• WELCOME Grumblers
    Backup is now done at 3PM EDT. You may find the server down for up to two minutes at that time.

Problem Tru Vue Conservation Clear

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
"what are they paying more for when they are opting for the increased cost of optically coated glass?"
1. Reflection control is the main attraction.

2. Greater clarity/light transmission: 97+% vs. 91% for glass that is not optically coated.
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
1. Reflection control is the main attraction.

2. Greater clarity/light transmission: 97+% vs. 91% for glass that is not optically coated.
But, they want that so they can see the image better. Not, protect it more. So, whether you call it color cast, or color clipping, altering the view of the image is less attractive than the "purist" view you can achieve.

(Hopefully I'll have time to build a white/color based comparison later today.)
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
But, they want that so they can see the image better. Not, protect it more. So, whether you call it color cast, or color clipping, altering the view of the image is less attractive than the "purist" view you can achieve.
Here again is the unretouched image showing identical images under three different types of glass. Yes, there are color differences, but variations of ambient light would surely make more difference than any tint of the glass.

When using non-UV filtering glass, 'the "purist" view' to which you refer would be relatively short-lived, as light damage over time causes permanent changes to the colors in the art. Is your "purist" not interested in longevity of the art? I say the real purist would be interested in preserving the integrity of the colors as long as possible, would not notice the insignificant difference of color, and would welcome the 99% UV protection.

If you and I just keep restating our opinions, the popcorn munchers will get even more bored. Can't wait to see your comparisons of color under black light.
:popc:
 

Attachments

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
I think you guys are all missing a big point.......has anyone read my Profile Magazine article on the effects of UV light? There is a link on the Grumble if you do a search.

By the time one can perceive "fading," significant damage from UV light has already taken place. Blocking the maximum amount of UV light is the only way to retard this damage.

So, while you can "see more of the art" (as the new artGlass campaign suggests), you are also submitting the art to more damaging UV. I think it is (dare I say) naieve to think that all UV light does is cause fading. There are serious UNSEEN photochemical changes taking place that can be far more damaging.
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
...
When using non-UV filtering glass, 'the "purist" view' to which you refer would be relatively short-lived, as light damage over time causes permanent changes to the colors in the art. Is your "purist" not interested in longevity of the art? I say the real purist would be interested in preserving the integrity of the colors as long as possible, would not notice the insignificant difference of color, and would welcome the 99% UV protection.
I think this statement illustrates the crux of our disparate beliefs. I don't think there is any evidence that the difference in protection actually improves the longevity of most art. I think I understand your view. I just don't agree. With all the factors causing damage, the small delta in light wave protection is minuscule and I don't believe you could discern the "lesser" damage over time. There are sufficient variables that I suspect neither of us could prove this either way.

If you and I just keep restating our opinions, the popcorn munchers will get even more bored. Can't wait to see your comparisons of color under black light.
:popc:
Yes, I think we are becoming repetitive and boring.

I don't have a black light. I readily concede that a black light will cause the difference in UV blocking to appear significant. After all, 92% to 99% is almost an 8% increase and black light is ONLY generating light that is blocked. What I claimed was that this exaggerates the difference in protection because of the difference in light generation. I agree that this difference will look the same with color/white surround.

What I expect is to perceive a clearer color shift than in the B&W images.

And, then you can say it isn't critical enough and I can say it is! ;)
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I think you guys are all missing a big point.......has anyone read my Profile Magazine article on the effects of UV light? There is a link on the Grumble if you do a search.

By the time one can perceive "fading," significant damage from UV light has already taken place. Blocking the maximum amount of UV light is the only way to retard this damage.

So, while you can "see more of the art" (as the new artGlass campaign suggests), you are also submitting the art to more damaging UV. I think it is (dare I say) naieve to think that all UV light does is cause fading. There are serious UNSEEN photochemical changes taking place that can be far more damaging.
Didn't miss it. Agree that it is happening. Don't believe that the small delta in UV blocking creates a tangible measurable improvement in protection.
 

