Ailsa said: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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
this is the thumbnail:
http://schlachet.net/images/dog-false-image.jpg
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?