How many of you print full-frame?

[5stringdeath]

+2

This subject seems to roll around every 6 months or so.... my opinion hasn't changed...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Well, pretentiousness is an attitude - not a piece of work. Sure, if someone prints full-frame and declares "only this kind of work is true!" than I would agree. But not all photographers who print full frame have this attitude, so I think its wrong to assume all full-framed work is pretentious.

Heck, I still know people who think if you aren't using a LF camera, you're not a "real" photographer.

 

[paulie]

full frame here , mainly because i contact print only, and dont want to waste any neg by cropping, i dont use black borders though and use lith tape to produce white borders.

also i use white borders on alt printing, this helps to stretch out my gold toner if using albumen .
same goes for lith, my developer lasts longer when black borders are eliminated

for me full frame printing is part of the deal, i have my masked lith tape contact glass pre taped to do a full frame with about a 2mm wriggle room, and really cant be arsed to re tape for all the different cropping sizes.

im not a great fan of the full frame is better argument ,if you want to crop then crop.i would if i was optically enlarging, its easy so why not.

 

[Shangheye]

99.9999999% of the time unless I screwed up and it's an image I just can not help but love. K

 

[Anon Ymous]

I don't ever let the film format dictate how I print. You're missing way too many opportunities that way. Print what looks good. Crop how you like.

...Anyway, i crop when that makes a better image.
A film format imposes a static, arbitrary shape, and many subjects would benefit from a different aspect ratio composition.
And sometimes it's just physically impossible to get the desired framing, not just because of the fixed aspect ratio the camera you happen to have with you imposes, but also because the focal length of the lens is not quite right, or you can't get in the position that would be exactly right.

^What they said...

 

[eclarke]

Aspect ratio is not a gimmick.
Selective (un)sharpness isn't either.
They are part of the options you have to consider.

I agree, but those types of thing don't supercede the actual photograph and I do consider them as part of the previsualization. I use formats from 4x5 up to 11x14. My point is that if it's a boring, ordinary, meaningless and poorly lit photograph, none of those things will correct it...Evan Clarke

 

[ic-racer]

Probably 10% full frame. Of those 1/2 are printed with a sharp black outline and the other half purposely show a filed out negative holder.

I really don't have any roll-film cameras that show "full frame." They all give some extra image area around the edges to capture imperfections or dust or whatever.

 

[MattKing]

When I have control over how my photograph is to be cropped and printed, I don't worry about printing full frame. I do try to avoid wasting space on the negative though, so as to minimize how much enlargement is necessary.

When I know that my photograph is going to be printed on to standard sizes (e.g. machine proofs for weddings), I try to keep that in mind well composing the shot.

One further consideration is when you are doing work to fit the requirements of others (editors, art directors, etc.).

A long time ago, I did a fair amount of work for a newspaper. That paper had a fairly consistent approach to the use of "art" (layout of photographs on the page). After a while, I got to the point where I could easily compose my shots to fit that approach. I can remember one editor saying with some exasperation: "Matt, you always give me shots that I can only crop one way!"

I never include the rebate in my prints. I would only consider doing so if it had a distinct purpose (like test shots from a new film).

 

[5stringdeath]

My point is that if it's a boring, ordinary, meaningless and poorly lit photograph, none of those things will correct it...Evan Clarke

Most of these terms are subjective. I'll give you the "poorly lit" but I've also seen wonderful work that most would consider poorly lit, such as the Provoke Era movement in post-war Japan. I love a lot of that work (which almost none is printed full frame.)

 

[Q.G.]

Most of these terms are subjective. I'll give you the "poorly lit" but I've also seen wonderful work that most would consider poorly lit, such as the Provoke Era movement in post-war Japan. I love a lot of that work (which almost none is printed full frame.)

Indeed.

Besides, if you find you accidentally (of course) have made a boring, ordinary, meaningless picture, it can be quite possible to change that by selecting a different crop.

 

[Tony Egan]

Well, pretentiousness is an attitude - not a piece of work. Sure, if someone prints full-frame and declares "only this kind of work is true!" than I would agree. But not all photographers who print full frame have this attitude, so I think its wrong to assume all full-framed work is pretentious.

You described "proof of total negative" as a "philosophy". Is that not a rather earnest overstatement of what is basically a simple aesthetic choice? It's that kind of talk that attracts the pretentious tag.
Anyway, you seem to be relaxed enough now to drop that one and happily crop the annoying thing the rangefinder/TLR didn't tell you was going to be there in the first place! And, you can still add the black border. There have been a few threads that described some simple and effective ways to do that.

 

[clayne]

I barely have time to think about intended cropping let alone other small details like that while shooting. By the time I even stop to think about different technical approaches I could use while composing the image is usually gone. When I'm in the "process" I tend to use the viewfinder, and it's limitations, as another zone. Nothing special about that and fairly common among photographers. Any other details like exposure, filters, etc. I do ahead of time and deal with the results after the fact. About the only thing I *do* try to do is focus.

Cropping while printing is usually reduced to "utility" cropping, i.e. very light edge cropping to to fit the easel, etc. Honestly, I feel that if one has to go super deep with the cropping, and they aren't going for an intentional pronounced-grain effect, that it's cheating. Cropping is not going to correct the aberrant perspective and angle of view artifacts/issues that, in my eyes, are a punishment for not getting close enough.

In short, it's faking the funk.

 

[Q.G.]

I barely have time to think about intended cropping let alone other small details like that while shooting. By the time I even stop to think about different technical approaches I could use while composing the image is usually gone. When I'm in the "process" I tend to use the viewfinder, and it's limitations, as another zone. Nothing special about that and fairly common among photographers. Any other details like exposure, filters, etc. I do ahead of time and deal with the results after the fact. About the only thing I *do* try to do is focus.

