Photos in frames - does anyone go without the glass cover when displaying photos in frames?

Messages
1,024
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
I know it's pretty normal to have glass covering frames images, and in cheaper frames, horrible plexiglass stuff. Does anyone present images without the glass cover? Or is it a no-no??

I ask because recently I noticed an image that's been displayed for a while on our house and thought 'hmm, that photo looks better - I wonder if the glass has been dusted...' the colours were more saturated and there was tonnes of contrast. basically it looked way better. Turns out it had been dropped and the glass had broken. I'm surprised by how much image quality was lost through that glass. I think it's mostly glare from windows and lights etc. but we spend loads of money on lenses, cameras, PP and printing to maximise image quality and it seems weird that we then lose that with the glass we put over it.

Any thoughts?? I presume some glass is better than others... Is there any to avoid? Or just go 'naked'?
 
I leave the glass out sometimes.
You do not see many framed paintings behind glass and I always wondered why photo frames come with it.
 
I leave the glass out sometimes.
You do not see many framed paintings behind glass and I always wondered why photo frames come with it.
As a generalisation oil paintings (and other media on canvas or board) are framed without glass, works on paper such as watercolour paintings and 'inked' prints, are framed with glass for protection as they are more easily damaged. I expect photographs being works on paper are treated like other kinds of prints.
 
As a generalisation oil paintings (and other media on canvas or board) are framed without glass, works on paper such as watercolour paintings and 'inked' prints, are framed with glass for protection as they are more easily damaged. I expect photographs being works on paper are treated like other kinds of prints.
If it’s just there for protection then it seems a no-brainer to sack off the glass. It doesn’t cost much to get a photo printed...
 
I find that the glass or perspex as it often is in frames now changes the look of the photograph in so far as glare and reflections so I personally prefe to mount and view photographs framed with no glass.
 
You could try non-reflecting glass. The problem with that is that it needs to be in contact with the image for best results. However I've used it over periods of many years without ill effect. That said, I prefer normal glass or none at all.
 
You could try non-reflecting glass. The problem with that is that it needs to be in contact with the image for best results. However I've used it over periods of many years without ill effect. That said, I prefer normal glass or none at all.

Anti Reflective glass does not need to be in contact with the image for best results, the glass is coated both sides so it will control refections from both sides.
If you can afford it have it on a framed image its a no brainer... In my shop its about an even split between standard float glass and a specialist glass, (AR70, AR92, AR99 UV99 etc)
 
I've done it both ways. As a practical matter, photo paper curls. Glass will keep it pressed. If you go without glass, mount it on a mat board or something and frame that. Personally, I like glass better. Seems neater. No reason other than that.
 
Back
Top