Full frame Printing.

[Dr Croubie]

The black border around a full frame photograph has been called a verification border. The photographer includes it to signify that they take full responsibility for everything the lens laid on the film. It's either a boast or an affirmation depending on how you want to take it.

Of course, unless you're including the film-type edge-markings and/or sprocket holes, it's easy enough to just burn the border black...

 

[L Gebhardt]

I generally compose based on the camera frame, but have no issue cropping when I print. Especially with 35mm I find the image I want doesn't fit the camera imposed aspect ratio, so I crop a lot. Surprisingly to me I rarely crop my square images.

 

[Bill Burk]

I get pleasure from seeing prints from whatever the ratio, whether golden, elongated or square.

If the worst that happens is you get a portfolio of square prints because you chose a square format camera... the world is still a better place with you in it.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... Don't you find that if you go out with, say, a square format camera that you see your potential images in square format, or if you have your 35mm camera with you that you see them in the one to one and a half format and so on? Surely part of our work is packaging the world up into these various packages we take with us?

Maybe the best explanation of "why" I work the way I do is that it is a continuance of the contact printing process that was how I made my first photographs? Who knows? Who cares? Does it matter? The final result is the only thing that matters.

RR

Hi Rod,

I guess we work very differently. I determine framing and aspect ratio without a camera, i.e., with my eye before I unpack my equipment. Since I shoot negative material, I have the luxury of not having the negative as a final product (as with transparencies), but can use the portion of the negative that corresponds to my original concept of the framing, which is subject-dependent.

Yes, I do shoot some square pictures, but mostly on 4x5-inch sheet film... And, I even shoot full-frame 4x5 from time to time. Always, however, each image has its own specific borders, determined by subject itself, and not by film format.

FWIW, I dislike square film formats, not because I don't like square for some images, but because I usually end up cropping too much of the (already small) negative area away in so many cases. With 4x5 I have a nice compromise between long-and-skinny, for panorama, and square, which then gives me about 3-1/2 inches square vs. the 6x6 cm of MF square format cameras.

Best,

Doremus

 

[kb3lms]

Why this obsession with full frame?

An old, unwritten rule of 35mm photography has always been "fill the frame". Mostly I think it comes from slide photography where what you shoot is what you get and no option to crop later, as a slide anyway. Also, another idea being to reduce the amount of enlargement as much as possible because of grain.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You guys are lucky to be able to see 'straight' enough to get whatever is in the frame aligned so that it's perfectly aligned every time.
I could never manage it.

I almost never print full frame for that reason. Nothing like a crooked horizon...

 

[ic-racer]

Just curious - when/why did it become commonplace to print to the size of 8x10, or even 5x7, when these do not correspond to the actual size of 35mm film? Why don't people print 4x6, 8x12, ect.?

Where are you viewing photographs? Most established 35mm photographers I can think of print to the dimensions of the 35mm frame.

 

[Bill Burk]

You guys are lucky to be able to see 'straight' enough to get whatever is in the frame aligned so that it's perfectly aligned every time.
I could never manage it.

I almost never print full frame for that reason. Nothing like a crooked horizon...

We'll see if I was so lucky today. I included horizon in a few shots and I did my best to keep it horizontal. Any perfecting if needed will need to be done when the print is matted.

 

[LorenPhoto]

Moral Question re: the term "Full-Frame"

Hello, My name is Loren and I just joined APUG. Happy to see fellow analog photographers out there!

The majority of my work is presented Full Frame. I pride myself on in-camera cropping and often do like to let viewers know that my work is full-frame. So that said, with film photos, I don't always like to show Verification Borders because I prefer either no border or a white border, especially when showing on my web site or social media. SO, my question is this: Can I Morally still caption/describe a photo as "full-frame" without showing a Verification Border? Or do you need to show the border in order to "prove" it's FF if describing it as such?

Same question for Digital: since there is no Verification Border as there is with film: if I have honestly not cropped into an image at all, could I morally include Full Frame in the description/caption?

I appreciate all of your feedback!

Thank you,
Loren

 

[Alex Muir]

Hi Loren. I just read your post which caused me to read through the whole thread, most of which was back in March. For me, the answer would be;
If the picture is full frame, call it that. The borders don't prove anything. I like some images with definite borders, and some without.
If, on the other hand, the image has been cropped, I don't see why you would call it full frame.
I have to say that the distinction is probably only of interest to (some) photographers. I doubt that the majority of viewers would give it a second thought. It's an admirable skill being able to compose a successful image in the confines of your negative area, but there are many outstanding images that were perfected after the initial exposure. The subject matter and circumstances in which the image was made must play a large part in that. That's just my opinion, anyway!
Alex

 

[MattKing]

Full frame is useful as a target, not as a rule.