Pat Murphey

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Didn't miss it. Agree that it is happening. Don't believe that the small delta in UV blocking creates a tangible measurable improvement in protection.
You actually have customers that note the color differences without side by side comparison? I think I'll stick to selling the maximum commercially available protection and not worry about your color minutiae - that no customer of mine has complained about in my paltry 15 years in business.

:kaffeetrinker_2:
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
You actually have customers that note the color differences without side by side comparison?
No, no one points out the difference except when seen side by side.
But, when viewing a side-by-side comparison, most opt for "improved" color over "improved" protection.
I think I'll stick to selling the maximum commercially available protection and not worry about your color minutiae - that no customer of mine has complained about in my paltry 15 years in business.
I'm sure many will do as you say you will. I will offer my customers a choice. Showing and explaining the difference to the best of my ability.

And, for those who are skeptical, I stress that there IS added protection. For things where color is clearly unimportant (like diplomas) I push the "added protection" harder.
 

Pat Murphey

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
...I'm sure many will do as you say you will. I will offer my customers a choice. Showing and explaining the difference to the best of my ability...
I can just picture adding that level of complication to design discussion, when the TruVue glass is almost undetectably less perfect in color transmission. :p

Don't worry, if someone asks for water white, I'll get it and make sure that understand they will sacrifice some UV protection (and strength if 2mm).

:kaffeetrinker_2:
 

BalticFrames

Grumbler
UV Lamp Prop

View attachment 13054View attachment 13052View attachment 13053


I just took these three unretouched* photos on my design table a few minutes ago. The frame and camera remained stationary for all three photos, and the ambient light was unchanged during the 3 minute photo session.

I moved the UV device (battery-powered) to compare the UV-blocking effects of regular glass (blocks 45%) vs water-white optically coated (blocks 92%), and then water white optically coated (blocks 92%) vs color-corrected optically coated (blocks 99%).

You decide.


*However, I turned the images right-side up and reduced their size & resolution.
Dear Jim,

Your device perfectly shows what Artglass campaign is trying to tell the framers! Here is why:

*UV that you should be trying to block is Invisible
*If you see the difference with your eyes and you are a human, then you are seeing the Visible light
*What your device shows is that TruVue Blocks Visible Light
*Artglass stops the UV block lower not to interfere with the visible light, which is exactly what gives you the superior color transmission

"If protection is the priority, keep your art in a climate controlled dark closet. If you have chosen to frame and enjoy the art, then it should be displayed behind the most "invisible" glass and you should not compromise on color transmission."

So the best thing you can do to help Artglass sales is to keep showing the Black Light prop.

Warm regards,

BF
 

FramerDave

PFG, Picture Framing God
*UV that you should be trying to block is Invisible
*If you see the difference with your eyes and you are a human, then you are seeing the Visible light
*What your device shows is that TruVue Blocks Visible Light
No, not exactly. The light that you see is a result of invisible UV light hitting the paper, ink, etc. of the artwork and causing it to fluoresce, giving off visible light. This visible light is an indication of the invisible UV light hitting the artwork.

It's exactly the same principle at work in a fluorescent light.
 

BalticFrames

Grumbler
No, not exactly. The light that you see is a result of invisible UV light hitting the paper, ink, etc. of the artwork and causing it to fluoresce, giving off visible light. This visible light is an indication of the invisible UV light hitting the artwork.

It's exactly the same principle at work in a fluorescent light.
I would agree with you if we saw colors reflected other than the purples that the Black light emits.
 

BalticFrames

Grumbler
Such as the bright glowing white? And by the purple you mean the portion of the light that the black light gives off that is visible?
Exactly - what you see is the visible portion of the Black Light, which is transmitted in one case and blocked in the other.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
You actually have customers that note the color differences without side by side comparison?
:kaffeetrinker_2:
Those of us providing fine art printing have this come up regularly. Each of the glass options clearly have different appearances. Last year I had a couple of photographers decide to display photos with no glass. They returned to glazing due to the many problems of displaying paper art without glass. None of the galleries would allow the photos to hang without glazing either.
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Well, I think all I proved is that my lighting and visualization setup isn't good enough for this discussion.

