How many of you print full-frame?

[bdial]

Generally, I compose and print to the full frame, but I never do the black border thing. My major exception cropping wise is if I am shooting for prints that will be rectangular using a square format camera.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I usually do 90% of my print work goes full frame.

Jeff

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

 

[Q.G.]

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.

+1

 

[whlogan]

FWIW I do... 6x6, 6x7, 35 or whatever.... I try to do the work in the camera and just print the neg as it is.... mostly, it works, or I am, and have been, kidding myself ( and a lot of others) for a long time! LF stuff is really so easy to do that way..... 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10, most of which I don't get to do anymore .....

Keep having fun with this stuff
Logan

 

[Sirius Glass]

After several decades of shooting slide and composing for the full frame, I almost always print full frame. The times that I do not are when I could not get something out of the field of view when I took the photograph.

Steve

 

[jovo]

Because I often like to print square from a 6x7 or 4x5 negative, I obviously can't print to the edge of the negative, but I do try to print what I anticipated would be the central square. OTOH, one of the advantages of the 6x7 or 4x5 over a strictly 6x6 camera is that when the subject or composition requires it, the rectangle is there. So I do some of both full frame, and significantly cropped printing. I also like to let my prints percolate in my imagination over time, and if they eventually whisper to me that they could be improved by expanding or contracting their edges, I am completely open to that as well.

 

[David Brown]

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.

I exercise the freedom to crop if I wish to. (Or not) I thought that was what adjustable easels were for ...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The scene I compose in my viewfinder is 100% in coverage, and everything that I want to be in that scene is there. The unmounted transparency replicates what I have seen and as such, the transparency is printed to Ilfochrome full frame. Cropping, in my practice, is rare. It is probably around 16 years or so when I cropped B&W negs to the appearance of 6x6 — images of that era are on my gallery wall and among my best selling productions.

 

[jgcull]

Hardly ever full frame. I mostly crop this way and that.

 

[Valerie]

I print almost exclusively full-frame, regardless of the format I'm using. When composing in the viewfinder, everything there is meant to be there...

 

[Existing Light]

IF you shoot 6x7(cm) negs, you can print an 8x10 without cropping. That's why 6x7 is called "the ideal format".

Who says 6x7 is the ideal format? What if I think the 2:3 format of 35mm and 6x9 cameras are the ideal format?

 

[Wyno]

Since I'm using 8x10 and don't have an enlarger, all my prints are contact prints with the border.
Mike

 

[naugastyle]

I print the borders when it's a work print, or generally for myself. When enlarging for framing (or scanning for publication) I can't begin to imagine why...the image needs to fit the intended purpose. I consider calling it a philosophy extraordinarily silly. The last time someone said (on Flickr) that he left the borders in as "proof" that he didn't crop, all I could think was how much cropping would improve his bland too-far-away images.

 

[5stringdeath]

I print the borders when it's a work print, or generally for myself. When enlarging for framing (or scanning for publication) I can't begin to imagine why...the image needs to fit the intended purpose. I consider calling it a philosophy extraordinarily silly. The last time someone said (on Flickr) that he left the borders in as "proof" that he didn't crop, all I could think was how much cropping would improve his bland too-far-away images.

And that's the philosophy ... of preconception and framing in the viewfinder exactly what you want on the print. Its a way of working, which by extension, can be a philosophy behind one's art. Perhaps that person on Flickr just wasn't very good, or you misunderstood his/her work ....

But your comments lead to another philosophy, that some people work the other way, and will use a negative and print size to suit a purpose. Neither is right/wrong, they are just different. I have no disdain for either one, just wanted to hear what goes on in the minds of others.

So I find you calling it silly rather silly And I think, to use one example, that Cartier-Bresson would agree

 

[naugastyle]

Cartier-Bresson didn't WANT cropping. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that he was always correct.

I have no difficulty understanding the work of the person I mentioned...it was absolutely not good enough to get elitist about cropping. Anyone with a good eye can recognize this stuff.

I am saying this as someone who doesn't need to crop 99% of the time. I get right up close to my subjects no matter how wide the lens, compose exactly as I want to print, and don't find random elements to be "distracting" enough to cut out. I recently printed out 50-some photos I took of an event with borders because to be honest, I like the look of the borders and assumed the recipient would as well, and in 50-some frames found no need to crop even a little bit. And I STILL find a hardline stance against cropping to be silly.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I print full frame if I can because I like the black borders. It's easier than having to manually do it after each exposure under the enlarger and I always leave some margin of white around the image, so I don't feel the need to print to the paper size, nor do I trim the paper to fit the image.

