How many of you print full-frame?

[Ian Grant]

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

I suppose it's like painting full canvas, you can always cut the good bits out after

It just makes sense to shoot to fit the frame when you press the shutter, saves wasting film and is a greater discipline.

Ian

 

[5stringdeath]

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

Interesting, I think of editing contact sheets this way, not single prints.

 

[brian steinberger]

I'd say I print full frame about 50% of the time. I shoot with rangefinders so what you see in the viewfinder is not always exactly what you get, so some minimal cropping is usually necessary.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

On film, I stopped shooting anything but 6x6 and 6x17 and in B&W. That's all roll-film, easy to find, easy to stock (only one size) and easy to process. Large enough for quality and I can shoot my favourite camera's.
As 6x6 is rather small, I refuse to waste any square mm of it. So I do print Full-Frame, as you call it.
But that's not the only reason : black borders are so nice!
It is as they set the limits for the taught, the line prohibited to surpass, the scene where everything has to be done and told. They refer to the frame of the viewfinder and thus to the way I saw things when shooting. The black borders are a part of the picture, they reflect what a saw. The cropping is done while shooting.
When there are no borders, even when they are white, I feel insecure about my image, its like the contents is going to fall off the page, if you understand what I am trying to say (in that hard language of yours).
I trim the paper sheets in square, or a long rectangular for the pano's, and use the rest for testing. I leave a white border of about one inch so one can hold the print without having to touch the image, thats why white borders are for, to collect the dirty fingers.

But, of course, this is a very personal point of view, as usual.

BTW, all we see is whit-in a frame, all we think too, if we want it or not…

Philippe

 

[Tony Egan]

I think a useful distinction can be made between the "most satisfactory" and the "best" composition. The most satisfactory composition within the framelines is what many photographers aim for either deliberately or instinctively. Whether that is the "best"/most powerful depiction of a subject is debatable and why many choose to crop. I use a Mamiya 7 often when I travel because of the convenience and weight for that size negative, but I can't recall ever printing the full negative. Many times I will compose for a deliberate crop as I find 6x7 is an awkward aspect ratio for some scenes. I also allow a little slack for parallax error. I wouldn't accept an argument that the most satisfactory and best are always the same or the best is always determined by the aspect ratio of the device being used.

 

[Vaughn]

As Edward Weston put it..."Ninety-nine per cent of my negatives are composed to the edge of the plate -- I have used that size so long, I seldom see things in another size or shape."

from: California and the West by Wilson and Weston, Aperture Books, 1978, pp187

I will also have to disagree with Nicholas Lindan. Perhaps it was just an awkward metaphor. If I were to compare photography with writing, then the original seeing of the image would be the first draft, the framing of the image in the cameraand onto the film the second draft, and printing the final draft. And if one is skilled enough, there is not much to change for the final draft. Cropping seems to me to be more of a revised edition. But I think my own use of this metaphor has fallen dreadfully apart !LOL! There is no right or wrong with this.

Vaughn

 

[Tony Egan]

Vaughn, Don't give up yet, I think you're on to something! Insisting on full frame is like saying your final manuscript must have exactly the same number of words as the draft

 

[ozphoto]

Personal taste, view and how you want the final image to look - all considerations if you are going to print full frame.

 

[Vaughn]

Vaughn, Don't give up yet, I think you're on to something! Insisting on full frame is like saying your final manuscript must have exactly the same number of words as the draft

All seriousness aside, cropping is more like taking the rough draft of a sci-fi novel and making it a short story.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

All seriousness aside, cropping is more like taking the rough draft of a sci-fi novel and making it a short story.

Well, now there is an analogy that should encourage anyone to crop.

I agree with Tony's discourse: that although one can optimize the usage of the full frame, the proportions of the frame and the focal length of the lens are never the best one can do for the subject.

I'm old school. I was taught, and still maintain, that a pair of cropping squares are indispensable darkroom tools. Failure to crop well was considered a sign of laziness or a lack of a sense of composition.

 

[hidesert]

I consider myself to be a careful, thoughtful, and deliberate photographer. I make the best decision I can a the moment in the viewfinder.