It isn't nearly as obvious in the photo rendition, but, for this small subset of colors, I see significant (subjective personal view) difference in the yellow, blue, and violet.

sample glass.jpg

color bars.jpg

I was somewhat surprised at how much color differential there is with conclear. It's not in the picture, but even compared to regular.

I will say this ... it's obvious why TV using black mats to show their color samples.
wow
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
... I see significant (subjective personal view) difference in the yellow, blue, and violet.
Too bad your camera can't see what your eyes see. All of those glazing choices look about the same on my monitor, too.

I was somewhat surprised at how much color differential there is with conclear. It's not in the picture, but even compared to regular.
Of course. Conservation Clear is pretty good for color rendition because it is color-corrected to offset the green tint of "regular" glass. Of all the glazing choices available to us, that is the worst in terms of color rendition. Even so, it isn't too bad, and some folks have gotten so used to the green tint that they have come to expect it.

Anyway, regular glass ought to be the last resort for any "purist" about color rendition.
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Too bad your camera can't see what your eyes see. All of those glazing choices look about the same on my monitor, too.
Well, <sigh> even on my montior, they don't look the same to me. Just not as different as in person. The fact that I think they look different and you don't is the key point of our discussion, I think.

Of course. Conservation Clear is pretty good for color rendition because it is color-corrected to offset the green tint of "regular" glass. Of all the glazing choices available to us, that is the worst in terms of color rendition. Even so, it isn't too bad, and some folks have gotten so used to the green tint that they have come to expect it.

Anyway, regular glass ought to be the last resort for any "purist" about color rendition.
Agreed!
 

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Geez, Norm and Cliff are still at it. If this goes on one more page I'm gonna get Carla involved :)
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
*If you see the difference with your eyes and you are a human, then you are seeing the Visible light
Not exactly. If that were true, UV radiation would illuminate colors, just as visible light does.

In the glow of black light, you are not seeing UV radiation, because that is invisible. As David said, you are seeing illuminated phosphors.
According to this article, which offers a pretty good explanation for us regular people:
...A phosphor converts the energy in the UV radiation from a black light into visible light.
*What your device shows is that TruVue Blocks Visible Light
Is that a trick statement? Of course all glazing products block some visible light. If there were a glazing product that blocked no visible light, then it would be absolutely invisible in all environments - no reflections from any angle in any illumination. If anyone could actually produce a solid material that is truly undetectable to the human eye, it would be a huge breakthrough, but it might never happen. Meanwhile, the best optically coated glazing products, while not absolutely invisible, block very little light.

*Artglass stops the UV block lower not to interfere with the visible light, which is exactly what gives you the superior color transmission
I'm sure you do not mean to imply that your glass is absolutely invisible. It would be quite misleading to claim that any glazing could pass 100% of all visible light.

So the best thing you can do to help Artglass sales is to keep showing the Black Light prop.
The phosphors' conversion of UV radiation to visible light is real. The more UV radiation on white surfaces, the more phosphorous glow. If that demonstration helps Artglass sales, you are quite welcome to that science.
 

Rick Granick

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
If there were a glazing product that blocked no visible light, then it would be absolutely invisible in all environments - no reflections from any angle in any illumination. If anyone could actually produce a solid material that is truly undetectable to the human eye, it would be a huge breakthrough, but it might never happen. Meanwhile, the best optically coated glazing products, while not absolutely invisible, block very little light.
This high tech secret glazing product is only available from its developer, DARPA.
This quibbling over the miniscule variation in the apparent visible color of artwork from quality framing glass products strikes me as akin to audiophile purists who strive for absolutely "flat" frequency response so as not to "color" their perception of the "original" performance. Most recorded music has been compressed, equalized, and processed in various ways during the recording, production, and manufacturing process in order to make the very availability of it to an audience possible. Similarly, if art lovers want to be able to hang their art on the wall for display, and have it look its best for as long as possible, there will always be some "sacrifice" from an idealized "state of nature".
:kaffeetrinker_2: Rick
 

wvframer

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
Norm & Cliff

It would be really useful if you would put this argument/discussion into an article. Some of us grapple with these issues frequently. And even if we don't, it never hurts to have a better understanding of the questions, especially when the answers are not writ in stone.

