Harvey wrote:
I was introduced to a "photo protecting film" that came in a roll like Siran Wrap and had a semi soft squeegee that helped seal it to the photos.Then we would mat them with different colored/styles of mats which "framed" them quite inexpensively for competition night We bought these pre-cut mats at a local frame store.
These were temporarily mounted on foam board backing.
I kept a variety of sizes, colors, shapes(oval -round-rectangle) and recycled them as needed.
Still have a roll of it.
I was introduced to a "photo protecting film&... (
show quote)
Harvey: Do you remember the name of the "protective film" or have a reference web site to look for it?
MCHUGH wrote:
The spray suggested earlier is the way to go. Years ago when I was in business I sprayed every portrait I delivered to my customers and told them it was unnecessary to put glass over them unless there was a real scratch potential. I did a large bridal portrait one time for a customer and while on display during the outdoor reception it was placed under a tree. Birds roosted in the tree and they brought it in to me with a huge white runny splotch and feared that it was destroyed. Five minutes later I had wiped it clean with no trace to be seen. One very happy customer left my studio that day. This is why I would use the spray on any print I wanted to protect. I don't remember the brand but I think it was made by Scott but there were several brands available in those days some 25 years ago.
The spray suggested earlier is the way to go. Yea... (
show quote)
I'm convinced it's worth a try - I'll probably do half of my prints this way and leave the other half un-sprayed to see how they differ. Thanks.
Mark7829 wrote:
Yes, museum glass is expensive but it is sculpted glass, treated in a special way to actually make you images even pop more from every angle. Non-reflective, UV protected glass is the next best thing - Hobby Lobby has a daily 40% off coupon. I use it just to purchase one pane of glass here and there and sometime I just go in and use it to build a little inventory.
Thanks, I'll be on the lookout for the Hobby Lobby glass sales too.
jerryc41 wrote:
Since you rotate your display, and you can always print another, try them without glass. If you don't like the way they look, you can just put the glass back in.
My thought exactly, Jerry. But I am liking the look so far (and my swiffer is always at the ready).
Thanks for the resource suggestion - but preservation of the photos isn't really a problem - I swap them out for new pics as the grandkids get older - about 2-3 times a year - I don't notice any deterioration of the prints during that little time. I will keep a can of the lacquer around though for the couple of prints I hang permanently - thanks.
Dick Z. wrote:
You have the right Idea jerrypoller. A big problem with any glass over glossy prints is a thing called "newton rings". It's caused by the inside glossy surface of the glass contacting the glossy surface of the print. Mat finished prints don't have that problem. In the future you might want to display canvas or other texture prints and be able to enjoy the texture of the print. You can, mount glass over glossy prints by sprinkling a light coat of talcum powder on the print and dusting it lightly before placing the glass over it, and eliminate newton rings, if you decide to use antiglare glass.
I hope this helps your problem.
You have the right Idea jerrypoller. A big problem... (
show quote)
I tried Mat paper a couple of times, but miss the pop of color I get with glossy paper. I had never heard of the light dusting of talcum though - I will definitely give it a try. Thanks.
Szalajj wrote:
Think dust, dirt, grease, & grime.
I work in an old converted factory building, and the sheer volume of dust & grime in my office is uncontrollable.
At home, I live just off of a commuter and shopper route, in addition to having a cat with a litter box in a one bedroom condo.
The dust and grime are just too heavy at either location to allow for glassless display of any pictures.
I think the dust is pretty well under control. Of course, I'm only a week into glassless display. But I can always just reprint the photos if they start to look too dingy.
I'm using the frames, just without the glass. And I run a small air/dust filter periodically to help keep the dust down.
I line the walls of my small home office with family candid portraits, mostly my grandchildren. I was watching a video tutorial the other day which included a segment on displaying printed photos. The expert recommended museum glass for the best, non glare results, but did caution that museum glass is very expensive.
I print on a Canon Pixma 970 dye based inkjet printer - I don't worry about the archival quality of my photos because I update them a few times a year (the grandchildren grow like weeds). I use glossy paper (currently RR Arctic Polar Gloss) to help make the colors pop. And I've always hated the glare I'd get on my photos from the various viewing angles/light sources in my office. So, I had the thought, non-glare and museum glass weren't practical - why not take the glass out of the frames altogether and just display the photos in the frames without any glass. I tried it and am quite satisfied - the colors come through dramatically, and if I don't update the photo before it gets worn/damaged, I can always just reprint it. I think I found a winning solution to my dilemma. I would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions for, perhaps, a better, cost effective way to display my work for my personal enjoyment.
RaeRae wrote:
All of them are gorgeous! I love, love the open window one!
Ditto the window picture - I find myself coming back to it time after time. It would make an excellent note card.
Dngallagher wrote:
Odd... seems I recall that when I upgraded to Yosemite, I needed a patch for IPhotos so it would work in Yosemite.... then when El Capitan came down, iPhotos was gone, replaced by Photos... so I restored iPhotos from a Time Machine backup and it has worked ever since....
In fact, if you look at apps from the app store iPhotos is still listed, at least it is for me.
Good pitch for using Time Machine to maintain about a year or 2 of backups for your Mac. ;)
I had upgraded my OS and iPhoto with each new version, albeit, not for a few weeks after each release to make sure they really worked. When I upgraded to El Capitan, I got Photos and all my iPhoto pics moved over. Today when I opened iPhoto for the first time since upgrading to El Capitan/Photos, all the original functionality still worked, and my Albums/Projects were there - but my Events had migrated to Photos - now I set up new pics in "Albums" (the replacement for iPhoto Events), and can still view my old Events pics in Photos. A little inconvenient, but it all works together.
Dngallagher wrote:
I believe it needed a patch to run under Yosemite, and is gone from El Capitan, BUT, it was still available to download and the yosemite patched version ran under El Capitan.
I find that even though I am now a Lightroom kind of guy, sometimes I go into other programs to use one tool...
After reading your post, I went into my Apps folder and found I still had iPhoto - I moved it into the dock alongside Photos, brought up a photo from my Photos library and just dragged it into iPhoto - did the edge blur and moved it back into the Photos library - it couldn't have been easier - now I have the best of both worlds.
Dngallagher wrote:
Hmmm... I have not looked at Pixelmator myself.... will put it on the todo list ;)
Thanks.
I look forward to your thoughts on it.
Dngallagher wrote:
All that being said, I still have IPhotos & Photos on my IMAC under El Capitan, both function still and I maintain them as apps "just in case" along with several other post processing applications.
.
I missed this in my first read/reply to your post - I didn't realize I still had access to iPhoto - thanks very much for pointing it out - I think it has features that are superior to Photos that I missed when I upgraded to El Capitan/Photos - especially the edge blur feature - iPhoto also had a better "enhance" feature for simple, quick PP of otherwise acceptable pics. Thanks for your info.