Cropping while printing is usually reduced to "utility" cropping, i.e. very light edge cropping to to fit the easel, etc. Honestly, I feel that if one has to go super deep with the cropping, and they aren't going for an intentional pronounced-grain effect, that it's cheating. Cropping is not going to correct the aberrant perspective and angle of view artifacts/issues that, in my eyes, are a punishment for not getting close enough.

In short, it's faking the funk.

What cropping is going to correct is the silly looking pictures that result when the aspect ratio of the camera's format doesn't match the composition your subject requires.

The camera should not force, or rather we should not force the camera's aspect ratio upon everything we take pictures of. That, not cropping, would be cheating.
So compose to make a subject fit inside the frame best as possible (use the limitations - it works quite well most of the time), but when it just isn't possible, i.e. when the subject demands a different aspect ratio, crop.

 

[markbarendt]

What cropping is going to correct is the silly looking pictures that result when the aspect ratio of the camera's format doesn't match the composition your subject requires.

This thought brought a question into my head.

When we bought each of our cameras, did we choose that format for the ratio it provides?

With my 35mm cameras I can't say that I did, there's simply little or no other choice.

In 4x5 I can't say that either, it was simply the one available.

In MF I did have some input, I chose a 6x7 RB over the 6x6 format on purpose. Honestly though the ground glass and the guide lines on the RB's glass make nice squares and I fairly regularly see there compositions that I like.

Given that for me the format constraints were for the most part chosen by history, I'm feeling less and less obliged to keep those ratios.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

To me, the creative process does not stop with image capture in the camera but continues in the darkroom. Dodging and burning are two examples of that, cropping is another.

 

[5stringdeath]

This thought brought a question into my head.

When we bought each of our cameras, did we choose that format for the ratio it provides?

For me its the opposite ... I absolutely love the 35mm format. Although I've tried over the years to shoot 6x6 I just can't see in squares I suppose if I could afford an XPan I'd shoot even longer rectangles, hehe.

I think this also goes along with lens focal lengths too ... I like how wide angle lenses work in rectangles. I've always been one whose enjoyed the edges of the frames more than the center, and I like busy photographs too.

 

[firecracker]

I mostly shoot 35mm and have never cropped any frame.

I think if I start to do some cropping, I'll just keep cropping and cropping, and in the end, there's no picture left...

That's the kind of fear I have to fight with, so in order to avoid that fear, I compose as best as I can when I shoot, and that's it.

 

[Bruce Watson]

For clarification, I'm talking full-frame with the black box film base surrounding the image .. as opposed to a cropping/non-cropping discussion.

I never print "full frame" as it were. I find the clear film boarder (black in the print) to be ugly, and don't want it in my prints.

But the main reason I don't print "full frame" is that I don't want to be a slave to someone else's aspect ratio decision. There aren't any sheet films made in my favorite aspect ratio (golden ratio, about 1:1.618). I see a high percentage of my photographs in the field in this ratio for some reason, and I capture them on a 5x4 camera. To make the final print match my vision, I *must* crop. No other way.

There is absolutely nothing sacred about the aspect ratios that the makers of film and cameras have chosen. And it's silly to think that I should have to bend my vision to fit a decision that was made decades ago by people who've never met me, or had any input into my vision.

So I don't. You can if you want. I don't have a problem with that either.

 

[5stringdeath]

Understood and this is traditionally a kind of 35mm aesthetic, extending into MF. Mostly a good discussion!

 

[JMcLaug351]

Of course I crop in the darkroom. I "crop" when I make the exposure with the camera as well. I call it "compose". Indeed "full frame" only means what ever format you are using. The aspect ratio of the final print is part of the composition and as such I must control that as well.
JOHN

 

[bblhed]

I try to shoot so that I don't have to crop, that said, it doesn't always work out that way. For me it is really easy because I do all my post in digital. I like film, but I'm not a big fan of paper, and I don't want to deal with the archival issues of either. Just like everyone else I have the paper to negative size problems, but I don't really consider that cropping, I think of cropping as cutting a photo down for area of interest, not sizing to fit.

 

[2F/2F]

I print full frame almost all the time, or rather, I crop just inside the frame edges to eliminate the black boundary, but get as much of the full composition as possible. I rarely crop with 35mm, or with 6x9. I guess this is because I am better at composing with the 1.5:1 aspect ratio of these formats than I am with 645, 4x5, 6x6, etc.

 

[Ian Grant]

I do the same as 2F/2F, I shoot many different formats from 645, 6x6, 6x9, 6x17 and 5x4 or 10x8 but always shoot to fit the frame.

Ian

 

[jmcd]

I almost always print full frame, unless there is a particular image that would clearly work better cropped, in some cases this is known at the time of exposure when another framing is not possible due to physical circumstances or when timing takes precedence. The way I framed it is usually the way I still like it, and it is surprising how a little change makes the whole image seem foreign to me. However with my Rollei tlr close up I have learned to leave a bit extra when framing as the bottom (not the top) can be inadvertently clipped too close.

 

[Obtong]

35mm: 95-98% Full Frame
6x6: 80-90% Full Frame
Digital: 70-80% Full Frame

Most of my darkroom work is with 35mm, and like jmcd, I almost always print full frame unless I notice someting in the composition that I missed when I took the shot. However, my contact prints are always full frame, regardless of the negative's aspect ratio!

~Dom

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

To my mind, printing full frame is like writing without editing. It has nothing to recommend it.