|
|
Post by hmca on Mar 5, 2019 2:12:40 GMT
Yesterday I participated in a photography show. I noticed that one person, a good photographer, didn't have any glass on his image. I wondered why he would do that. However, his picture could be clearly seen whereas my, mostly dark image, was hard to see due to its location on the wall and the gallery lighting reflected in the glass. Then today I received this in my mail..... From Lenswork Magazine |
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,362
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Mar 5, 2019 4:14:12 GMT
Helen Thanks for your post and video. I agree 100% and have not hung a framed print with glass for about 10 years. We buy canvas prints or put prints in frames with no glass. The prints below that appear to be matted are not...those are just borders (mats) made in PSE. The two prints below are 16 by 20 inches. First, the photo was sized to 12 by 16 inches, then a thin (maybe 6 to 10 pixels ... < 1 mm) dark edge is applied to the print using "canvas size." The canvas is then sized to 16 by 20 inches with a white border. The satin-finish prints are laminated (invisible) for minor protection and then the print is mounted on foam core. The mounted print is simply placed in the frame and hung. No glare. Lightweight. Inexpensive. Look good. I hope it's okay to post examples. Thanks again. Clive Canvas on left and two framed prints...no glass. (The old house has a light blue-tinge mat. NOPE! Use white.) 
Below is a 24 by 36-inch print with "framed" canvas on the right. Imagine the weight of the framed print if it was glassed. First, the frame would have to be heavier and then the weight of the glass. This print framed, matted and glassed would cost at least $300 in a frame shop in the city. I've got about $30 (if) in the frame and an extra $20 for the foam core and laminate.  No glass and faux mat print.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tpgettys on Mar 5, 2019 4:26:33 GMT
Yesterday I participated in a photography show. I noticed that one person, a good photographer, didn't have any glass on his image. I wondered why he would do that. However, his picture could be clearly seen whereas my, mostly dark image, was hard to see due to its location on the wall and the gallery lighting reflected in the glass. Then today I received this in my mail..... From Lenswork Magazine
Yikes! This makes total sense! Thank you SO much for sharing this Helen!
Clive, do you use a service that does the lamination and/or foam core mounting?
|
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,362
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Mar 5, 2019 5:13:03 GMT
Thanks again Helen.
Tom, a local commercial lab (nearby city) laminates and attaches the prints to foam core...it's about 5 mm thick or so. They charge extra but do a good job ... about $10 extra on an 11 by 14 print. Something like that. The convenience is well worth it. They claim the thin film laminate allows you to wipe a dusty print ... which I did once and it was fine. (If I just want a print to hang in the wall in my office, I send them to Costco. Never had a problem ... works for casual prints pinned on a wall.)
Clive
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Mar 5, 2019 11:50:10 GMT
I use full gloss paper in 90+% of my prints behind glass or clear perspex (for very, very large prints) because of its lighter weight.
I like glass because it sometimes accentuates the colours a bit, or maybe it's my eyes playing tricks on me, and because it's very easy to clean thoroughly without risking damage to the print. But yes, a glass and full gloss paper combination can be more vulnerable to being hard to see (under certain lighting conditions) so I sometimes need to consider carefully with a little trial and error to find a good position to hang a print.
I use full gloss paper because of its larger colour gamut and better handling of saturated colours compared to matte photo paper. Semi-gloss is sometimes said to be a good compromise between maintaining a largish colour gamut and print visibility. Matte paper is least vulnerable of the 3 to being hard to see but also has the smallest colour gamut.
|
|
|
|
Post by kdcintx on Mar 5, 2019 15:54:59 GMT
Thanks Helen for sharing. Also glass can be rather expensive, especially non-glare glass. Now, I'm motivated to hang more prints.  |
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Mar 5, 2019 16:17:23 GMT
I appreciate everyone's comments although I will probably need to spend more time thinking about this.......especially for a gallery show.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackmutt on Mar 6, 2019 1:00:32 GMT
Thanks Clive for the examples. I will think about this for sure in the future! Thank you Helen for the link!
|
|
