Borders, how/where do you place your image on a print?

[Helinophoto]

Hello
When I print, I usually either do a full spread with no borders, or thin borders like this, to be able to fit the photo inside a passepartout/matting :

I have seen tons of videos on darkroom printing and also looked at various prints made by people here and elsewhere, and there is one thing I do not understand properly; Borders and placement of the print.
I see people routinely do this kind of printing-placement:

Now, why is that? I see fat borders and high placement as the typical variants, but why do people do it this way?

Any rules or theory to be read about this somewhere?

 

[koraks]

Now, why is that?

If you don't see it, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it and just keep doing what you're doing.

It's not about rules. It's about how an image feels; i.e. how we experience it. We can try to deduce 'rules' from this, but it'll just be some ex-post rationalization of what is essentially an intuitive, emotional and irrational choice (but: 'feelings are facts' as they say!)

When I started printing, I used to do 5mm borders because this was the narrowest my baseboard easel allowed me to do, or full bleed on large prints without an easel. After all, I paid for the paper, so I better use it, right? The only problem is that those prints looked like...crap. Had I matted all of them, it wouldn't have been so bad, but I matte maybe 0.01% of the prints I make. I'd like to be able to enjoy the remainder as well.

 

[Helinophoto]

Thanks, I see, so, this is related to framing the prints, with no matting, and therefore making an aesthetic choice in now the final print will look, framed, with just the photo directly under the glass?

I can understand that, but I seem to have seen some print like this, even when they are matting the print, and it seems to be so common, so I was basically checking to see if there is some theory/advice or guidelines that I have missed here.

I agree that a huge print with a 2-5 mm border may not look that cool until it is matted and framed (that is why I mat and frame all my prints), at the same time, it seems like an awful waste of paper, if you were to print huge, with even bigger white borders.

 

[koraks]

Well, virtually none of my prints end up behind glass, so the point for me is also to make those enjoyable or at least acceptable.

As to borders on the paper even on framed/matted prints: consider that a matte acts as a limit or border around the print. It boxes in the image. It just feels totally different to have the same image with some space around it, and then the inner edge of the matte, or the inner edge of the matte straight up to the edges of the image itself. Try it out and see. And again, if you don't feel a difference, don't lose any sleep over it.

Again, I don't think this is about theory at all. Any theory in this context is just rationalization of an inherently non-rational experience.

 

[Don_ih]

Some people, particularly using fibre-based paper, enlarge with a large border around the image to be able to trim off the wavy edges of the paper, which will not easily go flat even when mounted. How much that's necessary depends on the paper.

I tend to enlarge to the largest size the image can occupy on the piece of paper, with about a 1/4" border on each side of the image - maybe a bit more. So, on a sheet of 8x10 paper, you get a picture from a 35mm negative that spreads ~9.5" on the long side and ~6.5" on the short side - which leaves an full inch or so of paper blank. That's what you're seeing in the second last picture you posted. People regularly print 6x6 negatives to 7.5"x7x5" on 8x10 paper, with the big border underneath. Looks like a giant Polaroid.

Sometimes, I will just fill up the 8x10, though, cropping the negative to the paper format - that depends on what I want in the print.

 

[Hassasin]

For printing I don’t see a point of anything but centered or wider bottom if it were to be signed in that area.

i solve presentation with mounting and framing, and there it all depends on a lot of things, could land anywhere within the frame.

 

[koraks]

i solve presentation with mounting and framing

Sure.

But there's a difference between these two:

 

[brian steinberger]

Why be restricted to the ratio of the paper? For example, a full frame 35mm negative will not fit on an 8x10 or 11x14 piece of paper with even borders without being trimmed afterward. I think a lot of what you are seeing here is how someone cropped, or did not crop a negative, and chose a size to print an image. Then they choose the appropriate size of paper and either simply centered the image, or even borders top and sides and let the bottom be what it is.

Personally, I prefer atleast 1” borders on fiber paper. You never know how you might want to frame that print in the future, or possibly sign it too. Better to leave a little room.

 

[DWThomas]

Hey -- with what we spend for print paper these days, it's the photographer's call! I normally center the image, and normally print the image at its native aspect ratio which can leave different sized margins/borders depending on the paper size. For exhibition I normally use a double window mat with the image "optically centered" and a slightly larger reveal between inner and outer mat at the bottom for a signature. My prints are signed and dated on the back. So the finished result doesn't tell the viewer where the paper edges are.

I threw in the qualifier "normally" because it's what I generally do, but indeed if some screwy idea seemed to encourage making it triangular, round, or hexagonal I might go with it on a rare occasion. I "normally" avoid the rebates showing -- except in my 8x10 contact prints from pinhole work where I get the itch to drive home that they are really film based.

 

[MTGseattle]

I agree with most everything posted above.

For me personally a window matt situation also comes into play. I like about 1/4" of paper showing between the image and the "window" so I usually account for at least a 3/8" border although it always tends to be bigger. If I don't like the way an image is working out on a given paper size, I switch papers.

 

[Hassasin]

Sure.

But there's a difference between these two:
View attachment 357104 View attachment 357105

Sure ... if that is what you'd do. Cut the window with no white border around photo, but cut it where you want within the frame. I don't want to "steal" your work and edit it, but I'm sure you see what I am getting at. With right photo, there won't be even any drop shadow around it either.

