The photographer already put UV Coating on this....

DTWDSM

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Posts
2,824
Loc
USA
We have all heard this from a customer before, "i don't need Conservation Glass on this because the photographer put a UV coating on the photo already"

My question, does anyone know what the filtration rate is on this coating? CC Glass filters out 96-97%, does this coating compare? Should we put glass on these photos anyway???
 
Tim,
Most of those photo coats are 80% in the 200-500 range.

I always wondered that if the photog coats at 80% and you put ConClear at 97%.... does the photo disappear between 200 & 500? :D
 
I work with a photographer who says the same thing. I asked him what the percentage of protection was once. His answer..."long enough, should last a life time".
Well my decission was to continue to recommend the glass and tell the customer that it is alot cheaper to upgrade the glass then it is to replace the print. Wedding photo etc. I leave the decission to the customer. Maybe someone here will actually know the percentage, although I bet there are so many suppliers of laminates that it will be hard to say they have all the same protection levels.
 
It seems that I studied up on using glazing when framing these portraits a few years ago, and spoke with a leading photographer about his finishes, and there is some question about outgassing of the finish. We don't generally recommend glazing.
 
One of the problems I have with spray-on UV protection is that I believe that any protection afforded is somewhat dependent on the thickness of the coating.

Since it is difficult/impossible to accurately control the thickness, the UV protection might not only vary from one photo to the next but you could have differential filtering (=differential fading) on various parts of a single photo.

Still, if the customer prefers the look of no glass, that's what they get.
 
We used to have our prints sprayed but not anymore. Ron's right, protection does vary with the thickness. Lacquer, however, doesn't provide any protection against physical damage and it also doesn't keep dust and fingerprints off the print. It is much easier to clean glass than to clean a photo. You risk scratching the lacquer if you clean it. Besides, most of the prints we had made for display that had lacquer put on them are starting to yellow after only a few years.
 
As the photo industry has been changing, so has the "photograph"

Several photographers are now printing their own photographs on "inkjet" printers (Epson - Canon) that claim to outlast conventional chemically (RA4) processed photos. The ones that are spraying their prints are, like Ron said, depends on the amount of coverage. More & more photographers are now using lamination w/ UV inhibitors.

We still recommend CC or CCNG for photographs regardless as to what they have been printed on.
 
A lot of photographers offer "Matte" or "Clear" spray on their photographs as an "upgrade" The regular print is $XX whereas the "DeLuxe print" is only a little bit more.

I liken this as the "Carnuba Wax" of the photo industry :D
 
Mike, Anne and Ron,

Since all three of you have some serious photographic backgrounds, please tell me how color shifting has changed in the past 15 years?

I believe that the old rule of thumb was that Kodak predicted colors were stable for 75 years...where are we today?

Regardless, this may make UV fading a mute issue.

John
 
Originally posted by John Ranes II, CPF, GCF:
I believe that the old rule of thumb was that Kodak predicted colors were stable for 75 years...where are we today?
Today we forget those claims and settle for Epson's (okay, and a wealth of others, including Kodak's) claims, time testing only proves things wrong, lets just keep relying on labs with nitrogen chambers etc.
 
Back
Top