For me it is mostly academic, TV is what is readily available to me, it is priced affordably and seems to satisfy my customers' needs and my audiophile-like concern about protections. Overwhelmingly, my customers are more concerned about protection than any variations in color because of the glazing.

I suspect this will be less of a conundrum for the next generation when it appears every image may be replaceable and disposable!
This has been a most instructive thread. But it would be helpful if somebody told me what "DARPA" is. I am clearly out of the loop.
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
...it never hurts to have a better understanding of the questions, especially when the answers are not writ in stone.
You're right about the need to gain a better understanding of the questions. We should try to understand the significance of light transmission, reflectivity, UV radiation (which is not light, since it is invisible), the visible light spectrum, the infrared spectrum, and how each of them affects the fibrous materials in a frame. It's real science and personally, I find it to be very confusing. But whatever questioins you may have about light and glazing attributes, the answers are "writ in stone". It is not voo-doo, it is science that is well-established and understood by those who work with it.

Maybe the best advice is to check all of the manufacturers' published data, learn what each of the measured factors represents, and then you will be able to compare the glazing products realistically.

In the meantime, do not be confused by the plethora of percentages and other numbers thrown out to muddle discussion about the realities of light, color, and frame glazing. I'm pretty sure it is not necessary for us to understand the intricacies of "damage weighted terms" and "KDF, the Krochmann Damage Function" in order to evaluate our glazing choices for framing.
 

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Well just look on the bright side. They came out with nice new blue stickers :)
Great, actually read the sticker today.

It has a gray box that says "you selected the very best" then has a check box for museum plexi or museum glass. Reg CC is below in the "cheap seats" section.

This distinction would be fine if the stickers were in the Museum glass boxes, but since they are in the CC boxes they seem to be implying that I am cheating my customers by using CC not Museum on everything.

Oh well, Schott glass is looking better everyday. At least they don't consider their "premium" products second rate. Maybe if TruVue thinks CC is not a great product then I shouldn't consider it worth using either. What do you think Norm, Cliff? :)
 

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I believe Omega carries it. I have an account with them, but I am sickeningly loyal to my regular distributors :)

I can also hassle my DonMar rep. Muight not do any good, but I like hassling him. :)
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
So, I've heard a lot of guess about who manufactures the UV Artglass, but I have no idea. I've heard Schott and Clarion, and someone else??

Anyway, that's probably irrelevant. I beleive Omega has exclusive distibution in the US. At least, they are the only ones that have it that I know of?

Interesting thing happened last week ... As you know I am showing both Museum and Artglass UV with this display.
sample glass.jpg

Between the two "Premium" glass options there is no glass.

They are the same retail price. Had a woman come in and frame a series of 20 x 30 photographs that a friend of hers had taken. He apparently does a fair amount of large "art photos" and does ok selling htem in Boston. She opted for the Artglass UV. He had framed the same pictures somewhere near Boston with what he was lead to believe was Museum glass.

When he saw hers, (different house, different lighting) he immediately commented on how much "better" the color looked on hers. I caustioned them that it could be the ambiant conditions and they said they had brought his over to see if that was the case.

He is goign back to his framer to see if he can get Artglass UV.
 

wvframer

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
Anybody actually talked to TV about these new stickers?
 

wvframer

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
I agree they are useless. Too bad, they are nice looking and TV is spending good money to supply them. I sure wish they had done some market research before switching. I can't find anybody that likes them.
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I just took another look. If I take a scissors and cut it along the top line, so it just says, "This piece is protected with True Vue Conservation Grade UV Protection"

I think I can just use that part and throw the other 2/3rds away.

I still have a few hundred of the old ones left, so I'll use those until they're gone.
 

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
When regular glass was my default I would religiously put the TV stickers on. Then when something came in for reglazing I had an idea of when I did the job. Now that CC is the norm, and has been for ages now the stickers are redundant, and as someone else said in a different post like putting NASCAR stickers on my work. Kind of like "This frame job brought to you by the good people at TV, Roma, Bainbride and oh yeah a smidge of effort from the Frame Works."

I want my shop to be the bold letters on the back, not the small print :) so no stickers but my own....
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
...I sure wish they had done some market research before switching...
If you only knew...

