How many of you print full-frame?

[5stringdeath]

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 used to always print my 35mm full frame. Then I stopped for awhile. Now that I have a glass 4x5 neg carrier, I can print even my MF negs full frame. Haven't really gotten back into it yet, mostly due to my current darkroom setup being fairly new to me and I'm just now settling into a routine.

For me, full-frame began as "proof of total negative" - that philosophy that composition, whether deliberate or accidental, should occur in the camera. Even though I still don't crop my negs (only enlarge certain parts of a neg) - I'm also not so dedicated to that philosophy anymore. However, I still like the aesthetics of the black-box when viewing others work.

These days I find it more appealing in smaller work, rather than huge prints.

 

[wclark5179]

It depends.

I usually leave room to crop. It can sometimes be a challenge to get full frame on some sizes of paper, unless, of course the borders are such that enough room is made to make a full frame print. I do like making square photographs from medium format, perhaps it's because I'm a little goofy & square!

 

[5stringdeath]

It depends.

It can sometimes be a challenge to get full frame on some sizes of paper

I'm not sure what you mean ... with a 4 bladed easel you can print any size on any paper?

 

[darkosaric]

In 99% of time I print full frame. I like to limit myself with full frame print, B&W only and not using zoom lenses (it works better for me).
But this is just for me - > I am not saying everyone should do this .

 

[wclark5179]

I'm not sure what you mean ... with a 4 bladed easel you can print any size on any paper?

I usually print w/o borders.

Maybe it's just me but try getting full frame printed on to an 8x10 paper covering all the paper w/o cropping. I imagine it can be done when using 8x10 film! Agree with you it can be done by adjusting your easel, then more white is exposed on at lerast two of the sides.

Did I help? Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Krzys]

Some styles suit...like this guy's work http://sechsmalsechs.blogspot.com/ ...other do not.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I print mostly full frame. I compose most shots looking edge to edge on my viewfinder and try to get balance with my negative space. A writer once said two words should eliminated from language...always and never

 

[phaedrus]

Well, printing some or all of the film rebate can quickly become a cliché. On the other hand, it sets a certain mark for using the traditional darkroom. Then again, I'm sure there's a Photoshop action for that. But then, my Nikon prints exposure data between the negatives, that'd be difficult to imitate. Hmm ...
Ok, I've decided that I find it pretentious. But I confess I have done it in the past ;-)

 

[Changeling1]

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

 

[5stringdeath]

This discussion isn't really about cropping / paper sizes ... that's been covered well elsewhere.

I mean you can print a 5x7 full frame image on a 16x20 piece of paper if you want to.

I'm interested in more philosophical thoughts on the issue rather than if a certain format fits on a certain paper. That's irrelevant.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I print full-frame because that's how I compose
and because I consider the negative an artifact.

 

[wclark5179]

This discussion isn't really about cropping / paper sizes ... that's been covered well elsewhere.

I mean you can print a 5x7 full frame image on a 16x20 piece of paper if you want to.

I'm interested in more philosophical thoughts on the issue rather than if a certain format fits on a certain paper. That's irrelevant.

I don't print full frame. I don't look through the view finder & capture with the idea of showing the full frame. That is my philosophy.

 

[michaelbsc]

Just for myself, I almost never print full frame. Mostly because I'm just not that good, so I always try to leave a little extra for cropping in the darkroom.

Also, in my 135 stuff at least, the rangefinder viewfinder is never exactly the right size, so what I see is always less than what's recorded on the film. I accept this as a good thing, to give me breathing room, rather than as a defect.

On 4x5 it's much easier to do WYSIWYG, because I'm composing on the GG. And that's by nature full frame.

As I start to get the 8x10 that I've recently acquired in shape I'll be doing contact prints, so that's guaranteed to be full frame.

 

[5stringdeath]

As I start to get the 8x10 that I've recently acquired in shape I'll be doing contact prints, so that's guaranteed to be full frame.

Full Film!

 

[markbarendt]

Personally I don't see the point in constraining my vision to standard paper sizes.

There are exceptions but generally I try to compose for and print full-frame. (The exceptions are where I plan a shot in a format that the camera can't do, like using an RB or 4x5 to make a negative that will be used for a 1:2 ratio print, even there I may just print full size and crop with the mat in the frame. Someday I may own an XPan. )

This does not mean I want to print the rebate, just my whole composition.

