 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / August 2005where to buy non reflective glass?
I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non reflective glass. Where do I get that? And what exactly is it? Is it just regular glass with an antireflective coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic or polycarbonate? >I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass >to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic >or polycarbonate? Glass is Glass not polycarbonate. Go see you local frame shop they can sell it to you. ****************************************************** "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ > I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass > to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non > reflective glass. Where do I get that? The glass should /not/ hold the photos flat. The photos should /not/ touch the glass. You should mount the photos with non-acidic mat board and back them with non-acidic foam core or other archival quality mounting board. Beware of framing in wood without protecting the papers from it. There's more to the process than I have time to post - it's worth spending $15 on a good book or reading up online. All this effort and expense will not mean much if you aren't printing on archival quality paper with archival quality inks. A tip - prints you get from Walmart aren't archival quality. One thing to consider - the actual archival of the digital file is more valuable than trying to achieve archival quality mounting/framing. You can always reprint the image, cut a new mat from the dimensions of the old one. Whole process probably takes 20 minutes per image every 5 years or so. You probably need to pull the frames to clean out the bugs every 2 or 3 years anyway. Now to answer your original question - you should consider getting UV protective plexi-glass. It's lighter, not very breakable, easier to work with than glass. The only down side is it can be scratched if not handled carefully. But if the plexi was going to be scratched, a glass glaze would probably break - that can scratch or otherwise damage the print. The ultimate purpose for the glaze is to protect the print and IMO plexi does a better job than glass. Michaels has most supplies you'll ever need to get started and their staff is quite helpful. http://www.michaels.com/art/online/home BTW, a book I recommend on framing/matting/archiving: "Picture Perfect Framing" by Katie DuMont http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579901654/qid=1125081497/sr=8-1/r ef=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-5412086-9550522?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 or http://tinyurl.com/7mj9h Good luck and have fun! :)  SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > The glass should /not/ hold the photos flat. The photos should /not/ touch > the glass. You should mount the photos with non-acidic mat board and back > them with non-acidic foam core or other archival quality mounting board. Are we talking about the same thing? By "archiving" I meant that I was using my digital camera as a scanner to convert previously printed photos into digital files. > > The glass should /not/ hold the photos flat. The photos should /not/ touch > > the glass. You should mount the photos with non-acidic mat board and back [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > using my digital camera as a scanner to convert previously printed > photos into digital files. Doh! Not at all. My bad. :) SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > Doh! Not at all. My bad. :) Well, apparently "archive" has a meaning that I was not aware of. I should have been more specific in the original post. :) > > Doh! Not at all. My bad. :) > > Well, apparently "archive" has a meaning that I was not aware of. I > should have been more specific in the original post. :) I thought you were going to make archival quality prints and mount/frame them according to Library of Congress standards. :) SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > > The glass should /not/ hold the photos flat. The photos should /not/ touch > > the glass. You should mount the photos with non-acidic mat board and back [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > using my digital camera as a scanner to convert previously printed > photos into digital files. Oh, what you were saying is so silly I didn't get it. Listen man, don't bother. You are not archiving the photograph, you are copying it. Big difference. The images will look crappy if you are looking for any type of quality. The photographs will be more valuable, so get a firebox and stick them in there. I think that is safer then putting them on a computer anyway. I have a photograph of my great grandmother in 1907 holding a pig under her arm. Do you think a hard drive or a CD will last that long? Hmmmm, no. Let us know what equipment you are using and how you are going to light it. Ya know, the whole process. > Let us know what equipment you are using and how you are going to light > it. Ya know, the whole process. I was surfing around the web for methods to digitally archive my old photos and documents. I tried my scanner, but it is way too slow. I don't have the room for a copy stand or any kind of elaborate setup. I'm just taking pictures of them on a table that is in a well lit room with a window. I need something to flatten the photos/documents. I haven't tried glass yet, but I was assuming that I'm going to need the non reflective kind since I don't have the ideal lighting environment. > I have a photograph of my great > grandmother in 1907 holding a pig under her arm. Do you think a hard > drive or a CD will last that long? My solution for long-term digital archive is to use HD with a backup plan. Of course one HD probably won't last over a decade, but when it fails, you simply buy a new HD and restore the data. > I was surfing around the web for methods to digitally archive my old > photos and documents. I tried my scanner, but it is way too slow. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > haven't tried glass yet, but I was assuming that I'm going to need the > non reflective kind since I don't have the ideal lighting environment. FWIW, I think storing on DVD or CD is a good idea. But IMO photographing the photos isn't the way to go - archival photography uses special lenses to avoid distortion. If scanning is too slow, and you're looking at going to all this trouble to buy glass to photograph them - why not save yourself the time and just go to a pro lab and have them scan and preserve them - that's what I'd do. No, no.. what I'd do is scratch my head and say "damn, I should have archived those irreplaceable prints before the hurricane blew the roof off the condo." :) SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > FWIW, I think storing on DVD or CD is a good idea. Careful about that. http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq07.html#S7-5 http://www.melbpc.org.au/pcupdate/2106/2106article14.htm http://www.rense.com/general52/themythofthe100year.htm Oh, and your CD Burner plays a role in longevity as well. > > FWIW, I think storing on DVD or CD is a good idea. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh, and your CD Burner plays a role in longevity as well. Wow.. :o Didn't know that. Thanks. SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com >> FWIW, I think storing on DVD or CD is a good idea. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Oh, and your CD Burner plays a role in longevity as well. Archiving any photo takes some work on the part of someone. Storing copies on CD is not a bad idea just becasue the media won't last a hundred years. Using multiple copies (the time and expense of the extra copies is very minimal) and storing them in different places will work very well. Occasional (every 20 years?) checking or even re-copying isn't hard to do. If, perchance, CDs become obsolete, there *will* be years of overlap between CDs and whatever replaces them. If, after this sort of 'hectic' pattern of copying, the pictures are still lost, perhaps they weren't all that important in the first place. :-) SignatureBill Funk Replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com > My solution for long-term digital archive is to use HD with a backup > plan. Of course one HD probably won't last over a decade, but when it > fails, you simply buy a new HD and restore the data. If you want to make God laugh all you have to do is tell him what you are going to do tomorrow. > I have a photograph of my great > grandmother in 1907 holding a pig under her arm. Do you think a hard > drive or a CD will last that long? Hmmmm, no. Bad comparison. Who would want to frame a hard drive or CD? The question is whether the digital file will last that long. There is no reason to think that it won't and it won't fade like your print either. It can be transferred to hard drives, CD's, DVD's, printed on paper, exposed onto film and stored on whatever other storage medium the future brings. It can also be stored in PERFECTLY IDENTICAL form in multiple locations adding an easily achieved level of security that your print can never have. Converting prints to digital files may result in lower quality than the print from which the digital file is made, but the information contained in that print can be safeguarded from further degradation by the conversion in a way that is probably impossible without the conversion. Eric Miller > > I have a photograph of my great > > grandmother in 1907 holding a pig under her arm. Do you think a hard > > drive or a CD will last that long? Hmmmm, no. > > Bad comparison. Who would want to frame a hard drive or CD? I do not understand the meaning of that. Oh, you're silly. I was talking about the physical print. I was talking about the longevity of the "information". I am just wondering if you will be able to take out you CD from 2005 and put it in a device in 2095 and still be able to see it. > The question is > whether the digital file will last that long. There is no reason to think > that it won't Scratched surfaces and old technology are two reasons I can give you for thinking it will not last that long. Scratch a print, you still see the image. Scratch a CD and it's gone. > and it won't fade like your print either. It can be > transferred to hard drives, CD's, DVD's, printed on paper, exposed onto film > and stored on whatever other storage medium the future brings. It can also > be stored in PERFECTLY IDENTICAL Uhm, that's wrong. Bits are never transferred perfectly from medium to medium. Nearly identical would be better. > form in multiple locations adding an easily > achieved level of security that your print can never have. Jeez, that's a lot of effort for an image of something that no longer exists. (Perfection