I had visited my favourite framer several times, and always wondered why he had a large photo hanging there, divided into three sections. One section had ordinary glass, one had non-reflective glass, and the third section had nothing.
It took me some months to notice that there WAS glass over the third section - I don't know what it's called, but it has all the benefits of no-glass, such as being able to see the clarity of detail without itself causing reflection problems or the "muddying" effects of non-reflective glass. It is, naturally, more expensive than non-reflective. Ruth Budge (Sydney, Australia) Clay Blackwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd like to offer my two-cents on the subject of non-reflective glass. While it might reduce the glare, it definitely cuts out detail. If your lace is fine, you may have difficulty seeing it as well as you would want - particularly if you're planning to show it. Glare-free glass works very well with commercial prints and in areas where there is a lot of light from overhead lights and big windows... but if you're framing fine art (photographs, drawings, etchings, watercolors, or fine handwork), you really should use regular glass. It is better to hang these ""good" pieces (as opposed to commercial decorative stuff...) out of direct light anyway, so that glare should not be an issue. Clay ----- Original Message ----- From: "Viv Dewar" > I'd ask the framer to use non-reflective glass too. (I've never framed > lace, but that's what I used in pre-BL days for cross stitch). > It cuts out some of the glare & IMO is worth the extra cost - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://personals.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Personals New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time. - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
