Do you need UV protection?

Information on shipping, storing and repairing your art, plus your reviews on products for art collecting, making, storing, etc..
User avatar
Mertai
Art Enthusiast
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:14 am

Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:16 am

summoner wrote:
CrustaR wrote:Also, even keeping a print out of direct sunlight will not prevent UV damage - interior lighting can also emit UV rays.
It is funny you mention that, I just yesterday ordered new LED bulbs to replace all the halogen bulbs in the spot lights in my hall and living room for that exact reason. All the windows in the house are either UV, or have a UV film. Next will be slowly replacing all the other bulbs from CFL to LED... Damn things are pricey!
So LED bulbs emit less UV?
User avatar
Count
Art Expert
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:30 pm

Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:23 am

FramerDave wrote:
CrustaR wrote:
suchanoo wrote:Museum grade UV isn't quite as effective at blocking UV waves as standard UV.
This is the first I have ever heard of that...Do you have any info that backs up that claim?
Are you talking about Museum Glass, the glass with the anti-reflective and UV filtering coatings? If so, it offers 99% UV filtering. It's damned difficult to get much better than that.
I was also under the impression that Museum Glass UV protection is about as good as it gets as far as glass is concerned. Tru Vue Conservation Clear is also advertised to offer 99% UV protection, and that is what I am inclined to go for at the moment.

My own experience with UV rays on other stuff (DVDs, books, cheap posters etc) is that they can do some noticable damage over the long run. I have some books and DVDs kept in a bookcase with a glass door. Said bookcase is out of direct sunlight, although natural light does enter obviously. Over the years, the fading is noticeable. You can see a clear difference between the spine (which is exposed) and the front covers/backs (which are covered). Certain colours are also more susceptible to fading it seems. If it is a print I treasure and hope to display with some permanence, I would certainly go for UV protection.

What I need to decide is whether to opt for UV Glass (Conservation Clear) or UV Plexiglass/Acrylic. Anyone has any thoughts about that?
User avatar
summoner
Art Freak
Posts: 11179
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:22 am

Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:32 am

Mertai wrote:
summoner wrote:
CrustaR wrote:Also, even keeping a print out of direct sunlight will not prevent UV damage - interior lighting can also emit UV rays.
It is funny you mention that, I just yesterday ordered new LED bulbs to replace all the halogen bulbs in the spot lights in my hall and living room for that exact reason. All the windows in the house are either UV, or have a UV film. Next will be slowly replacing all the other bulbs from CFL to LED... Damn things are pricey!
So LED bulbs emit less UV?
Most, but not all, are UV free, or virtually UV free. If you are buying some to be UV free make sure the package, or product listing, states that they are UV free.

The last ones I purchased where these. http://www.lightexports.com/servlet/the ... %2C/Detail

In the description was this "Emits virtually no UV/IR light in the beam." I am taking that to be a better thing than the bulbs that I had prior.
Image Image Image
User avatar
FramerDave
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:25 pm
Location: Houston

Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:36 pm

Count wrote:
FramerDave wrote:
CrustaR wrote:
suchanoo wrote:Museum grade UV isn't quite as effective at blocking UV waves as standard UV.
This is the first I have ever heard of that...Do you have any info that backs up that claim?
Are you talking about Museum Glass, the glass with the anti-reflective and UV filtering coatings? If so, it offers 99% UV filtering. It's damned difficult to get much better than that.
I was also under the impression that Museum Glass UV protection is about as good as it gets as far as glass is concerned. Tru Vue Conservation Clear is also advertised to offer 99% UV protection, and that is what I am inclined to go for at the moment.

My own experience with UV rays on other stuff (DVDs, books, cheap posters etc) is that they can do some noticable damage over the long run. I have some books and DVDs kept in a bookcase with a glass door. Said bookcase is out of direct sunlight, although natural light does enter obviously. Over the years, the fading is noticeable. You can see a clear difference between the spine (which is exposed) and the front covers/backs (which are covered). Certain colours are also more susceptible to fading it seems. If it is a print I treasure and hope to display with some permanence, I would certainly go for UV protection.

What I need to decide is whether to opt for UV Glass (Conservation Clear) or UV Plexiglass/Acrylic. Anyone has any thoughts about that?
If you are comparing framing-quality UV filtering glass (such as Conservation Clear) and acrylic, then the UV protection is the same. For me the deciding factors would be the size, weight and concerns about breakage.