is the enemy of good) Anyway, I have a bunch (the pig) that were in a shoebox for 90 years. > Converting prints > to digital files may result in lower quality than the print from which the > digital file is made, but the information contained in that print can be > safeguarded from further degradation It is not the print. It is a copy. > by the conversion in a way that is > probably impossible without the conversion. I think it is fine, what he is doing. I don't see any reason to be all rosey about it. A lot of people waste a lot of time. The hours he spends trying to save his IMAGES he misses on time with his family. > Eric Miller > I am just wondering if you will be able to take out you CD from 2005 and > put it in a device in 2095 and still be able to see it. Very unlikely due to 'plastic rot'. Museums are getting worried about it although they give it fancy names. Plastic items from thirty years ago are decaying; if you havething plastic from a few decades ago have a careful look at it, it could give you a nasty shock at the deterioration. SignatureNeil Delete delete to reply by email >> > I have a photograph of my great >> > grandmother in 1907 holding a pig under her arm. Do you think a hard [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I am just wondering if you will be able to take out you CD from 2005 and >put it in a device in 2095 and still be able to see it. Why not check the CD every 20 years or so, and see if it's still good? If it's not, then pull out one of the duplicate CDs, and copy it again. If you think that's too long, the time period can be shortened to 10 years. :-) BYW, ask the people in Florida about the permanance of prints. Five or six hurricanes a year tend to put a whole new perspective in the permanance of anything. >> The question is >> whether the digital file will last that long. There is no reason to think >> that it won't > >Scratched surfaces and old technology are two reasons I can give you for >thinking it will not last that long. Then pick your own media. Finding something wrong with each suggestion will not get any copies made at all. >Scratch a print, you still see the image. Scratch a CD and it's gone. Make two; they're cheap. Don't scratch them. My storage copies manage to not get scratched. >> and it won't fade like your print either. It can be >> transferred to hard drives, CD's, DVD's, printed on paper, exposed onto film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Uhm, that's wrong. Bits are never transferred perfectly from medium to >medium. Nearly identical would be better. It's close enough. >> form in multiple locations adding an easily >> achieved level of security that your print can never have. > >Jeez, that's a lot of effort for an image of something that no longer >exists. (Perfection is the enemy of good) I don't get this. If the print exists, a copy of it can be made. >Anyway, I have a bunch (the pig) that were in a shoebox for 90 years. That's hardly secure storage. >> Converting prints >> to digital files may result in lower quality than the print from which the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >A lot of people waste a lot of time. The hours he spends trying to save >his IMAGES he misses on time with his family. And the time he loses the print will be with him forever. You argue against making copies, when he wants to make copies. >> Eric Miller SignatureBill Funk Replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com ... > I am just wondering if you will be able to take out you CD from 2005 and > put it in a device in 2095 and still be able to see it. But why would you not transfer the data forward as new technologies become available. But your point is taken. Once a picture is printed, it can always be read. > > The question is > > whether the digital file will last that long. There is no reason to think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Scratch a print, you still see the image. Scratch a CD and it's gone. Some of the data may be gone. But why would you make just *one* copy? With digital data, multiple copies are so easy to make. > > and it won't fade like your print either. It can be > > transferred to hard drives, CD's, DVD's, printed on paper, exposed onto film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Uhm, that's wrong. Bits are never transferred perfectly from medium to > medium. Nearly identical would be better. In a properly working system, the bits are transfered perfectly. That's the whole point of the digital/binary system. Very high signal to noise ratio. If you do a copy and verify the copy and the verify says the copies are identical, then the copies *are* identical. > > form in multiple locations adding an easily > > achieved level of security that your print can never have. > > Jeez, that's a lot of effort for an image of something that no longer > exists. (Perfection is the enemy of good) First, its not much effort. Second, your whole arguement has been that preserving pictures (of things that do or don't exit) is a *good* thing. Do you think it is a lot of effort to properly print, handle, and store paper photographs so that they will be preserved? ... > A lot of people waste a lot of time. The hours he spends trying to save > his IMAGES he misses on time with his family. ... I think you are really stretching for an arguement, here at the end. Why do you presume that a digital archiver is wasting a *lot* of