• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Film edges included in prints

Perhaps you would like to comment Ailsa, not on my images, but the editors position on a potentially emotive subject.


I think my standpoint on this probably differs from 99% of other magazine editors, because Outdoor Photography, Travel Photography and Black & White Photography are all photography magazines, not magazines that use photography. As such, photographers, and readers (who, to me, are both the same thing, of course), want to see the picture being treated with respect, which means reproducing it as closely as possible to how the photographer saw it.

I try to avoid tampering with the photograph as little as possible, but sometimes it's unavoidable. For example, often the designer has to crop a picture in order to use it on the front cover. Sometimes this means only shaving a little off the sides or top/bottom to fit the A4 aspect ratio. At other times it might mean cropping from a horizontal to a vertical, but this is only ever done with the permission of the photographer, and if this is the case I always try to reproduce the photograph in its entirety elsewhere in the magazine.

For general use inside the magazine, if I feel a picture needs cropping to be 'improved', I'd prefer to use an alternative.

As for running pictures across the gutter, I've had a handful of letters over the years from readers asking me not to do this. Although I understand their point, it's something I only do if the photograph suits such a treatment (ie, there should be enough 'empty' space for the gutter to run down, so it doesn't interrupt the eye as it scans across the page). If I didn't print pictures across the gutter, the largest size I'd be able to use a landscape format photograph would be half a page, which would be a shame - and would make the magazine look a bit 'samey' throughout.

Very occasionally I will allow the designer to place a caption on a picture, but I try to restrict this to technique features rather than the 'big picture' features such as interviews and reportages.

As a magazine editor you have to balance design with content. If the magazine looked like crap, nobody would buy it, so you do need to be led by design to a degree - I refuse to be dictated by it, however.

As for borders around a print - if the photographer has printed their image that way, then that's how I'll reproduce it. If they haven't, then I would never in a million years add anything created in Photoshop! Vile![/i]
 

After reading this, it is no wonder that Black and White Photography is such an *outstanding* magazine.

It is as close as it is is possible to be to the late, and terribly lamented, "Camera and Darkroom"; and that is intended to be far more than "faint praise".
 
Ailsa,
It is great that you treat images of (other) photographers with such respect. It shows in your magazine!
 
I've contributed to Black and White Photography almost from issue 1 and cannot speak highly enough of how Ailsa and her staff go about putting the magazine together. What Ailsa didn't say was that they have to meet deadlines with printer and distribution etc despite the fact that contributors, me, regularly hand in articles two or three days after the deadline putting more preasure on Ailsa and the team.

Ailsa is also always ready to listen to ideas for articles and features and is willing to give the contributor freedom, I can tell you that is not always the case with many of the photo mags around these days. I agree with Ed that Black and White Photography is the nearest magazine we have to the sadly missed Camera and Darkroom and long may it reign.
 
I was very impressed by the quality and the balance of the magazine. Ailsa`s magazine can be read with interest by both photographers and non photographers alike.
And of course it is a beautiful magazine to hold.
 
(...late to this party...)

I try to form an opinion on the inclusion of real film margins in published or displayed photos but just can't seem to get worked up over the issue. As a photographer, naturally I'm interested to see what materials others are using. It's interesting as well to see how they compose in an uncropped photo.

Faked "film margin" borders, etc., tho'...I don't see the point. Sometimes they're obviously overdone but I still can't get worked up over the issues. I just don't see the point.

Personally, I tend to make proof prints all-in, margins and all. Because I don't always go directly from freshly processed film, to contact sheet, to proof print to finished print, it helps me when I see a proof weeks or months later to have an idea of what I'm dealing with in an obviously uncropped photo.

So "sloppy" margins are a sort of tool, a handy visual reference for me. I probably wouldn't want to see my prints matted, mounted and framed that way tho'. Some photographers deliberately choose to show that their photos are uncropped by including the film margins. Again, it's not something that offends me or about which I have a strong opinion. I only have a personal preference for my own photos.

The closest I have to an opinion about others' photos is for Polaroids. If I could afford to buy, say, Joachim Knill's large Polaroids I'd want to keep the visible raggedy edges. I think it adds to the unique aesthetic of the big Polaroid print. It's no different from a watercolorist floating a deckle-edged paper to show off the beautiful paper.
 
Often, black borders and other stuff left at the edges of the photograph are nothing but an affectation. At other times, they are useful.

I believe the criterion for leaving them in must be an aesthetic one, not an intellectual one. When viewing the scene with our cameras there are no black borders. In my photographs, where all the space is used, they would only be distracting. And in most photographs that I see by others, the black, polaroid, or platinum brushstroke borders are a distraction. When they are covered up, the photographs almost always look better.

There are exceptions--the most noteworthy being many of the portraits of Richard Avedon. When he photographs people against a white background the people are centered and the rest of the space is dead space. By leaving in the black border he energizes that space and enables the viewer's eye to navigate the entire picture space and not get stuck only on the figure.
 
