No Glass in Frames - Am I Insane? (Abel don't answer that!)

[mattchase]

I have recently opened my own gallery and have been debating doing something that would probably be considered unusual by most. I've been thinking about not using glass in any of my framed pieces.

Ok, here's the why. I have a number of odd sized photos (panoramas) that would require custom cut glass, which I'm not sure I can get locally. I also like large prints (again mainly the panos...one is 12x55, another 12x44) that I am afraid to ask how much that piece of glass might cost. Plus with these larger sizes I am concerned about the chance of the glass breaking, though I realize I could get a thicker / tempered glass, but that not only would add to the cost but also add to the weight, which is another concern I already have with the larger photos. And there is always the dust issue, I put everything together myself (partially to save a few bucks, partially because I sign and number everything) and I don't have a clean room, so dust can be annoying. Finally there is the issue of glare, I have added track lighting so that I can leave the overhead fluourescent fixtures off, but still have some glare issues. With enough money for different lighting and effort in locating that lighting most glare could probably be overcome, but that isn't realistic right now.

I have used plex in some frames in the past and I don't like it. Yes it is lighter, less prone to breakage, and easier to cut to custom sizes, but it scratches too easy and is a dust magnet nightmare. And there is still glare.

Right now I only have a few framed pieces without glass in them and I think they look fine. But then I'm biased due to the reasons listed above. I am interested to hear your opinions on this. Glass in a frame is traditionally expected, but is it really a dealbreaker? If everything was without glass, do you think it would even be noticed by most people or perhaps remain overlooked? Would you consider a matted, framed peice that didn't have glass to be "unfinished"?

Thanks,

Matt

[SecretAgent]

without glass, UV glass specifically, there is nothing there to prevent the photo from yellowing over time. a photo will yellow suprisingly quickly when exposed to air and UV light 8hrs a day with no protection.

[brad]

I don't put glass over mounted and coated prints from Miller's.... but I would never do that to a plain print... for the reasons Donnell mentions.

[mattchase]

I had considered the UV protection provided by UV glass, but wasn't planning on spending the extra money on it, so the protection with standard glass would be minimal. Most of my prints are done using Ultrachrome pigment inks (Epson R2400) on Epson Velvet Rag, Harman Glossy FB AL Fiber Paper, or Somerset Velvet papers. Aren't pigment inks more fade resistant compared to traditional photographs? I realize in the permenance tests they still recommend putting prints under glass for the best protection from contaminants.

Brad, what do you use to coat your prints? I have had some experience with spray coatings and wasn't happy with them, but that was many years ago. I also don't want something that is going to take away from the specific look of a print (such as the Velvet Rag), so lamination is not an option.

[J Eddington]

Canvas if you are not going to put them behind glass.

[brad]

Originally Posted by mattchase

Brad, what do you use to coat your prints? I have had some experience with spray coatings and wasn't happy with them, but that was many years ago. I also don't want something that is going to take away from the specific look of a print (such as the Velvet Rag), so lamination is not an option.

I let Miller's Lab do it.