Presenting prints sans glass

[Takkun]

I just picked up my prints for an exhibition from Panda Lab today--$400, but they look absolutely stunning. I'm going to have them framed this week for hanging in the gallery (and you're all invited!)
The issue at hand I have is that I agonized over the paper they'd be printed on, and I ended up with a heavyweight glossy rag paper, with a very subtle texture. I don't want that to effect to be lost once they're framed.

So my question is: what's a way to present these in a gallery without glass? Is that even a thing people do? In all honesty, I don't see much photography in galleries (at least not where it's not where presentation is part of the piece, such as it ripped or tacked up on a wall), mostly in books. I have a lot of photo books.

 

[lynnb]

I can only tell you what I've seen: at exhibitions like World Press Photo, the prints are displayed mounted on/adhered to board (from memory it's foam core, but I could be wrong). Most are without borders.

Here's a picture of the Brisbane exhibition https://www.facebook.com/WorldPressPhoto?rf=107857279236994

A gallery would be able to give you more informed advice.

kind regards - and good luck with the exhibition!

 

[kbg32]

If the prints mean a lot to you, frame behind glass. Nothing like having work in a gallery and someone inadvertently sneezes, or converses with someone near your naked prints and damages them.

 

[Particular]

I also saw the world press photo show, but I didn't think their solution looked good. They had info panels butted up against the prints which were distracting.

Martin Parr had a show at the Aperture gallery in NY last year. The prints were c-prints with wide white Borders. They were simple tacked on the wall. I thought it looked great.

Your inkjet prints may be more sensitive than c-prints, but I think generally the protection of frames is more important for long term display. There just isn't usually that much dust/dirt/grease/or spitting going on in galleries.

 

[Pablito]

Nothing wrong with displaying photos without glass so long as you accept the fact that the prints may be damaged or ruined. You get immediacy, but along with that you have to basically assume the printing cost as a cost of doing the exhibition because the prints will probably not be useable or marketable after the show comes down.

If you consider your prints to be something with intrinsic value and you dont want them damaged, then you have to use glass. No exhibited work of art on paper is safe unless it's behind glass

 

[__--]

Waxing the prints with Renaissance Wax provides some protection. For example, Epson Fibre Paper scratches very easily, but not when waxed in this way.

Also, how you want to exhibit the prints would also be determined by the style. I'm not so keen on matted prints under glass these days — just too precious or exquisite a look for me. Lot's of different ways, including face-mounting on acrylic (expensive).

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Do You Know What is Really Real?
Download link for PDF file of 16-shot portfolio

 

[gdmcclintock]

A few years ago I exhibited at one of the branches of the NYPL. Library rules stipulated that no glass was allowed; plexiglass or nothing. As plexi was too expensive, I printed on luster paper and framed without glass. The prints looked good and the luster paper survived the indoor elements for the 3 months of the exhibit.

When I exhibited silver gelatin prints elsewhere, I framed with glass, to protect the prints.

Enjoy your show!

 

[Jamie123]

I just picked up my prints for an exhibition from Panda Lab today--$400, but they look absolutely stunning. I'm going to have them framed this week for hanging in the gallery (and you're all invited!)
The issue at hand I have is that I agonized over the paper they'd be printed on, and I ended up with a heavyweight glossy rag paper, with a very subtle texture. I don't want that to effect to be lost once they're framed.

So my question is: what's a way to present these in a gallery without glass? Is that even a thing people do? In all honesty, I don't see much photography in galleries (at least not where it's not where presentation is part of the piece, such as it ripped or tacked up on a wall), mostly in books. I have a lot of photo books.

If I were you I'd have them framed with high quality anti-reflective glass. Unless the pictures are hanged by a large window this glass will be nearly invisible.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I just picked up my prints for an exhibition from Panda Lab today--$400, but they look absolutely stunning. I'm going to have them framed this week for hanging in the gallery (and you're all invited!)
The issue at hand I have is that I agonized over the paper they'd be printed on, and I ended up with a heavyweight glossy rag paper, with a very subtle texture. I don't want that to effect to be lost once they're framed.

So my question is: what's a way to present these in a gallery without glass? Is that even a thing people do? In all honesty, I don't see much photography in galleries (at least not where it's not where presentation is part of the piece, such as it ripped or tacked up on a wall), mostly in books. I have a lot of photo books.

Yes. Arles starts on the 7th. I expect to see at least half the prints there unglazed. Frances's exhibition will be. It's hand-coloured prints on Ilford Art 300. Putting them under glass would destroy (or to a very large extent conceal) their uniqueness.

A lot depends on whether you're more interested in preserving your precious prints -- which are replaceable to a considerable extent -- or staying true to your art. Prints are quite tough and as CNNY says, there just isn't usually that much dust/dirt/grease/or spitting going on in galleries.The idea that they are likely to be written off is paranoia: there is a very small risk of damage, and either you accept it or you don't. On pure cost antireflective glass will cost a fortune, quite apart from the fact that it doesn't really work.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Takkun]

Thanks everyone. Some good points here--matted and glazed prints look a bit too museum-ish for my taste and the subject matter. Anti-reflective glass is definitely out--I've gone that route and not only is it pricey, but they will be near a window! It also seems quite unlikely that there are going to be many sneezes and accidents--this is a tiny gallery and not a museum, after all, and I'd be far more concerned about the sculptor I'm showing with.
The images themselves were 11x17 and printed on a size larger paper, so I'll have some wiggle room.

 

[nongfuspring]

If I were you I'd have them framed with high quality anti-reflective glass. Unless the pictures are hanged by a large window this glass will be nearly invisible.

I second this. It's also not just sneezes, scratches etc that leave the photograph vulnerable but also fluctuations in humidity, dust etc which can be mitigated by having the photo encased in a frame. Having said that though, there are photographers like Wolfgang Tilmans who refuse to frame much of their work despite it being priced into the 10s - 100s of thousands of dollars for conceptual reasons.