"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.
"what are they paying more for when they are opting for the increased cost of optically coated glass?"
I love this place.
MM
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.
...
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.
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.
No, no one points out the difference except when seen side by side.You actually have customers that note the color differences without side by side comparison?
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 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...
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.
*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.
I would agree with you if we saw colors reflected other than the purples that the Black light emits.
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?
You actually have customers that note the color differences without side by side comparison?
:kaffeetrinker_2:
... I see significant (subjective personal view) difference in the yellow, blue, and violet.
I was somewhat surprised at how much color differential there is with conclear. It's not in the picture, but even compared to regular.
Too bad your camera can't see what your eyes see. All of those glazing choices look about the same on my monitor, too.
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.
Not exactly. If that were true, UV radiation would illuminate colors, just as visible light does.*If you see the difference with your eyes and you are a human, then you are seeing the Visible light
...A phosphor converts the energy in the UV radiation from a black light into 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.*What your device shows is that TruVue Blocks Visible Light
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.*Artglass stops the UV block lower not to interfere with the visible light, which is exactly what gives you the superior color transmission
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.So the best thing you can do to help Artglass sales is to keep showing the Black Light prop.
This high tech secret glazing product is only available from its developer, DARPA.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.
Al Gore (who, by the way, NEVER claimed to).
...it never hurts to have a better understanding of the questions, especially when the answers are not writ in stone.
Well just look on the bright side. They came out with nice new blue stickers
Oh well, Schott glass is looking better everyday.
So, I've heard a lot of guess about who manufactures the UV Artglass, but I have no idea.
Anybody actually talked to TV about these new stickers?
...I sure wish they had done some market research before switching...
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?
Tru Vue was here yesterday and said they don't know of the problems we are having.
Tru Vue was here yesterday and said they don't know of the problems we are having...
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.