I like to make the best use I can from my negatives, because it makes it easier to print them, and in many case the result shows better.

But whether or not someone else has cropped their negatives makes no difference to me at all.

If you label your negative as full frame, I'll just ignore the label.

 

[Alan Klein]

I shoot full frame regardless of the camera; a habit probably left over from shooting 35mm slides for projection. The advantage is it forces me to think about the content and perspective of the picture so I don't get sloppy. The negative is that it's difficult to print to that size if standard sized paper. Any cropping could change the composition in a negative way. Also, it leaves little room on the edges for reduction when you want to keep the same format.

 

[mdarnton]

I can pinpoint the moment I stopped cropping. I was working on a newspaper, the first week or so, and the editor clipped off one column width of one of my photos and really wrecked the balance. That was 35 years ago, and I still hold an image in my mind of watching him draw that wax pencil line on the print. I resolved at that moment that I was going to make pictures that forced him to use every bit I gave him, where any cropping at all would wreck the whole thing. It started out as a game, and ended up being a habit. The result was very beneficial for me, though--it taught me to compose tightly and make use of everything in a picture, and leave out what didn't work. As time moved on, my pictures got better because I was making them before I pushed the button, not trying to save them later in the darkroom. The resulting compositions were much better for having been tightly planned and executed rather than being salvage operations from poor planning.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Uhhh.... People who shoot 4x5 and 8x10 and 6x7 kinda like the proportions the way they already are. And since bigger negs temp bigger prints,
we tend to spend a lot more on paper itself. Most of the 35mm crowd have already defected to cell phones and inksmudge printing, if they are bothering to print at all. When I print 35mm film myself, it's generally full-frame. But ya gotta trim the paper when you drymount it anyway.
Same situation when I shoot 6x9 format. Big deal.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Most SLR prisms don't see the full frame anyway.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To me the negative is all about capturing a moment, where the content itself dictates where I aim the camera. It's very rare that the content aligns itself with the aspect ratio of the capturing device; I just make sure I get what I want and worry about expressing myself at the printing stage.

For some reason I like the full 8x12" or 12x18" view when I print 35mm negs with landscape subject matter. Then, for some reason, I love the 3:4 aspect ratio for portraits, so that becomes 9x12" and 13.5x18" when I have portraits in the frame.
When I shoot 120 6x6 I usually end up printing a full square, because I like how that looks. Unfortunately I have a vision problem that means I'm terrible at aligning the camera so that it's parallel to the horizon or perpendicular to the center line, so even though I print a full square, often they are cropped due to negative rotation in the enlarger. (This rotation issue is even worse with 35mm where I often shoot hand held).
But once in a blue moon I'll crop the 6x6 negs to 645 ratio, because that is the 3:4 ratio I like for portraits. And once in a blue moon I crop 35mm negatives to square.

Go figure. The film format does not dictate how I shoot. Neither does the paper size. But to some extent the print area does. Call me crazy if you want, but it works for me. I don't think there's anything holy about the aspect ratio of the film, as I'd like to fully explore the potential of the negatives that I like. Whatever it takes to carry the content of the picture forward - that's basically the only hard rule I have.

 

[TimFox]

Your question is historically backward.
4x5 and 8x10 inch prints pre-date the 24x36 mm format on 35 mm film.

 

[pentaxuser]

I raised the same question as asked by the OP several years ago. Both at an Ilford tour and on APUG.

To use a quote from the famous parable: "The seed fell on stony ground" in both cases. The plain fact is that most users of film use 35mm which is a 2:3 ratio and most users settle on 5x7 prints, being a good compromise between the slightly too small 6x4 prints and the very much too big and expensive 8x10 or even 6x8 for all 36 frames.

It has never been clear to me why none of the print paper manufacturers have moved to 5x7.5. Yes I know that not all formats(645, 6x6, 67) lend their negs to a 2:3 ratio but 35mm does.

However it is clear from the posts that we are relaxed, resigned etc about paper not meeting the 2:3 ratio so why should the manufacturers change?

It kind of backs up the lack of response my same question got from Ilford. They knew there was no groundswell for change. Yes there is a good deal of history surrounding print sizes and it would be troublesome to change and if we can live with things as they are then why change?

There are always good reasons why we shouldn't change and there is comfort in leaving things as they are even if they cannot be justified logically

However on balance I am glad that we didn't take the same attitude to the debate on the continuation of witch burning

pentaxuser