Frame-back stickers have been a long-running fiasco for several framing manufacturers. Some years ago, both Crescent and Bainbridge offered stickers to identify the use of their premium matboards. Framers complianed about those, too, but I haven't seen them in a long time. Are they still available?

Tru Vue has asked for suggestions several times, has surveyed framers in-person at trade shows, and has offered at least half a dozen sticker designs in the past few years. Every one of them has been greeted the same way on this forum. Their marketing department might rightfully conclude that some framers will never be satisfied, but they keep trying to provide useful designs.

Stickers are not cheap, so maybe Tru Vue ought to stop putting them in their boxes of glass, and just offer them on the web site with their other "Tools of the Trade". That way, framers who want them could get them, and none would get thrown away.

If you have a sticker design suggestion, or if you think they should just stop providing them, you should probably send it to Tru Vue's marketing department by calling their Help Line, or through their web site. You could also print your own, of course.




I am a framer, a user of Tru Vue products, and a consultant to the company.
 

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
So Jim, if I go to their Tools page and request the "old stye" sticker, and if 100 Grumblers did likewise would that be taken as a "vote" for the old sticker over the new one?

The new one definitely has better colors, but my concern is the implication that CC isn't any good. Since the sticker is packed in a CC box, and only offers Museum in the "best choice" section it feels to me that TV is not as proud of CC as they used to be.

I intuitively know that isn't the case, but by making CC second class, lower on the page and of an inferior color choice to their Museum check boxes the implication is their to the framer and more importantly to the consumer.

If I put that sticker on the back and checked the CC box the customer is going to ask why I didn't use the "best glass", why I settled for an inferior product. Feels like drug advertising on TV. like since I don't "push " museum glass on my customers enough TruVue is gonna have my customers start pushing me to use it.

Good marketing for TruVue, but sets up an adversarial relationship between framer and the end user. Or so the implications would appear to be :)
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
We haven't used any stickers but our own shop sticker for years now. A couple customers remember and actually ask for them so I have to use the new ones. But they get Museum Glass anyway.

My problem is that we try to create as much wow factor as possible when a customer picks up and is first looking at their piece. We get excited with them. And I think the sticker is a lot like buying a 32 inch LCD because that's what you can afford or is all you need and having the salesperson say "Hey! Congrats on your not a 50 inch LED!"
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Too much, too much.

IMHO they would be better off with a minimalist approach and yes, it would be fine to make us go to the website.

One sticker with the TV logo that says this glazing has 99% UV filtering.
About the size of the old Museum Sticker. 2" x1"
One sticker - the old Museum sticker.
One sticker for premium Acrylic.

For crying out loud, you can see if it's Reflection Control or not.
What's important to the customer is ... Does it have protection?
Is it a super premium product (Museum)

This accomplishes everything they and we are trying to do and keeps the shop name/sticker prominent.
 

Rick Granick

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Add me to the list of those who dislike the new ones that are more wordy than the Gettysburg Address. Good call on cutting off and using just the top part, Cliff. I have printed my own, one for CC and one for MG.
:kaffeetrinker_2: Rick
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
So Jim, if I go to their Tools page and request the "old stye" sticker, and if 100 Grumblers did likewise would that be taken as a "vote" for the old sticker over the new one?
Why are you asking me? To get an answer to your question, you need to ask Tru Vue.

Suggestions posted here are good fodder for discussion among framers, but if you want to communicate with any supplier, it would be a good idea to do so directly.
 

Puppiesonacid

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
DaNg it.... I hate to even bring this up again. but i just opened a box of 32x40 conservation reflection control, and i got a bubble in the top and some kind of mis- spray on the bottom.... UGH!!!!!

guess ill wrap it and save it for later... I guess I am posting for those that think we are crazy...
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Tru Vue was here yesterday and said they don't know of the problems we are having. He asked that every time we find a problem to please call the help line.

These calls are recorded.

800 282-8788
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
We can start a Tru Vue thread for more.
 

Puppiesonacid

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I guess Ill save up for the week and call... just found 3 spots in a 24x36 piece of AR glass... all in a row, and they are nice and shiny.
 
Sponsor Wanted
Top