That said, I don't feel the need to prove that to those who view my prints. I find that seeing the image in two dimensions and in black and white my feelings can change and I may want to crop. I may just change my mind; I always reserve my choice to do that.

I just reprinted one of my favorite images I took almost forty years ago with my Rolleiflex. My original print was cropped to an 8x10. Now I prefer to print it uncropped and square.

 

[Vaughn]

Well, now there is an analogy that should encourage anyone to crop.

True -- the short story is an extremely difficult literary form, and like cropping, one does not get a good short story by just cutting out a bunch of stuff, but instead because the original idea (or seeing) was strong.

I agree with Tony's discourse: that although one can optimize the usage of the full frame, the proportions of the frame and the focal length of the lens are never the best one can do for the subject.

I'm old school. I was taught, and still maintain, that a pair of cropping squares are indispensable darkroom tools. Failure to crop well was considered a sign of laziness or a lack of a sense of composition.

I am also "old school", but was taught the opposite. To always depend on cropping to save an image is a sign of lazy seeing. To create a strongly composed full frame image is a sign of intense seeing ability. But this is not to say that a cropped image is a result of lazy seeing, nor does a full frame image signify good seeing. In the end, it is the image itself that determines that.

Cropping "L's" are wonderful tools, especially for students. A very good way to learn composition. It is very educational to look for good compositions within one's full negative as it teaches one what is needed and unneeded to create a good image. With the end result being that one will only crop when the image needs it in order to be captured by the camera's format...and not as a crutch for lazy seeing.

When I began exploring the more panoramic format (using a 2x5 portion of the 4x5 negative), going thru my proof sheets with a couple of "L's", was very instructive. I even found some great images that way -- more from luck than good original vision. But it helped me to learn how to see in that format. Now I have a modified dark slide that allows me to make two 4x10 negatives on a single 8x10 sheet of film.

Since I do not crop, I do miss some possible images that do not fit (not compositionally strong) into the 8x10 or 4x10 formats. Many times I have decided to put the camera away instead of exposing the film due to this (if I bothered to set the camera up at all.) This does not worry me, as I know there are an infinite numbers of images out there that do fit the formats and I am capable of finding more than I have time to photograph and print.

I am also thinking about modifying a dark slide to give me 8x8 images on 8x10 film, because I do like the power of the square and would like to use it. But it will be because I saw the image as a square before I expose the film.

Not to get into hero worship here, but in regards to the Weston quote I gave above, are you saying that he never did the best one can do?

Vaughn

 

[Q.G.]

Not to get into hero worship here, but in regards to the Weston quote I gave above, are you saying that he never did the best one can do?

It is indeed quite possible that he did not.

 

[Vaughn]

...I just reprinted one of my favorite images I took almost forty years ago with my Rolleiflex. My original print was cropped to an 8x10. Now I prefer to print it uncropped and square.

I learn with a Rolleiflex, and in my first photo class I always cropped to use the full sheet of paper. I slowly came aware that I was arbituarily cropping and missing out on what I really saw on the ground glass. I should go through those old negatives someday (only 30 or so years ago) and see what I saw back then!

Vaughn

 

[Vaughn]

It is indeed quite possible that he did not.

I will have to agree only because on the same page as the quote I gave, Weston states that no artist ever does the best s/he can do -- there is always the possibility of growth as an artist. But that has nothing to do with cropping.

 

[Q.G.]

I will have to agree only because on the same page as the quote I gave, Weston states that no artist ever does the best s/he can do -- there is always the possibility of growth as an artist. But that has nothing to do with cropping.

How can you be so sure?

I agree with the laziness-thingy Nicholas mentioned.
The potential for growth very often is nothing more than a spin, turning something like "set in his/her ways" (i.e. "can't be bothered to do something else, or to do the same thing differently", i.e. being lazy) into something positive.

But yes, there is room for interpretation.
If you consider Weston to be succesfull in filling a given frame the way he wanted to, who would be able to argue with that?
But if you don't put the man first, look at his images instead, i see a lot of potential for growth.