 

[koraks]

@Hassasin there are many ways to do this, but even if you matte over the edges of the actual image so that there's no unprinted paper around the actual image, the matte acts as a border, as a literal 'bump'. This does something, visually. It may be OK or even desirable in some cases. It may be detrimental in other cases. I think there are very good reasons to (sometimes, or in my case, usually) print with broad borders.

 

[GregY]

I always print with some border just for handling the print until it gets mounted. I virtually always print the native negative proportions, which are of course different than paper proportions. My exhibition prints get trimmed completely, and float mounted with a circa 3/8" space between the print and the window mat.
As for mounting, i follow Bruce Barnbaum's practice:
"Bruce Barnbaum suggests in "The Art of Photography: Smaller than 8x10 on 11x14 matboard, 8x10 on 14x17 matboard, 11x14 on 16x20 matboard (although he prefers the proportion of a 17x20 mat), and 16x20 on 22x28 board (although he prefers 24x28)."

 

[MattKing]

If you use really narrow borders, there is nothing more frustrating then working hard on a print and then, when you turn on the light, only then noticing that the paper was just slightly crooked in the easel, turning a final print into a work print!
With wider borders, your paper trimmer solves the problem for you.
I print mostly on RC, and I do a lot of toning. All that handling sometimes results in tiny amounts of "frilling" at the corners. Wider borders mean that frilling can be trimmed away.
And sometimes, with some negative carriers, I like to include this effect:

That requires larger borders.

 

[Pieter12]

It's all about the look and feel of the loose print. Once matted, you can have as much or as little white around the print as you want. If the print goes to the maximum area allowed by the easel, you can always trim it flush and have the backing board show as much white border as you like, although it can depend on the size of the print. Convention has it to allow a little bit more white along the bottom edge, to sort of anchor the relative space around the print. That thought is usually applied to the mat as well, allowing an inch or so more for the bottom edge of the mat compared to the top. Some photographers like to sign the front of the print, so extra space has to be allowed for that. I think Ansel Adams spelled out his method in The Print. Today, I believe it is preferred to sign the back (in pencil) and inside the image area so it cannot be trimmed off.

 

[ic-racer]

I almost never frame prints (except for exhibition) so I make a pleasing border during the printing process.

 

[Mal Paso]

Notice ic-racer's easel. I have 2 Saunders 4 blade easels and print each picture it's own size and shape with fairly wide, often asymmetrical borders.

It gives the picture the space a mat would without cutting one.

I've done books this way.

 

[ic-racer]

Yes, 4-blade easels are the way to go. It was many years before I could afford one, now I am fortunate enough to have a few 4-blade easels in different sizes.

 

[mshchem]

I almost never frame prints (except for exhibition) so I make a pleasing border during the printing process. View attachment 357175

Nice, I have a beautiful old Eastman easel that allows for just about any border one could desire. I use a old Airequipt easel that puts 1/4 " borders on routine 8x10 prints.

My wife the curator,... wide borders, wider border on the bottom. She knows

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Some people try to re-create the look of bottom-weighted matting with the borders of the print. That's fine if you intend to display the print unmatted, maybe in a portfolio book or whatever.

If you plan on matting your prints, that's not necessary; just make whatever border width and bottom-weighting with your matboard and window mat (passepartout).

FWIW, a classic presentation of fiber-base prints is to trim the image to the exact dimensions and aspect ratio the photographer desires without a border, mount it on a larger mat board with bottom-weighting, and cut a window mat 1/4 to 1/2 inch larger than the image dimensions so as to show the image border and the signature under the print at bottom right.

Best,

Doremus

 

[miha]

FWIW, a classic presentation of fiber-base prints is to trim the image to the exact dimensions and aspect ratio the photographer desires without a border, mount it on a larger mat board with bottom-weighting, and cut a window mat 1/4 to 1/2 inch larger than the image dimensions so as to show the image border and the signature under the print at bottom right.

Best,

Doremus

Please post an example. Thanks.

 

[GregY]

Please post an example. Thanks.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I dymount everything worthy anyway; so it's the mounting board borders which count. I like the bottom margin somewhat wider. Frankly, I detest the current custom of making all the borders equal. That seems to be the apogee of laziness, especially since most frame shops now have computerized mat cutters making it ridiculously easy to customize the mats.

I precisely trim the print itself, along with the drymount tissue tacked to it; then the backing museum board becomes the border, and if framed, the overlaying window mat has its own reveal, much like the nice presentation of Greg in the preceding post. Doremus described it too.

 

[miha]

View attachment 357419

I'm not sure your example fits Doremus' description: trim the image to the exact dimensions and aspect ratio the photographer desires without a border

EDIT: at a closer look it seems you trimmed the photo and drymouned it without the border - what seems to be the border is indeed the mounting board alone.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I understood Doremus differently, miha. But he can clarify his meaning if he wishes.

I first laminate the drymount tissue to the print itself, then fully trim down the print to my wanted look, with no borders of its own. Then I laminate that to the museum board backing. That's consistent with my black and white FB work.
For example, my trimmed-down nominal 16X20 prints (that is, printed on 16X20 paper), are mounted on 22X26 board, allowing a reasonable perimeter white margin of board itself.

Color prints are done differently, since those don't drymount well. In their case, I retain the white borders of the print material itself, using the easel blades for exact composition boundaries. Then the overmat window is cut oversized, to allow a little of that native print border itself as a reveal. There are certain exceptions, however, depending on the specific framing technique.