That being said, a lot of times I don't, or can't print full frame, because of other constraints -- my horizons are not quite level (this is a constant, major problem for me), there are distracting elements, I was shooting 35mm when I wanted square, I needed a different lens for the shot I wanted, etc... Based on the subjects I like to photograph, I often shoot on the fly, which means I'm not in a studio, nor in the great outdoors with a landscape or structure to photograph that's not going to move so I can take all the time I want to get it right. I usually have to make do with what I can in the time that I have, and sometimes that means cropping in the darkroom to get the final product looking the way I want.

 

[Q.G.]

Cartier-Bresson didn't WANT cropping. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that he was always correct.

For most photograpghers, the choice is print (or whatever you do to the small image on film), print cropped, or don't print at all.
For Cartier-Bresson the choice was print full frame or don't print at all.

His name pops up without fail everytime cropping is mentioned. And if all of the images he made we know were full-frame, he certainly is a good photographer.
What we don't know is how many of his 'rejects' could have turned into equally great prints if cropped a bit.

Judging by his photographs, he would still be a great photographer then.
Why do we judge his work by the fact that he only printed the images he could print uncropped?


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.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I do full frame printing. I used to print those ragged black edges with sprocket holes - not any more. Now I just have a thin black line, I think it looks nice. I print the whole frame because often there's interesting things going on at the edges, I tend to frame the photos like that. It also fits well with this whole standardisation thing I'm keen on: one lens, one film, paper, grade, developer, etc. I enjoy working in a way that produces standards.

 

[ozphoto]

I also print full frame - usually for my 8x10 and larger (although I have printed some postcards full frame). I like to include a black line around the edges sometimes as well, other times its neat - depends on my mood and what I'm printing.

 

[darkosaric]

One photo from Bresson was cropped and published in newspapers that made him very angry. In Russia he made photo of workers dancing and it was happy photo. Newspapers cropped it and shown one girl who looks sad – and they put title „women are not free in Russia“. After that he insisted on black edge around frame – to be sure that his work will not be misinterpreted any more. He had also special stamp “please do not crop this photograph” !

 

[eclarke]

And that's the philosophy ... of preconception and framing in the viewfinder exactly what you want on the print. Its a way of working, which by extension, can be a philosophy behind one's art. Perhaps that person on Flickr just wasn't very good, or you misunderstood his/her work ....

But your comments lead to another philosophy, that some people work the other way, and will use a negative and print size to suit a purpose. Neither is right/wrong, they are just different. I have no disdain for either one, just wanted to hear what goes on in the minds of others.

So I find you calling it silly rather silly And I think, to use one example, that Cartier-Bresson would agree

I always know what the print is going to look at before I set the camera up. I study the subject with a viewfinder and reconsider my options while I am going back for the camera. I use all the negative but don't use the black border. If gimmicks like aspect ratio, borders, sharpness, softness, etc. can command the attention of the viewer then the photograph is too weak. A great photograph is great in any printing style...Evan Clarke

 

[Q.G.]

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

 

[Tony Egan]

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.

+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)

 

[markbarendt]

For most photograpghers, the choice is print (or whatever you do to the small image on film), print cropped, or don't print at all.

I don't understand the basis for this statement. I actually see the opposite, there seems to be an incredible array of options for anyone willing to ask or hunt just a little.

For Cartier-Bresson the choice was print full frame or don't print at all.

His name pops up without fail everytime cropping is mentioned. And if all of the images he made we know were full-frame, he certainly is a good photographer.
What we don't know is how many of his 'rejects' could have turned into equally great prints if cropped a bit.

Judging by his photographs, he would still be a great photographer then.
Why do we judge his work by the fact that he only printed the images he could print uncropped?

I don't think we necessarily judge his work by his unwillingness to crop. We all create our own standards for our own work and our standards (just as HCB's) are arbitrary.

I can empathize with HCB, it really rubs me wrong when someone wants to crop or change my finished work to their preferences. As far as I'm concerned, if they want something different they can hire me or somebody else to make something new or make it themselves.