Art Glass?

Create a Post
Cliff Wilson said:
Um, no, not correct. It's a filter. So what ever you block is not "getting there" to do damage. The less you block, the more damage. So, blocking more does mean more protection. How much and what the effective improvement will be is HIGHLY depended on ambiant conditions and the art itself. But, more filtering is more. m It's not an all or nothing thing.
Click to expand...

I get that, but in conservation standards anything below 99% would be considered 0% because it would harm the artwork faster... any and all light hurts anything.

So one company can say anothers standards of measuring are not completely accurate but because they aren't the head cheese we just don't listen. and another says theirs is the best and we all listen. 99% protection to me is sticking it behind a curtain. otherwise how can we see the art if its really even 90% or higher protection?

chemicals, but im just a lay person trying to get this in his head his way... :)
 
Puppiesonacid said:
I get that, but in conservation standards anything below 99% would be considered 0% because it would harm the artwork faster... any and all light hurts anything.

So one company can say anothers standards of measuring are not completely accurate but because they aren't the head cheese we just don't listen. and another says theirs is the best and we all listen. 99% protection to me is sticking it behind a curtain. otherwise how can we see the art if its really even 90% or higher protection?

chemicals, but im just a lay person trying to get this in his head his way... :)
Click to expand...

Umm, sorry, but I didn't understand.

In my mind it equates sorta like football padding.
If you have none, it hurts a lot.
If you have a little, it hurts a little less.

The more you have, the less it hurts.

But, if you have too much, you can't move, so you can't play football.

You probably want as much as you can and still accomplish the job you have to do.

So, Quarterbacks have less padding than running backs and running backs have less padding than lineman.

With premium glass that viewing the image is paramount, you probably want as much protection as you can get and still achieve maximum viewing. At least, that's the way I think of it.
 
Why 97% - how was that figure reached and if that figure was not yet possible in single layered glass would it still be the same figure?

It could still be achieved, but only with laminated glass and some acrylics.
 
I guess I want to know about the tests used to figure the percentages out.

Maybe I am going the long way about it to get there.

I understand reg glass is like 45%, AR is like 72%, ART is 92%, Con clear, Con reflective and Museum are 97-99% depending which flyers you read about it.

the higher the number the better, but do they all use the same tests to be tested in order to get those % numbers?
 
RoboFramer said:
Why 97% - how was that figure reached and if that figure was not yet possible in single layered glass would it still be the same figure?

It could still be achieved, but only with laminated glass and some acrylics.
Click to expand...

Im going with 97% and above because on different things ive read the numbers have changed a little. I guess ill just say 99%... and be done :)
 
I guess what i am saying is TRU VUE could either help themselves a LOT by testing other companies glass, and have other companies test their glass to figure out if it matches up.

The downside is if they find the other glass to be just as good or better...
 
Just a monkey wrench here

Dare I say, if we or our customers are really looking for MAXIMUM protection for artwork, that we should NOT even be considering glass and we should move right on over to acrylic?

Like you all, we get a fair amount of repair jobs where the glass has broken and often has damaged the artwork. Damage from UV light and general aging is dependent on many variables, but one scratch on a Sally Mann photo and its value plummets. It is less a matter of degree than gradual aging.

When we frame a piece of REAL value, we always use UV acrylic, sometimes AR sometimes not.

With that in mind, one could even argue that even clear acrylic provides more protection than UV glass.

edie the uhohoptium goddess
 
Puppiesonacid said:
I guess what i am saying is TRU VUE could either help themselves a LOT by testing other companies glass, and have other companies test their glass to figure out if it matches up.

The downside is if they find the other glass to be just as good or better...
Click to expand...

.... and I guess what I'm saying is that those that say below 97% is not conservation/preservation standard are saying 'use Tru Vue'.

Those that give that figure, from what I've read are either American or have some sort of affiliation with Tru Vue .... which is American.

As far as I'm concerned 92% is conservation standard, and so is 90%.... unless someone can tell me why it's not, other than higher is better - Duh!
 
Cliff Wilson said:
In my mind it equates sorta like football padding.
If you have none, it hurts a lot.
If you have a little, it hurts a little less.

The more you have, the less it hurts.

But, if you have too much, you can't move, so you can't play football.

You probably want as much as you can and still accomplish the job you have to do.
Click to expand...

One of the best ever analogies I've ever seen, way to go Cliff.
 
