E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

A 24 x 30- sheet pg 1/8" Plexiglas is not terribly expensive. Lexan- which is virtually unbreakable is more costly.

If the print is flush mounted on hard board, which is self-supporting, so it will not fall out of the frame, buy a can of protective lacquer that is formulated for photographs. It is made by McDonald's products (not the burger joint) under the trade name of Sureguard. It comes in aerosol cans in Matte, Luster and High Gloss finishes. A few ligtt coats will protect the print against some UV and moisture. It won't protect against vandalism or impact.

For display in a public place- Plexiglas is still your best bet.

I lived in Brooklyn, many years ago. We had an old brownstone house that had French doors leading to the hallway. They were painted over so it was hard to tell that the were glass. The fire inspector came in and we had to either replace the doors with solid ones or replace the glass with shatterproof wire glass. Seems, at least at the time, the FDNY did not like glass in public hallways. French door were only allowed between the rooms in the apartments. My folkss were not please, it was an expensive renovation.

Bipod

Did the inspector cite a code? I've heard about some pretty bad abuses by NYC building inspectors--
I have no idea if the stories are true.

You could check it yourself:
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/buildings/codes/nyc-code.page

In any case, tempered glass is different than plain glass.

Barketh

There is a film that can be applied to glass to make it virtually unbreakable. It is used for security on home windows and doors. I wonder if that would be a possibility. You can also buy "used" glass cut by a glazier which would lower the cost thus offsetting the additional cost of using the film.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I have displayed in NYC. Never had a problem with glass. Must be a local building thing. If this was true the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum is in BIG trouble.

billt1970 Loc: Gambrills, Maryland

FWIW, Chapter 08 of the NYC Fire Code is found here:

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/fdny/pdfviewer/viewer.html?file=Chapter-08.pdf&section=firecode_2014

The word "glass" does not appear in that chapter. Section 805 addresses "Decorations and Scenery." I couldn't find anything relevant there.

While I live in Maryland, one of my Sons lives in Manhattan and is also a photographer and he may be interested in a definitive answer here.

Notwithstanding this Fire Marshall's assertions, the search for substantiation of the "no glass in frames in public areas" continues.

Best Regards,

Bill Taylor
Gambrills, MD

sidpearce

I have used a normal mounting board for all print exhibitions and a non flamable print protecting spray

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

The only references to glass in the NYC fire code that I could find have to do with when it is one of the acceptable materials, usually for signage. No reference to it being an unacceptable materiel or a hazard. Is there a chance someone on the co-op board pissed off the wrong person?

Bill_de Loc: US

Thanks Bill

--

Paulco2 Loc: Gettysburg PA

I have used the following technique when faced with a "no glass" need:

1. Print on canvas.
2. Coat with a clear spray.
3. Adhere print to backboard with appropriate glue (I used a spray adhesive).
4. Add appropriate matting.
5. Mount in frame as usual.

Admittedly, this will expose the print to a human touch in hallways but it has worked for presentation purposes.

William Royer Loc: Kansas

Just curious, have you (can you) walk through the building halls where your art will be displayed to see how other work is displayed?

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Yup....exit signs have glass..... The problem here I think is that the photos will be low enough to be bumped, knocked down and someone could get cut.....

I agree with you and Gene, it's a safety issue, not a fire code issue.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

As I understand it, any anti-glare feature diffuses the image somewhat. Depending on the material it may be barely noticeable, but in other cases i would find it unacceptable. It's about finding the right balance between the problem of reflections and the problem of diffusion. BTW, dickblick.com is a leading source for all materials related to matting and framing.They also have stores in many large cities.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I've used UV coatings successfully. It comes in both spray cans and spreadable liquid. It works nicely. The spreadable adds brushstrokes to the image that, if done properly, can be very appealing. If done improperly, it can look terrible.

It is applied directly to the photograph. So I've learned that printing a matte instead of glossy print helps. It has a bit more "tooth."

I have some that were done years ago, and there has been no yellowing of the media for any fading of the photo, even though the pictures have been hung in an area where they get direct sunlight part of the day. One caution: They make the stuff for paper and for canvas. One needs to be careful to get the right bottle!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Things like this make me happy that I left NYC almost 50 years ago. Fire Code and Building Code are two different animals. I've also know inspectors to misinterpret their respective codes. Glad I'm not fighting with them! Personally speaking, I prefer plastic to save weight. Best of luck.

Unclehoss

Quite honestly, Building Codes and Fire Codes are MUCH different and the Fire Marshal has no business commenting on Building Codes. It very well could be his misunderstanding or prejudices. I have had SEVERAL building inspectors impose additional requirements that legally they were not allowed too in my career.