Where it is ok to show the edges IMHO is in the case of handcoated alt process prints/prints from 55 negs-otherwise it can be a bit of an affectation if overused.Also it can help with high key images to stop the eye from wandering out of the frame. Previous comments about designers spot on BTW.
 
I've been experimenting with lith printing lately - and it really helps to include a black border to show clearly when the blacks are starting to explode.
 
My recent experiments with running 35mm film through a 6x6cm folder would be pointless without including the entire image, including sprocket holes. Hate to admit it but what makes these photos remotely interesting is that the emulsion is exposed right over the sprocket holes, edge to edge. Otherwise I haven't done anything particularly interesting yet with the trick.
 
i just saw an image on flickr that had an obvious fake border on it. it's a digital photo from a canon 20d, but it's been cropped to a near-square size and fake 4x5 markings are on it, even film notches. i want to post a comment on the image because i feel offended by it..
i thought i'd see if there was a apug thread on the subject and sure enough, here it is.

the offending image:
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=359836819&size=m

he has another image with the same boder that's been stretched to different proportions.

it just really bothers me a LOT.
 


Absolutely.

Shit happens.

Some people deserve to be shat upon.

I use real borders sometimes, when warranted.

Sometimes I think about adding 'film' border for magazines who deserve to be shat upon, even if their readers don't

At Waterloo, one of Napoleon's generals reputedly said, "Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre et nous y serons emmerdés' (we are in a chamber pot and will be shat upon).

Make of that what you will.

Cheers,

R.
 
I have a fake film border I treasure. It was sent to me by a famous photographer.

The photograph is a fibre based gelatin silver image made by contact with a 8x10 negative, cropped to 35mm proportions, and surrounded by a filed-out Leitz Focomat neg carrier border.

At the time that the image was made the famous photographer was, among other things, a retailer of Leica cameras. The plot apparently was to show how wonderfully sharp and clear Leica pictures could be. Fortunately the scheme did not go public but the power of the black border fooled me and a few others for a while.
 

It's been deleted!
 
It's been deleted!

we had a great exchange of comments on flickr. i posted some pictures of a film holder and explained the edges and film notches. here is his last comment on flickr:

Thanks for the information. Leaving the holder on the print
to indicate a full-frame (no crop) makes perfect sense.
Unfortunately you have convinced me that the
rebates/holders/etc are simply an affectation and don't
really belong on my photos. When I drop the photo (to
replace) this tread will also drop which is a shame since I
think you make good points and provided some insight into
traditional darkroom practices.
 


Sounds like you did a good job of schooling him with civility. He's right about it being an affectation. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's not often an effective affectation.

Now...I gotta find me some 4x4 sheet film holders.
 
Like most things, I think it can be both done to great effect and done rather stupidly. I'm a fan of it when done well, adding to the feel of the shot, but when people start tacking it on in photoshop I think we do have a right to mention our disdain.
 

Dear Alex,

There's also the point that a lot of people want EVERYTHING to be reduced to a single set of rules or (still worse) a single objective aesthetic criterion.

As you say, it can be done well/wisely or badly/stupidly. The obvious conesequence of this is that we should do it when it's appropriate, and not when it's not.

In fact, if you analyze the question, what answers can anyone give?

1 I personally like it/do it all the time.

2 I personally dislike it/never do it

3 I personally do it sometimes and other times I don't

I'm not sure that anyone can give cast iron reasons why it's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. The usual defence is that it shows the 'integrity' of the work, but I have long found it difficult to understand why cropping an image (if it is done by the artist) is evidence of a lack of integrity. Personally I do it for one of three reasons

1 It helps the picture stand out. So does a wide white border but there isn't always room; on a monitor, the image may be too small; and in a book or magazine layout you can NEVER tell what the layout artist is going to do.

2 If the picture has white or very light areas near the edge, it stops them 'leaking out' into the background.

3 It looks pretty

If none of these reasons applies, I don't do it.

Cheers,

R.
 


Similarly, just a couple of days ago I ran across some of Marcy Merrill's pinhole or "Pintoid" images as she calls them with the emulsion exposed over the sprocket holes ( Dead Link Removed ). I was impressed by the effect in this case.
 
2 If the picture has white or very light areas near the edge, it stops them 'leaking out' into the background.

Roger, you beat me to it. I was going to say I leave mine in to keep the picture from bleeding into the surrounding paper.
 
Roger, you beat me to it. I was going to say I leave mine in to keep the picture from bleeding into the surrounding paper.

Dear Sanders,

Yes, it's distressing how an artistic statement of one's integrity can actually be a simple practical fix, isn't it?

Cheers,

R.
 

I actually like that photo and the treatment around the edges. I also like the "pintoid" shots with the sprocket holes, although I would not have personally printed a negative either of those two ways.

I believe in artistic license, and as with all art, the viewer either loves it, hates it, or has no response.

It's like runway fashion. I could never see myself wearing those clothes, even in my youth, but those designers are exaggerating to make a statement. Whether I love or hate those clothes, it at least gets a response from me and provokes new ideas in ways to wear my own wardrobe.

With art, it's the same thing. I might not like what a particular person does, but it does stir my thought processes.

Pat