I think I've only ever seen a single set of photos that were
indisputably behind AR glass (I've not used it, too expensive for me).
I didn't notice anything wrong with the photos but have to admit I was
inspecting them head-on, at eye level and from reading distance.
Chuck Norcutt
Bob Whitmire wrote:
> It does suppress the reflections that irritate me, but it also takes
> its toll on image quality if not viewed directly head-on and at eye-
> level. The late Dennis Shultz, a Maine photographer of some repute as
> a master printer, used to frame his black and white images without
> glass. And he got $800 per 11x14.
>
> --Bob Whitmire
> www.bwp33.com
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> Why do you loathe "non-reflective" glass? I'd have thought non-
>> reflective glass would suppress the reflections you're concerned with.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|