Ornello Pederzoli II said:I don't have an oversized carrier.
mrcallow said:Mat board, takes five minuets.
There are many here who would like to see even one of your images Ornello Pederzoli II (whatever your real name is); take it as a compliment. Impress us with more than your 'noble' words (which don't).mrcallow said:Mat board, takes five minuets.
So you have never done it. Don't really have any idea what will happen, but you're willing to dole out advice as if you are only passing along god's word.Ornello Pederzoli II said:I'm not sure how to relate whatever flare my system might have to anyone else's. My results might be atypical becuause my enlarging lens is very high in contrast. I might see nothing in my system, but that does not preculde a greater effect with other equipment.
masochistic_me said:. . . i suppose that's why people do this really, because, no border is ever really the same, especially with all the different ways you've suggested.
Ornello Pederzoli II said:Without doing a critical comparison, you cannot see the extent of the loss of contrast.
bennoj said:Phil Borges came in to talk to a class I was taking a couple of years ago and was showing slides of his work. He uses black borders and after several slides had gone by it became apparent that he had one film holder for each format he uses (I know he no longer prints his own work, but has assistants to do it.) The eccentricities of the filing on the film holders were noticeable and obviously always in the same place. I don't know if I would have noticed it looking at the pictures hanging on a wall, but when one slide is replaced by another on a screen it becomes very obvious. Perhaps if you are going to go this route you need several film holders all with their own eccentricities and be sure when hanging a show that no two are the same in sequence.
mrcallow said:Printing some of the rebate is, for some, a way to say,"this is exactly what I saw when the shutter was fired."
John McCallum said:There are many here who would like to see even one of your images Ornello Pederzoli II (whatever your real name is); take it as a compliment. Impress us with more than your 'noble' words (which don't).
mrcallow said:So you have never done it. Don't really have any idea what will happen, but you're willing to dole out advice as if you are only passing along god's word.
You, dear sir, are a poseur.
I could not agree more. My frustration with SLR's led me to RF's. and later to LF (neg size and optic's were also issues).Nige said:which gets back to my comment about 100% viewfinders...
brent8927 said:Perhaps. But if a critical comparison is merited then it means the human eye cannot tell the difference except under microscope, loupe, etc. Perhaps we should examine the molecular structure as well?
I think the benefit, if one likes the look of the black border by far overshadows any possible image degradation.
Obviously you don't like the filed negative carriers and you seem convinced everyone else should believe as you do, but let us believe and do what we want and stop giving us a hard time about it.
Brent
mrcallow said:Printing some of the rebate is, for some, a way to say,"this is exactly what I saw when the shutter was fired." For that reason it is often referred to as the verification border. It is in a manner, a way for the photographer to 'put it all out there' for all to see and determine for themselves the value of the moment.
By not cropping the edges of the border and letting the outer portions bleed you are also making an aesthetic choice.
There is a long and venerable history to the verification border, especially amongst street photographers. There is a long and venerable history to allowing the medium to make its own statement.
After spending thousands of dollars on lenses, you wouldn't want to wast any of that image circle
Ornello Pederzoli II said:Think carefully: whilst i wonder around the details and pretend to be most knowledgable...
Nige said:I interpret hand coated paper differently to 35mm edge printing. The 35mm 'this is how I saw it in the viewfider' aspect amuses me in one way... not many people have 100% viewfinders
mrcallow said:-- you have admitted that you don't have first hand knowledge. when you provide proof you will be worth reading.
You are a pretender. You'd like to be, you may have bought the equipment, and read the books, but you are not a photographer or the person you play at here. Your knowledge is not experiential it is derivative.
Ornello Pederzoli II said:I don't follow you. The causes and mechanisms of flare are easily understood. Flare in the taking stage causes the greatest loss of contrast in the shadow areas. Flare in the printing stage causes the greatest loss in the print highlight areas. My point was and is: why take precautions only part of the way? Do you keep your lenses pristine? Do you use a hood whenever possible? This isn't rocket science.
This is a purely technical issue. The personal remarks are entirely uncalled for.
Ornello Pederzoli II said:A few quick points:
1) Most camera viewfinders show less than the full frame precisely to allow for the slight negative carrier crop.
2) The negative carrier crop helps hold the film flatter and minimize flare
3) The manufacturers of enlargers are not idiots
4) The effect of flare would be a slight loss of contrast in the highlights and mid-tones. This loss can turn a suprlative lens into an average one. It should be visible to the naked eye, depending on the kind of image involved.
5) there is no reason to suppress flare in the other stages and ignore it in printing.
brent8927 said:I'm not arguing against most of those points. I was simply saying that many out there, including myself, prefer using the filed-down negative carriers and that we see no image degradation in our photographs. I have never got any flare inside my photographs (perhaps is magic) so I have always preferred to print with the border; I like my images that way.
agelesslove II said:How would you know without a critical comparison?
Do you use a lens hood? Do you keep your lenses clean? If so, why?
mrcallow said:No personal remarks from me.
100% vf -- all my cameras have them and the optics are considered some of the finest available.
Problems with flare when printing the border -- I print thousands of prints a year with and without -- no discernable problem on the vast majority.
When asked to run a simple scientific test or offer material proof you refuse the former and acknowledge you haven't the latter.
My conclusion is that you do not know what you're talking about. Nothing personal, but you're a poseur -- a person who presents himself in a manner that is greater than the reality.
I suspect you want to be attacked, but you define your self so clearly that it isnt needed from me.
mrcallow said:Provide the critical comparison.
Ornello Pederzoli II said:How would you know without a critical comparison?
Do you use a lens hood? Do you keep your lenses clean? If so, why?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?