Puppiesonacid said:
I guess what i am saying is TRU VUE could either help themselves a LOT by testing other companies glass, and have other companies test their glass to figure out if it matches up.

The downside is if they find the other glass to be just as good or better...
Click to expand...

Just as it's a safe bet that Ford tests Chevys and Coke tests Pepsi, you can bet our industry's glass converters test one another's products. So, I guess if any of them published inaccurate or misleading information, there would be some consequences. There's no reason to doubt any glass supplier's published information.

The testing procedures are similar, and the published results are comparable. The scientific factors of light transmission, reflectivity, UV blocking, etc. are what they are. It isn't like wavelengths of UV radiation and light are different in Europe than in the USA or in Asia or in Australia.
 
RoboFramer said:
.... and I guess what I'm saying is that those that say below 97% is not conservation/preservation standard are saying 'use Tru Vue'.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would make sense for Americans to think that way, since Tru Vue dominates the market here, but aren't other brands more popular in your market? What about Schott Amiran TN/Mirogard Protect? Luxar? ArtGlass Protect? All of those block more than 97% of UV radiation.

Those that say "below 97% is not conservation/preservation standard" are not necessarily saying "use Tru Vue". They're saying a standard has been established and is recognized by conservators, museums, and other art-preservation professionals. Tru Vue is only one of several choices.

The 97% UV filtering standard for preservation framing comes from the Image Permanence Institute (IPI) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Both of these institutions are reputable and known for accurate, reliable information on a wide variety of subjects.

Since the UV filtering standard for preserving artworks directly affects the future of priceless artworks as well as $5 prints, we can probably say with some certainty that both organizations would review the tests of all major suppliers of the products they test, and would give careful consideration to their recommendations. It would be lunacy to suggest that the recommendations of either IPI or ISO could be influenced by one supplier of framing glass.

As far as I'm concerned 92% is conservation standard, and so is 90%.... unless someone can tell me why it's not, other than higher is better - Duh!
Click to expand...

As a picture framer, you are free to claim whatever standards you wish, and it is useful to recognize that the whole matter of UV blocking revolves around the "higher is better-Duh!" concept.
 
Jim Miller said:
but aren't other brands more popular in your market? What about Schott Amiran TN/Mirogard Protect? Luxar? ArtGlass Protect? All of those block more than 97% of UV radiation.
Click to expand...

In single layer glass?
 
jpaul,

Saw the Artglass today. I was very pleased with it. It handles a LOT easier. Couldn't scratch it with a blade. Put fingerprints on it and washed them right off with Sprayway. There wasn't any of those shiny spots you get if you look at museum at the right angle.

The museum made a slight change in the color of artwork, not so with the artglass.

The price wasn't as great as I had hoped though.

I still don't know what the difference between 92 and 99 % is.

If anyone says "7%" I'll find and beat you.

People sell varying degrees of acid free / archival matboard. After a certain degree you still tend to call it all archival. I see this as much the same.

Still pondering everything over.
 
RoboFramer said:
In single layer glass?
Click to expand...

The art doesn't care if the glass is single layer or laminated, does it? In fact, the laminated glass products are generally better than single layer glass. Considering that several brands meet the preservation standard, why not include them in the discussion? Of course they are more expensive. Is price the only reason to use something less?

When preservation is required in the framing, take your choice among the preservation-rated products. When low price is the priority, select among the non-preservation glazing products. And in that case, why not use one of the several anti-reflection products that filters less than 80% of UV?
 
johnny said:
People sell varying degrees of acid free / archival matboard. After a certain degree you still tend to call it all archival. I see this as much the same.
Click to expand...

Terms like archival, acid free, conservation, museum-grade, and preservation seem to take whatever definitions suit the framer using them. It's too bad framers can't agree on clear, concise definitions for such popular terms. With clear definitions, framers would be more confident and consumers would be less confused.
 
Jim Miller said:
Terms like archival, acid free, conservation, museum-grade, and preservation seem to take whatever definitions suit the framer using them. It's too bad framers can't agree on clear, concise definitions for such popular terms. With clear definitions, framers would be more confident and consumers would be less confused.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more!!!
 
Jim Miller said:
The art doesn't care if the glass is single layer or laminated, does it? In fact, the laminated glass products are generally better than single layer glass. Considering that several brands meet the preservation standard, why not include them in the discussion? Of course they are more expensive. Is price the only reason to use something less?

When preservation is required in the framing, take your choice among the preservation-rated products. When low price is the priority, select among the non-preservation glazing products. And in that case, why not use one of the several anti-reflection products that filters less than 80% of UV?
Click to expand...