 

[clayne]

I will have to agree only because on the same page as the quote I gave, Weston states that no artist ever does the best s/he can do -- there is always the possibility of growth as an artist. But that has nothing to do with cropping.

Honestly, and at the expense of pissing off some followers, what makes Weston god on who's an artist or not?

Realistically there have been more than enough known names out there who did not habitually crop nor shoot the same style as any Weston, and arguably have produced more compelling and diverse bodies of work.

We can't have a generalized cropping debate if the implied subject matter seems limited to the equivalent of rocks and trees. There's more than that out there.

 

[5stringdeath]

Honestly, and at the expense of pissing off some followers, what makes Weston god on who's an artist or not?

Realistically there have been more than enough known names out there who did not habitually crop nor shoot the same style as any Weston, and arguably have produced more compelling and diverse bodies of work.

We can't have a generalized cropping debate if the implied subject matter seems limited to the equivalent of rocks and trees. There's more than that out there.

I love how this thread has spiraled, haha. My original question was basically about using the black box or a smooth edge, it really was quite that simple.

Anyhow its been interesting.

 

[Ian Grant]

When I worked with Mamiya's C3 & C33 in the 70's and very early 80's I nearly always cropped for commercial work, but now after 25 years and back using TLR's again I always shoot to the full square format.

Most if not all the photographers I know and respect shoot full frame and looking at images I've collected they are all full frame and un-cropped regardless of the film format used. Doisneau 35mm, Fay Godin 6x6, John Blakemore 5x4 etc

I am also "old school", but was taught the opposite. To always depend on cropping to save an image is a sign of lazy seeing. To create a strongly composed full frame image is a sign of intense seeing ability. But this is not to say that a cropped image is a result of lazy seeing, nor does a full frame image signify good seeing. In the end, it is the image itself that determines that.

Vaughn

In this respect I fully agree with Vaughn. I was always taught to watch the edges as you frame an image, the decision as to where the frame fits is crucial to the composition and that needs to be chosen before you fire the shutter.

Ian

 

[Vaughn]

I consider him successful. That is an opinion and like you say, difficult to argue. I consider him successful in filling the frame, but not perfect.

I think the first step in growth is to overcome that laziness you mentioned, but only the first step. Being satisfied where one stands makes it difficult to move forward.

 

[Vaughn]

We can't have a generalized cropping debate if the implied subject matter seems limited to the equivalent of rocks and trees. There's more than that out there.

Don't forget Weston's naked ladies (and the portraits and still life work). Weston was not all trees and rocks, but then neither was AA.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I am also thinking about modifying a dark slide to give me 8x8 images on 8x10 film [so I don't have to crop]

This is getting fetishistic. If one sees it as square why not make it square when printing? Should one carry an Xacto knife and a few sheets of Garolite in case one doesn't have the right size darkrslide opening?

Walker Evans' did his cropping by cutting the negative with a pair of scissors. His reasoning was that as he had hired someone else to do the printing (apparently a good thing - he was a terrible darkroom worker) he didn't want to give them the freedom to print full frame. OTOH, he wasn't averse to cropping his prints as he was hanging a show.

This is an issue that will never be settled as both sides seem to find the other viewpoint loopy.

 

[5stringdeath]

This is an issue that will never be settled as both sides seem to find the other viewpoint loopy.

That's true of most threads on here

Perhaps I should have phrased the original question differently:

"Do you enjoy viewing work printed full frame, with the black box which signifies the entire negative was used for printing"

 

[Ian Grant]

"Do you enjoy viewing work printed full frame, with the black box which signifies the entire negative was used for printing"

That's an easy question, sometimes but it's gimmicky and over done. By that I mean by too many photographers,

Ian

 

[clayne]

That's an easy question, sometimes but it's gimmicky and over done. By that I mean by too many photographers,

Ian

Sometimes I do but a lot of times I don't due to the reasons Ian mentioned. Still full frame though.

I think there's been quite a few "negative carrier" like threads over the years which is where people originally splintered off from this thread.