alternatives to filed down negative carriers?

[jd callow]

I don't have an oversized carrier.

Mat board, takes five minuets.

 

[masochistic_me]

Mat board, takes five minuets.

 

[Ornello]

Mat board, takes five minuets.

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.

 

[John McCallum]

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).

 

[jd callow]

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.

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.

 

[bennoj]

. . . 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.

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.

 

[jd callow]

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

 

[brent8927]

Without doing a critical comparison, you cannot see the extent of the loss of contrast.

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

 

[brent8927]

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.

That's a good point... I hadn't thought about that. Fortunately (perhaps I should say unfortunately!) my work is not in any gallery so no one will notice the border!

I think my work is too conservative for most galleries, there's nothing cutting edge about it, they're just pleasant photographs; like the work of Ansel Adams, Roy Flamm, and Frederick Evans (though obviously not as great as there's, just similar in style and composition)

I actually tell everyone I'm a Republican Photographer. I keep telling myself I should start a club with that title, full of people who like to create more traditional (and hence, conservative) looking photographs.

Of course the title has nothing to do with one's political affiliation!

Brent

 

[Nige]

Printing some of the rebate is, for some, a way to say,"this is exactly what I saw when the shutter was fired."

which gets back to my comment about 100% viewfinders...

 

[Ornello]

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).

Your address, and the prints will come.

 

[Ornello]

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.

Think carefully: What are the sources of flare from taking to printing? Does it make sense to take precautions against only some of these? Does it make sense to throw away any detail?

 

[jd callow]

which gets back to my comment about 100% viewfinders...

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).

 

[Ornello]

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

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.

 

[Ornello]

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

Considering that a correctly-designed viewfinder shows a tad less than records on the film, such a procedure is unnecessary. 100% viewfinders are terrible designs.

 

[jd callow]

Think carefully: whilst i wonder around the details and pretend to be most knowledgable...

-- 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]

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

Dead-on comment, Nige!

 

[Ornello]

-- 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.

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.

 

[jd callow]

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.

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 isn’t needed from me.

 

[brent8927]

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.

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.

 

[Ornello]

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.

How would you know without a critical comparison?

Do you use a lens hood? Do you keep your lenses clean? If so, why?

 

[jd callow]

How would you know without a critical comparison?

Do you use a lens hood? Do you keep your lenses clean? If so, why?

Provide the critical comparison.

 

[Ornello]

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 isn’t needed from me.

This is elementary optics. Elementary. Light entering any optical system causes flare. The less light entering, the less the flare. Light entering the lens that forms the image causes flare, but it is unavoidable. Light entering the lens that has no imaging function will add unnecessary flare. The amount involved would have to be measured, but it does exist. I don't have to prove this. It is well-known. The effect on the print would depend on the lens characteristics (i.e., its resistance to flare) and the negative and paper.

 

[Ornello]

Provide the critical comparison.

I'll have to get a crummy lens first.

 

[brent8927]

How would you know without a critical comparison?

Do you use a lens hood? Do you keep your lenses clean? If so, why?

There's no need for critical comparison because no one is going up to photographs with microscopes. I do use a lens hood, but the flare you get from the sun is quite different than the supposed flare you get from the filed negative carrier (as I said before, I get no flare).

I do keep my lenses clean, in fact I'm quite OCD about it it, even though it makes no or incredibly little difference because any dust on the lens is not in the plane of focus. I just like my equipment clean, I trust that's a good enough reason?

I get the feeling you just want to argue. I keep saying that I like to do things the way I do them, because I both enjoy it and prefer the looks of my images that way, so why must you keep arguing with me (and everyone else for that matter)?