Come on Jim,

Now you're asking why we're not comparing Ferraris to Camrys.

There are products that are aimed at a particular "market segment" that have slight variations in color, price, and protection. It makes sense to compare them.

And, I agree, terminology is problematic in any of these discussions. Since there are opinions and practical matters that enter into any decision like this I doubt there could be final agreement on most things.
 
Cliff Wilson said:
Come on Jim,

Now you're asking why we're not comparing Ferraris to Camrys.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying we shouldn't do that. If speed is your need, compare Ferrari with similar exotic cars. But if a family car is your priority, never mind the Ferrari and consider the cars similar to the Camry.
 
Jim Miller said:
No, I'm saying we shouldn't do that. If speed is your need, compare Ferrari with similar exotic cars. But if a family car is your priority, never mind the Ferrari and consider the cars similar to the Camry.
Click to expand...

<sigh> wish we were sitting across a table. It's so easy to get things messed up trying to interpret a couple of sentences.

Reread you post and see why you responded that way. I was referring to trying to bring laminated glass into the discussion (Ferrari) compared to the Optically coated UV protection (Camry). I guess the introduction of non-filtered glass would be comparing Corollas to Camrys. <sigh> shouldn't have introduced the analogy. I think Ultra-Vue, and Artglass (non-UV filter) are aimed at the same market segment. Artglass UV and Museum are aimed at the same Market Segment.

Robo, Denglass and Guardian used to offer a 99% UV filtered single layered product, but I know of none other than TV on the market at this time. (US market anyway?)
 
Jim Miller said:
As far as I know, you're right about that. Why do you suppose no other suppliers make a comparable glass product?
Click to expand...

Well, do we want to talk rumored backroom deals or just the fact that the picture framing industry is so #### small?
 
Jim Miller said:
Terms like archival, acid free, conservation, museum-grade, and preservation seem to take whatever definitions suit the framer using them. It's too bad framers can't agree on clear, concise definitions for such popular terms. With clear definitions, framers would be more confident and consumers would be less confused.
Click to expand...

The confusion comes from the manufacturers. Looking at matboard again, the backs of the samples all allude to conservation or being acid free in one way or another, and there are sure differences. Even the acidic ones only say "neutral buffered." That's not a framer's fault.

Glass is sold as 99% and 92%. How better is the 99%? Exactly what does that difference get you? I doubt you would need 1 hand to count the number of framers that have a firm grasp on that. Framers are confused, not the reason for the confusion.

If the UV glass blocks 99% of 40% of light and the 92% blocks 92 of that 40% then the difference is not as big as 92 vs 99 of all light. I don't know how much of a difference there is. And I have to know before I start selling multiple products.

So if the difference is not that great then the way the Artglass shows a truer image than Museum is important. And I'm amazed you didn't point this out to Cliff or maybe you did and I missed it, but if the 92% vs. 99% difference is meaningful then the truer colors he values have no meaning because the artwork will fade much faster making those colors change anyway.

Which is it, I have no clue. My spidey-senses tell me I'm being baffled with bs, one way or the other. One side has the truth on their side and one side has people being confused on their side and neither side is any good at making things clear and simple.
 
johnny said:
So if the difference is not that great then the way the Artglass shows a truer image than Museum is important. And I'm amazed you didn't point this out to Cliff or maybe you did and I missed it, but if the 92% vs. 99% difference is meaningful then the truer colors he values have no meaning because the artwork will fade much faster making those colors change anyway.
Click to expand...

You essentially missed this discussion on another thread.

I'll summarize: (from my perspective)

Artglass UV and Museum are targeted at the same market segment.
They vary in Color, Price, Protection, and easy of handling.

The amount they vary will vary with the artwork, the deal each framer has established with their distributor, and each person's ability to recognize and interpret the difference.

It isn't truly quantifiable, and we each will 1) perceive the differences to a different degree and 2) value the differences to a different degree.

Edit: most of the discussion is about how we each value each of the differences and our experiences in perceiving the differences
 
Jim Miller said:
Why do you suppose no other suppliers make a comparable glass product?
Click to expand...

I've no idea, maybe because thay'd just be copying Tru Vue with the rippled and fragile single-sided coating and want to offer something not rippled that is tougher and can be cut either side and also with practically no colour shift ..... but the downside is that they can't hit the same % protection - yet, maybe.