time? Or that the time spent is taken from family time? Or any other such ephemeral arguement. Back to the original premis: Are digitally archived photos less likely to survive and be viewed in the future? As usual, I think it depends. How well were the photographs archived? How well was the digital data archived? Did anyone take care to keep the photos with them as the generations moved from house to house? Did anyone copy the digital files to newer storage media forms as they became available? Were the photos strored is a cool, dry place, protected from dust, sun, and physical wear? What about the digital media? I suspect that 200 years from now, quite a bit of digital media will have vanished, just like a lot of paper photos from 100 years ago have vanished. And quite a few will have been preserved, whether by accident or intent. Just like paper photos. Use the method you like best. Others will do as they see fit. SignatureDan (Woj...) [dmaster](no space)[at](no space)[lucent](no space)[dot](no space)[com] =============================== "But you can't jump the track / We're like cars on a cable And life's like an hourglass glued to the table, / No one can find the rewind button now Sing it if you understand...yeah breathe / Just breathe, ohho breathe" >> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass >> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Good luck and have fun! :) think he means where he can get non reflective glass to hold the photos flat while he re-photographs them. >>> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need >>> glass to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> touch >> the glass. <snap> <er, snip> >> critcher said > > think he means where he can get non reflective glass to hold the > photos flat while he re-photographs them. I had a couple framed by professionals a few years back. They offered plain non-reflective and non-reflective with anti-UV. I got the latter. It has worked fine, for both purpose, so far. The pros operated in the back of a full-service crafts shop. I'd reckon such a store or supplier in your neigborhood would offer or be able to contact suppliers of non-reflective glass. My effort in archiving old prints before scanner was with a copy stand (two lights at 45-deg from the surface of a frame intended to hold photo paper under an enlarger. With a large, black posterboard baffle with a lens cutout, a single switch for the lights, an angle finder, and a lot of persistence and stamina, I was able to do a couple hundred in a couple days. Post-scanner it was less physically demanding, but no less drudgery for a fourth of the time investment. SignatureFrank ess "I can't sing, but I know how to, which is quite different." -- Noel Coward > I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass > to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic > or polycarbonate? Are the photos glossy? It might be better to aim two lights in from each side and darken the rest of the room to avoid refections. You can then use regular glass or plexi. If you still want AR glass, it is called "museum" glass at the frame shops. It gives a faint blue-green reflection. Very expensive stuff and not all stock it. John > I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass > to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic > or polycarbonate? If the glass touches the photos it is no longer archived. Any moisture will be trapped between them and possible make the glass and the image stick together. Photos that are not flat should be mounted accordingly. Non-reflective glass is a glass with a coating of non-reflective material on both sides. It inhibits direct reflection, allowing a very clear view of the photograph. In some light, it does cast a blue-green reflection, but this is minor. The trade name is Denglas. OH, and make it UV safe as well. > > I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass > > to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > will be trapped between them and possible make the glass and the image > stick together. Photos that are not flat should be mounted accordingly. Whew.. at least I'm not the only one who read that the way I did. I'm not as crazy as I look. :) SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com >>> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need >>> glass to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Whew.. at least I'm not the only one who read that the way I did. I'm > not as crazy as I look. :) Is that even possible? :-) -Mike "Mike Warren" <miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote in message > > Whew.. at least I'm not the only one who read that the way I did. I'm > > not as crazy as I look. :) > > Is that even possible? :-) LOL! SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass > to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non > reflective glass. Where do I get that? I don't think shooting through anti-reflective glass is a really good choice for archiving photos. It reduces resolution, and often adds some visible graininess. Depending on the state of the photos, you should make do with holding the edges down with weighted strips or something. If they're *really* curly, either straighten them before copying, or else resort to a vacuum base to hold them flat (non-trivial expense here). Or use a flatbed scanner instead of a copier. It's slower, but does a better job usually. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Much of which is still down > I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass > to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > antireflective coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it > some of plastic or polycarbonate? My personal choice is to use clear glass, not non-reflective, but to arrange the lighting so I am not getting reflections. Non-reflective glass is not really non-reflective, but it is somewhat randomly reflective so you will loose contrast and fine detail when using it. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia duit >> I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass >> to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > randomly reflective so you will loose contrast and fine detail when using > it. I'm not sure, but it seems like you are talking about the hazy looking non-glare glass used in picture frames. I believe the "invisible" glass the op refers to is the expensive museum glass that has vacuum deposited anti-reflective coatings on it, not unlike camera lenses. It has a faint blue/green reflection to it. It looks nearly the same as a Hoya MC filter I have. It is a low iron glass which lessens the slight green cast that regular glass has and it filters UV radiation below about 390nm. (regular glass passes UV down to around 310nm). When having a picture framed once, I asked how much it was and the price of the job nearly doubled!. John I have read the thread to date and I think I understand what you are attempting to do. Years ago ( 1954) I was copying (digitizing) some color photos (if my memory serves me they were 4x6 in.) using a hi-8 analog video camera connected to my computer via a single image capture board. The pictures would not lie flat for me. Glass on top of them did nothing but cause trouble with reflections. I decided that I had to have nothing covering the photos. My daughter came up with the solution for me. She had obtained someplace, a painted steel 8x10 inch panel, it was about 10 mils thick. Along with that she had 2 or 3 straight strips of magnetized rubber or flexible plastic. The strips were about 10 inches long, 1/2 inch wide and about 16 mils thick. By placing a magnetic strip on each curled end of the photo I got the photo to lie flat. I could then aim and focus the camera directly at the photo. Yes, some of the image was lost if there was no margin on the photo but this normally was only a small acceptable loss for me. Just a suggestion. You might find the magnetic strips and panel in an art supply store or a hobby store like Michael's. Matt D > I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass > to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic > or polycarbonate? > I have read the thread to date and I think I understand what you are > attempting to do. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reflections. I decided that I had to have nothing covering the photos. My > daughter came up with the solution for me. You must have remarkable skills. Hi-8 video cameras had not yet been invented and the computer must have been something like the one designed for J.Lyons and co.ltd. It filled a room that I believe was about 20 foot square and had power of something like 512mb. SignatureNeil Delete delete to reply by email You are correct. My typo. Year was 1994. However, the rest of my message holds true. I have been working with computers (main frames) since the late 50's and with personal computers since the early 80's. Sorry about my blunder. My suggestion for holding pictures flat for capturing them with a digital camera may or not help you. Be my guest. Matt D >> I have read the thread to date and I think I understand what you are >> attempting to do. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for J.Lyons and co.ltd. It filled a room that I believe was about 20 foot > square and had power of something like 512mb. > I'm trying to archive photographs with my digital camera. I need glass > to hold the photos flat, and I read that it is best to use non [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > coating? Or is it some kind of special glass? Or is it some of plastic > or polycarbonate? Hi, as it comes in the newsgroup, majority of replies talk about wide variety of things, but will not reply to the question at hand: *where* to get it. Well, one good source is Light Impressions, see their online store at http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/. They have a large selection of glass and diverse acrylite materials, incl. special UV protecting products. Someone has also mentioned already Michaels, they have a limited selection of such glass in their stores, so does Aaron Brothers! In my humble opinion, nobody should be selling frames with this horrible plain glass, period. It just causes you additional cost, labor, and of course, a disposal headache. Thomas Hi Thomas, Any store that sells residential (window and door glass) should also have nonreflective glass, in any size that you order (and much cheaper than the specialty stores mentioned). Shop around, I've found almost a fifty percent difference in prices. Unless you have unusual needs you should just ask for "single strength" glass which is the normal window pane thickness, and the depth for which most frames are sized. Good luck, Bob |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.