How many of you print full-frame?

[5stringdeath]

Yeah, I guess I already knew the answer before I asked the question ... I mean I know some people love it, some hate it, I was just hoping for a more constructive conversation with those who do print this way, the reasoning behind it, etc.... not a protracted "crop vs non" debate which has been gone over forever and into history. Alas, internet forums!

 

[Vaughn]

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

Because I contact print and with my platinum prints I like to have the film rebate printed black around the image area. And in presenting a body of work, I like to have a relatively consistant size format.

The only thing I find loopy is the idea that there is only one way for people to properly approach printing, as you seem to be doing. There is nothing wrong with cropping as a way of working. There is nothing wrong with not cropping as a way of working.

PS...I do have one 8x10 neg I have considered cutting off two inches off of the long side to create an 8x8 negative. Just can't bring myself to do it yet! LOL!

 

[Vaughn]

Yeah, I guess I already knew the answer before I asked the question ... I mean I know some people love it, some hate it, I was just hoping for a more constructive conversation with those who do print this way, the reasoning behind it, etc.... not a protracted "crop vs non" debate which has been gone over forever and into history. Alas, internet forums!

Ahhh, but your "knowing the answer before asking the question" might be keeping you from seeing the importance of the discussion of cropping/not cropping to your original question.

But back to that original question...the film rebate can become an important part of the composition/image, depending on how the photographer works and sees. As a photographer who sees himself as equally an image-maker and a print-maker, I feel the film rebate is part of the process and image -- part of the whole. So if I leave the rebate out, I am leaving out part of the image out as I see/feel it.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The only thing I find loopy is the idea that there is only one way for people to properly approach printing ....

We agree on that.

I do the full-frame thing when taking 35mm slides. I don't think I have ever cropped a 4x6 color snapshot. And when contacting 8x10 negatives I usually only trim off the rebate. But when enlarging I don't remember ever printing full frame.

OTOH, in far too many cases I do crop to one of a set of fixed sizes -- certainly a case of being lazy as I keep standard mats, sheets of glass and frame sections in stock and don't want to be bothered with extra sizes. Which I have to confess makes my preaching of 'ideal cropping' a hypocrisy.

 

[Vaughn]

I guess we can say that "ideal cropping" can be done in camera or in printing.

An interesting point you made about 35mm slides, especially projecting them uncropped like we did in the "good old days". Now that analog slide shows are pretty much a thing of the past, one wonders how the disappearance of that experience, requiring uncropped and no burning/doging seeing, affects even the casual photographer today...not that no one ever had to sit through boring slide shows back then! Digital cameras and Powerpoint presentations don't seem to require the same intensity of seeing and technical experience in the field. Some of the seeing and technical knowledge has been transferred to post-production. Not that we are spared boring powerpoint presentations! LOL!

 

[MattKing]

There are definite practical advantages to composing to fit a pre-determined layout. Whether you shoot slides or for prints, it is nice not to have to buy custom mats or prepare custom slide mounts.

Many compositions are somewhat flexible, so why not take advantage of that if one can?

 

[Vaughn]

... Alas, internet forums!

You have never been in a face-to-face conversation that moves in, out and around the original point of conversation?

Excellent point, Matt.

 

[MattKing]

You have never been in a face-to-face conversation that moves in, out and around the original point of conversation?

Maybe 5stringdeath hasn't been married .

 

[Vaughn]

Maybe 5stringdeath hasn't been married .

I was thinking also of the conversations here in Humboldt County when the smoke of the wacky tobacky is thick in the air.

 

[5stringdeath]

Maybe 5stringdeath hasn't been married .

Divorced

 

[david James lee]

i always print full frame with a black border.

 

[5stringdeath]

i always print full frame with a black border.

What kind of convoluted, argumentative answer is that ???????

 

[Bill Burk]

I do the best I can to print full frame.

I've marked a few standard heights on my enlarger. I enlarge 35mm, including rebates, to about a quarter inch from the 14 inch side of 11x14 paper. I just want to make the best possible image and I feel 35mm at 11x14 is getting near the limits of what the medium can handle. Before spawning another debate, let me qualify by saying that last summer I took a series on Panatomic-X 35mm which compares favorably to 4x5 - but everything has to be "right" for the 35mm to compare with the quality that 4x5 delivers easily.

I print 4x5 with an unfiled negative carrier to about a half-inch all around, with my paper easel out of the way so the negative carrier does the masking. I get a kind of border that looks like rebate, where the carrier edge reflects light off the neg. If I had a filed-out 4x5 carrier I would use it.