But now I've finally got a straight answer to a straight question, can I push the other straight question - why 97%? Not who says 97%, but why. If I could understand why then I'd be happy to say to customers that I sell artglass or flabeg (water white 90% UV) to, that their artwork, whilst being mounted and matted to the highest standards possible, and whilst being protected by a very high level of UV protection, are not actually fully 'conservation' framed.

As I do not understand why, then I'm happy that they actually do have conservation framing, just not at its highest level - if there was only one level then every component including the glass could be no different from job to job, but the reality is that there are many levels within 'conservation framing'
 
RoboFramer said:
I've no idea, maybe because they'd just be copying Tru Vue with the rippled and fragile single-sided coating and want to offer something not rippled that is tougher and can be cut either side ..... but the downside is that they can't hit the same % protection - yet, maybe.

But now I've finally got a straight answer to a straight question, can I push the other straight question - why 97%? Not who says 97%, but why.
Click to expand...

Robo, back a few years (7ish?) when most of these "standards" were written, there were 2 or three products available. TruVue claimed 97% filtering (sprayed), Denglass claimed 99% filtering (dipped hard coated both sides), Guardian claimed 99% (rolled - I could be misremembering the technique.) Each had a different technique and claimed a different level of filtering. Some time later TruVue began claiming 99%. At the time some people believed they changed their process, but most believed they just changed the way they tested.

So, in a past life I sat on standards committees. The first thing they do is find everything that isn't controversial. If they're sitting around a table and someone says the least UV filtering available is 97% is that enough? No one objects, so that's in the standard.

The key thing I would say is there are different standards for different purposes. The ones Jim sights are primarily purchasing standards. IMO, their main purpose and their design is intended to make it easy and safe for a purchasing agent or procurement agent to buy things and probably get what was desired even though they know nothing about it.

IMO, they are pretty useless to us unless you are responding to a RFP that lists them. Then, it's easy, just give them that.

Fortunately or unfortunately, we have the ability and need to think. The ability to offer the best product given all of the factors, and (hopefully) the intellegence to make reasonable recommendations. That's what our customers expect of us.
 
Cliff Wilson said:
TruVue claimed 97% filtering (sprayed), Denglass claimed 99% filtering (dipped hard coated both sides), Guardian claimed 99% (rolled - I could be misremembering the technique.)
Click to expand...

Swap TV CC and Guardian Inspiration UV coating methods around, TV is rolled, while Guarian Inspiration UV was sprayed.

(Guardian product had blue plastic protective film or, in some markets, not.

That is why TVCC has the ripple effect, sometimes almost indiscernible, other times like an ocean.
Guardian had a slight rainbow effect sometimes, especially at the edges.

It seems nothing is perfect.

Denglas UV was not a straight clear cons glass, but optically coated low reflection.
They may have made other glasses prior to that, but I believe opticals were Denton Tech's forte.
 
realhotglass said:
Swap TV CC and Guardian Inspiration UV coating methods around, TV is rolled, while Guarian Inspiration UV was sprayed.

(Guardian product had blue plastic protective film or, in some markets, not.

That is why TVCC has the ripple effect, sometimes almost indiscernible, other times like an ocean.
Guardian had a slight rainbow effect sometimes, especially at the edges.

It seems nothing is perfect.

Denglas UV was not a straight clear cons glass, but optically coated low reflection.
They may have made other glasses prior to that, but I believe opticals were Denton Tech's forte.
Click to expand...

Thank you, yes, I remeber many discussions on this board about the different visual artifacts and which was was least intrusive.

Remember back then - Crescent was distributing Guardian, adn TruVue had mats.

Denglas was best known for their water white and low-reflection, but toward the end, they had a "regular UV coated" glass with 99% filter that was phenomenal! The Best.
I still have some. It sold usually for 10% - 30% more $ than TV, but was somtimes availabel at the same price. I used to stock up when they'd have one of those sales!
 
Labels

Would be nice if ArtGlass provided labels. Less might buy more.
 
I had a very nice talk with Tru Vue today about quality and conservation. The gentleman did confidently state that the rating went from 97 to 99% because of developments in the product and not from any changes to how the test is taken.

I still don't know how good 92% is or isn't. If it's a measurable difference then the Artglass UV is rather limited in its usefulness isn't it?

So the jury is still out on that as far as my own purposes go. But I am convinced that Tru Vue is a more protective product, even though I don't know how to measure how much, and that they are working to address my quality concerns.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top