
> respect to UV filtering.  Ordinary glass will apparently filter 
> approximately 40-45% of UV light.  So in a modern house/building with 
> double-glazed windows more than 64% of the outside UV light doesn't 
> even make it indoors - even in  an interior with many windows.  (He 
> actually said 80%, ie 2 x 40%, but I assume the relevant maths is 
> multiplicative rather than additive.)
>
> He rated the UV filtering of Denglass Water White, for example, at 
> 40%.  Schott Miroguard Plus he rated at 84%.  (Apparently Denglass is 
> a Schott product made under license.)  In the context of interior 
> exhibited prints we chatted about what was more important, UV 
> filtering or the clarity and light transmission of the print glazing.  
> He was very much in favour of the latter - poor quality glazing (even 
> if UV) can dull (by blocking too much light) and colour shift prints.

Paul Roark wrote:
>> ...
>> Ordinary glass will apparently filter approximately 40-45% of UV light.
>> ...
> 
> And that may understate the actual difference between indoor and outdoor
> display in terms of fading.  My understanding is that glass is opaque to the
> shorter UV wavelengths, and those are the most damaging.  Acrylic apparently
> blocks even further up the wavelength scale (and is more colorless than at
> least cheap glass).
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 

350 Nm is roughly were UV light is cut off by normal window 
glass so a small portion goes through. In the past there have 
been numbers mentioned like 15% for its contribution to light 
fading indoors, nothing higher.

And it is correct that better UV blocking will influence the 
color of the prints as well, especially when some fluorescence 
in ink and paper plays a role in the original color control of 
the print.

Ernst

-- 

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

> 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

Hi Steve-

Which tungsten bulbs are 5300K (or close)?

Thanks, Bill

On 4/1/06, Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> >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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As noted below I'm only aware of MR16 halogen options as that is what I use.

> From: Bill Morse <Bill.Morse@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:31:42 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Interesting comment re UV filtering
> 
> Hi Steve-
> 
> Which tungsten bulbs are 5300K (or close)?
> 
> Thanks, Bill
> 
> On 4/1/06, Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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

Steve Kale wrote:

> 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

I'm not using low voltage tracks unfortunately. I put the tracks in when 
LV transformers still buzzed like bees in spring and MR-16s weren't as 
good as PAR30s. Times change.

What bulbs do you have that do 5300K? I've got some Solux bulbs in one 
track that started out at 4700K (if I had 12VDC which I probably 
didn't), and have yellowed noticably in the last year (there's three of 
them side by side - they used to be the same color but now are three 
very different colors).

So, what's considered good for display lighting these days???
--
Bruce Watson

I have a German brand called Whitestar UV-P:  5300K.  BLV Licht und
Vakuumtechnik Gmbh seems to be the manufacturer.

> From: <hogarth@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:51:04 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] display lighting [was: Interesting comment re UV
> filtering]
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
> I'm not using low voltage tracks unfortunately. I put the tracks in when
> LV transformers still buzzed like bees in spring and MR-16s weren't as
> good as PAR30s. Times change.
> 
> What bulbs do you have that do 5300K? I've got some Solux bulbs in one
> track that started out at 4700K (if I had 12VDC which I probably
> didn't), and have yellowed noticably in the last year (there's three of
> them side by side - they used to be the same color but now are three
> very different colors).
> 
> So, what's considered good for display lighting these days???
> --
> Bruce Watson

> Just an observation:  My prints look better behind glass, in a way  
> that seems apart from the glossiness the glass imparts.  They also  
> look their richest in lower light, such as late evening.  Some have  
> suggested I display them with no light at all :  )

James

>
> 350 Nm is roughly were UV light is cut off by normal window
> glass so a small portion goes through. In the past there have
> been numbers mentioned like 15% for its contribution to light
> fading indoors, nothing higher.
>
> And it is correct that better UV blocking will influence the
> color of the prints as well, especially when some fluorescence
> in ink and paper plays a role in the original color control of
> the print.
>
> Ernst

Hello all. Per discussions on UV and display lighting etc, I would be
interested in hearing what others are using in the way of ambient
lighting in their work areas. Not as regards print comparisons but
rather what general lighting is used when making spectro and
colorimetric measurements. Also I would be interested in others
experiences with the surround lighting impacting on OBA content papers
during measurement sessions.
Thanks

Regards
Duane