I don't envision leaving the rebate on display. Ultimately I want the mat to mask about 1/16 to 1/8 of the live image when framing. I want to have some tolerance for drift over time.

I try to have some bleed all around whith no significant image information risked in the last quarter inch. Beyond that little tolerance, I do like to put elements close to the edge. And I do like to use the native aspect ratio of the format.

I'm not dogmatic about it though, I shot some snapshots of a friend's wedding where I couldn't get into the right places for tight composition. I took advantage of the "headroom" of 4x5 and enlarged/cropped mercilessly with the easel to make an acceptable 8x10 from a third of one negative.

 

[markbarendt]

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.

Contact Printing is one way to be sure, it was as I remember, Weston's method of choice. "Cropping" means/meant losing print size, not a good option in my estimation.

The "non-lazy alternative" to cropping for Weston and for many of us here, was/is re-shooting.

Cropping is in Weston's context "the lazy alternative".

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The "non-lazy alternative" to cropping for Weston and for many of us here, was/is re-shooting.

But that's the ultimate in cropping, isn't it?

 

[5stringdeath]

But that's the ultimate in cropping, isn't it?

I think most people would agree that composition is different than cropping. I mean, yeah, technically all us photographers "crop" the world, but I think you're stretching the discussion a bit here.

 

[Q.G.]

I think most people would agree that composition is different than cropping.

Well, i don't.

Composition is trying to fit something inside a certain frame.
Most cameras don't have a variable frame, so what do you do when composition requires that the frame you have to fit that something into is another shape/aspect ratio?
How is that something different?

 

[Ian David]

For me it is simply all about being happy with my final print.

I try to capture on film what I think will make a good image. If I am successful, and if the subject fits the format I am using, then it is likely to end up being printed full frame (but mostly without the edge of the rebate). But if the strongest image can only be isolated by cropping, then that is what I will do.

I understand the benefits and pleasure that can flow from imposing limits on oneself (eg only using one lens, or only shooting in B&W, or always printing full-frame, etc), but to insist that such limitations necessarily amount to a purer or more rigorous way of working seems a little masturbatory.

Full frame printing can be very satisfying but, if done religiously, some prints will never be as powerful as they could be. That is inevitable.

Ian

 

[Vaughn]

...Full frame printing can be very satisfying but, if done religiously, some prints will never be as powerful as they could be. That is inevitable.

Ian

It is not inevitable, mate, if one does not print the images that are not the most powerful.

 

[Ian David]

It is not inevitable, mate, if one does not print the images that are not the most powerful.

Good point Vaughn
In that case, some potentially powerful prints that could easily have been made will never be made. Either way, seems a bit of a loss. But if you can live with it, so can I!

 

[Vaughn]

Good point Vaughn
In that case, some potentially powerful prints that could easily have been made will never be made. Either way, seems a bit of a loss. But if you can live with it, so can I!

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is an infinite number of images (both powerful and not-so-powerful) presented to us in our lifetimes -- which means that we have plenty to pick from, no matter how many we may miss by jerking around.

 

[2F/2F]

I am hard at work on a portfolio, and cropping away. I have cropped two horizontal shots down in height (not in width) to make for more panoramic compositions. I don't feel an ounce of guilt. I am not using cropping to overcome poor or lazy composition. The only thing I am worried about it how well the panoramic shots will blend with full frame shots.

 

[markbarendt]

But that's the ultimate in cropping, isn't it?

I guess you could think of it that way, I wouldn't.

Part of composition, for me, is deciding on the film and format I want to use to get the result I want.

Cropping in the enlarger changes the look of a print; forget composition for a moment, detail, grain, and sharpness all visually change.

Why in the world would we work so hard to pick the right films and developers, or use the zone system and +/- development, or use MF or LF film, or do testing and all that blah, blah, blah; then just throw all those decisions away when we get to the enlarger?

 

[5stringdeath]

Cropping in the enlarger changes the look of a print; forget composition for a moment, detail, grain, and sharpness all visually change.

That depends if you're cropping with a 4 bladed easel (at the same height) or using enlarger head distance to crop.

Of course distance affects how an enlargement looks, but thats true if you're making an uncropped 8x10 image compared to a 16x20 uncropped image of the same negative.

 

[JMcLaug351]

Spiraled Thread

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.

What? A thread that spiraled on APUG? I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I tell you!
LOL
JOHN.