Generally glass is available up to 40x60, so anything larger than that pretty much requires acrylic. Even so, glass that size makes me nervous as hell; it's a lot of broken glass to deal with if something happens. Even on smaller frames acrylic can be an advantage since it's 20 times more shatter resistant than glass. If the frame is going to be shipped, definitely use acrylic. Also consider that if glass breaks (no matter the size) the shards can tear or scratch your art.

Acrylic is also about half the weight of glass, making your frame easier to handle and hang. Plus it lets you use a slightly smaller frame if you absolutely insist on a skinny little frame.
User avatar
summoner
Art Freak
Posts: 11179
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:22 am

Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:41 pm

Now if the TruVu Optium Museum Acrylic was priced with regular acrylic, I would be set! :lol:
Image Image Image
User avatar
jamesgunter
Art Expert
Posts: 5250
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Birmingham, Al
Contact:

Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:42 pm

jojobadass wrote:personally, I would put UV film on your windows
indoor lighting is just as bad
User avatar
jamesgunter
Art Expert
Posts: 5250
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Birmingham, Al
Contact:

Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:43 pm

CrustaR wrote:
suchanoo wrote:Museum grade UV isn't quite as effective at blocking UV waves as standard UV.
This is the first I have ever heard of that...Do you have any info that backs up that claim?
this is actually true, but its less than a 1% difference
User avatar
alittle
Art Freak
Posts: 15289
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:10 am

Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:44 pm

I thought I read a post here where someone conducted a study, using strips of different types of glass, and the UV protection essentially did nothing. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
Image
User avatar
alittle
Art Freak
Posts: 15289
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:10 am

Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:48 pm

jamesgunter wrote:
CrustaR wrote:
suchanoo wrote:Museum grade UV isn't quite as effective at blocking UV waves as standard UV.
This is the first I have ever heard of that...Do you have any info that backs up that claim?
this is actually true, but its less than a 1% difference
On the TV website, they both have the same numbers, but they don't break it down in to the any decimal places, so I guess there could be a minor difference.
Image
User avatar
jamesgunter
Art Expert
Posts: 5250
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Birmingham, Al
Contact:

Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:54 pm

IWish wrote:As far as I know, you would need to get the testing data/document from the glass manufacture(s) and compare the results.
Conservation Clear
Image
Conservation Reflection Controll
Image
Optimum Museum Acrylic
Image
Conservation Clear Acrylite
Image
Museum Glass
Image
User avatar
appletree
Art Expert
Posts: 6886
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Cypress, Texas
Contact:

Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:00 pm

So lighting in the home should be LED and preferably one's which specifically do not emit UV rays?
I heard that some prefer acrylic due to it being more difficult to shatter and weighing less, although others say it scratches easily and is more expensive. Are these for the most part correct assumptions?
<3 + Image = T.H.C.

:::Johnathon Powers Photography:::
Sail wrote:it was all just a misunderstandingtree.
User avatar
PLUSH
Art Expert
Posts: 7238
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:43 pm
Location: TEXAS

Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:32 pm

appletree wrote:So lighting in the home should be LED and preferably one's which specifically do not emit UV rays?
I heard that some prefer acrylic due to it being more difficult to shatter and weighing less, although others say it scratches easily and is more expensive. Are these for the most part correct assumptions?

from what I hear.
User avatar
FramerDave
Art Connoisseur
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:25 pm
Location: Houston

Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:21 pm

appletree wrote:So lighting in the home should be LED and preferably one's which specifically do not emit UV rays?
I heard that some prefer acrylic due to it being more difficult to shatter and weighing less, although others say it scratches easily and is more expensive. Are these for the most part correct assumptions?
Any type of acrylic is always going to be more expensive than a comparable glass product due to the raw materials and processing involved in making acrylic.

Most acrylic will scratch easily. TruVue's Optium Museum acrylic is very highly abrasion resistant. It really takes an effort to scratch it.
User avatar
questkid32
Art Expert
Posts: 1854
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:11 pm

Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:30 pm

One of The things that I rarely see mentioned in these discussions is also the fact that regular class is a lot more breakable than the UV protected glass. Granted I get my stuff from Hobby lobby, but even in the store the girl showed me how easily the glass regular breaks compared to the uv protected glass. The frustration Of having to replace broken glass alone might be worth the additional $30 for the UV class.
Image
User avatar
appletree
Art Expert
Posts: 6886
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Cypress, Texas
Contact:

Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:30 pm

Very interesting. Thanks for the information.
<3 + Image = T.H.C.

:::Johnathon Powers Photography:::
Sail wrote:it was all just a misunderstandingtree.
Post Reply