 

[David William White]

Sometimes the border is a necessary component of the comp, like here where I needed it to close in the sky
http://davidwilliamwhite.blogspot.com/2010/01/photo-of-day_17.html

This was how this one ended up being printed.

 

[michaelbsc]

Personally I don't see the point in constraining my vision to standard paper sizes.

There are exceptions but generally I try to compose for and print full-frame. (The exceptions are where I plan a shot in a format that the camera can't do, like using an RB or 4x5 to make a negative that will be used for a 1:2 ratio print, even there I may just print full size and crop with the mat in the frame. Someday I may own an XPan. )

This does not mean I want to print the rebate, just my whole composition.

I also like the 1x2 format, and I shoot for it sometimes.

But I have trouble understanding why people want expensive backs for 4x5s. After all, the 5 in side is (5*25.4)=127mm, meaning that hidden within every sheet of 4x5 film is a beautiful 60x120 (1x2) composition trying to get out.

Think like a sculptor; chip away what doesn't belong, and you've got the finished product. And for a whole lot less money than an expensive film back. If you have trouble visualizing it, tape some black construction paper to your GG.

MB

 

[removed account4]

sometimes i shoot full frame,
and i compose the image within
the viewer / ground glass when i can.
other times i can't do that, because of constraints
( focal length of lens or the way i am shooting )
and the image was composed knowing full well that
certain aspects of it would be edited out when it was printed.

it doesn't matter to me if the rebate / sheet film edge shows in the print ...

it's the image that counts in the end ...

 

[Lanline]

I try to shoot with the notion that I will print it full frame. 99% of the time this is true. Also since I am mostly shooting 6x6 I'll center it on the paper and print it will frame (same applies if I am shooting 35mm)

 

[lightwisps]

As an act of love my wife made me a negative holder so that I can print full frame with the black borders for my birthday a couple of years ago.

I love full frame and her even more.

 

[5stringdeath]

We used to spend hours in school filing out 35mm neg carriers Much easier on a big glass carrier.

 

[JBrunner]

I grew shooting with motion picture and video cameras, so cropping was never an option. As a result I never even gave it a thought, and I almost always shoot for the full frame. There are two situations where I crop these days, sometimes I will crop a print to panoramic if I didn't have a panoramic camera with me, and thats what I saw, and sometimes when I print alt process I won't brush the emulsion out to cover the entire frame, because sometimes I like an indistinct border to the composition. I did learn (rather the hard way) that with roll film you are often going to have some crop if you intend on completely filling an 8x10 etc. so in that case yes I do crop, but it is something that many paper aspect ratios enforce.

 

[Rick A]

I shoot mostly 6x6, and compose full frame. I trim my paper to fit what I shoot. I also shoot 4x5, and that is perfect for 8x10, or 16x20, full frame. I always trim paper to fit 35mm full frame. I refuse to be constrained to industry standard sizes.

 

[markbarendt]

I also like the 1x2 format, and I shoot for it sometimes.

But I have trouble understanding why people want expensive backs for 4x5s. After all, the 5 in side is (5*25.4)=127mm, meaning that hidden within every sheet of 4x5 film is a beautiful 60x120 (1x2) composition trying to get out.

Think like a sculptor; chip away what doesn't belong, and you've got the finished product. And for a whole lot less money than an expensive film back. If you have trouble visualizing it, tape some black construction paper to your GG.

MB

The other thing that I've thought seriously about with 4x5 is cutting a dark-slide to mask the film to ~2x5 and the shoot two pano-shots per sheet.

 

[michaelbsc]

The other thing that I've thought seriously about with 4x5 is cutting a dark-slide to mask the film to ~2x5 and the shoot two pano-shots per sheet.

That sounds interesting, but I'd think that the trouble would be more than the sheet of film costs. At least so far as my old butterfingers go. I can see myself screwing up with that pretty easily.

I'm so feeble that I've labeled all my dark slides with bright red on the side I leave facing out after exposure so I have a very obvious cue it's already exposed.

And most of the time I even remember to put the dark slide back in the correct way!!

MB