print highlights and borders

I personally prefer to not have white areas in a print that are along the border. I don't mind my eye wandering close to the border, but I prefer it to be led to the interior, so to speak. But, as in all things, there are always exceptions to the rule, and I never have produced a photograph the qualifies as such.

Just to clarify in the event it wasn't obvious, SCOFF (the School of Full Framers) is a fictive organization invented by my strange sense of humor. Thus, it's not likely that a Google search would turn up an agenda for their next meeting.

rbarker said:

Just to clarify in the event it wasn't obvious, SCOFF (the School of Full Framers) is a fictive organization invented by my strange sense of humor. Thus, it's not likely that a Google search would turn up an agenda for their next meeting.

Click to expand...

What!?!?! Then who did I just send that check to!?!?!

Sjixxxy said:

What!?!?! Then who did I just send that check to!?!?!

Click to expand...

Uh-oh. You probably sent the check to the other SCOFF - "Sleazy Company Off-ripping Fine Fotografers". Darn, I hate it when that happens.

It's hard to generalize since the right answer varies with the subject of the image. But I usually try to achieve a very slight tonal separation between highlights at the edge of the frame and the border so as to provide differentiation between subject and border. I have no problem with highlights within the image that are approximately blank paper white unless they are especially large in which case they dominate the image.

Keep in mind that the eye goes to the brightest highlights in the image - for the print to be strong, those highlights need to convey information. If they are blank white because they are blown out (overexposed), then they will detract from the image. But if they are blank white because that's what they were (eg, light sources in a night exposure), then blank white is legitimate.

lee said:

a couple of things here, Rule 1 is the teacher is correct Rule 2 is see Rule 1. One other thing that you can do is to cut a mat board just smaller than the print and use the scrap board to create your own border. Put the paper in the easel and lay the scrap on top of the paper and flush up against one corner. Now make a gross over-exposure (like f5.6 at 60 seconds). This will introduce a black line on two sides of the printing paper. Move the scrap to the opposite corner (diagonal) and repete the exposure. Now remove the scrap and make your print. Viola, you have a black line around the print. It should drive your instructor somewhat crazy. The weight of the black line can be changed by how you big or small you cut the mat hole.
lee\c

Click to expand...

Thanks Lee! Thats pretty much what I was thinking when RBarker suggested it a couple of posts ago. This Thursday is final class, and being finished everything assigned, I have a whole class to try and drive... I mean... produce fine prints
I'm not too fond of the instructor so this will be my class of revenge for all the frustration he has heaped upon us hapless :confused: students.

If a neg carrier is NOT full frame, is it the half frame that I have heard of?

A "not full frame" carrier is not a half frame, it is just the normal carrier that covers a bit of the rebate. A full frame carrier allows a bit of the rebate to show so there will be a black line surrounding the edge (if that is what works and what you want.) Not everything works with that technique either. The image should drive the presentation.

I am one of those teachers who encourage students not to have strong white's near the edge of the print, especially for beginners who's compositional skills may not (or may ) be very sopishicated. This is because the eye is drawn to the lightest portions first, that is the way our brain works. As several others suggested in the previous comments, why have the viewer eye be drawn out and away from the image. that is not to say they should have burned in ugly grainy grays, just be careful when composing and pushing that shutter. Just as the image of Brett Weston's works, the whites do not draw the eye away from the important message of the image.

However, compositional rules are not carved in stone and if the images works, it works, regardless.
Several years ago there was a young fashion photographer, Madureen Lambray who had server blown out highligts, white edges every where; however, the images worked . Which is the bottom line. This particular instructor would have given her an F, which would have been sad.

I have a student who has been working on a series of portraits that i feel are much too contrasty. During a recent discussion about this, she comment that she admired Richard Avedon, which was a great piece of important information as to the direction she was striving to reach. So rather than to continue pushing her to "change" her vision, I said, ok , let's take his style and work see want you can do to recreate that type of image.


It is too bad that this instructor seems to be caught up in being right (read ego) rather than present options with reasons as to why; however, depending upon the images placed before me, i might say the same thing. It is also too bad that you will end the class not feeling positive about the work.

ann said:

... So rather than to continue pushing her to "change" her vision, I said, ok , let's take his style and work see want you can do to recreate that type of image.
It is too bad that this instructor seems to be caught up in being right (read ego) rather than present options with reasons as to why; however, depending upon the images placed before me, i might say the same thing. It is also too bad that you will end the class not feeling positive about the work.

Click to expand...

VERY well written, Ann. This says a great deal about the entire educational process ... especially about the effect of an insecure instructor's ego.

I agree - the photographers' VISION - at whatever level of experience - is all-important; and it is great to see an instructor nurturing that idea - and the concern for the emotional reaction of the student/s is, to me the hallmark of a good teacher.

Where are you? I'd love to have coffee with you some day.

rogueish said:

. . . the half frame that I have heard of?

Click to expand...

Half-frame was an adaptation of 35mm that split the 24x36mm image area of 35mm into two 17x24mm frames, rotated 90° - essentially following the layout of 35mm movie film. Olympus and a few others made half-frame cameras in the '60s time frame. They were popular with folks who wanted to get 72 shots/roll, and needed only small prints, but didn't gain wide market support.

ann said:

A "not full frame" carrier is not a half frame, it is just the normal carrier that covers a bit of the rebate. A full frame carrier allows a bit of the rebate to show so there will be a black line surrounding the edge (if that is what works and what you want.) Not everything works with that technique either. The image should drive the presentation.

Click to expand...

Thanks Ann. What is a half frame? Is it really "half a frame", or is it specific to a formate size?

ann said:

I am one of those teachers who encourage students not to have strong white's near the edge of the print, especially for beginners who's compositional skills may not (or may ) be very sopishicated.
However, compositional rules are not carved in stone and if the images works, it works, regardless.
I have a student who has been working on a series of portraits that i feel are much too contrasty. During a recent discussion about this, she comment that she admired Richard Avedon, which was a great piece of important information as to the direction she was striving to reach. So rather than to continue pushing her to "change" her vision, I said, ok , let's take his style and work see want you can do to recreate that type of image.

Click to expand...

Glad to see all Instructors are not created equal You and one of my previous instructors would have got along well I think.
I may have painted this guy more evil than he actually is. He does know technics both studio (read picture taking) and darkroom. Getting it out of him sometimes is another thing. At times he can be rather rigid. But I doubt he would have said "ok" like you did.

ann said:

It is too bad that this instructor seems to be caught up in being right (read ego) rather than present options with reasons as to why; however, depending upon the images placed before me, i might say the same thing. It is also too bad that you will end the class not feeling positive about the work.

Click to expand...

Actually I am getting pretty good marks (with the exception of one "C+") and am not too worried. I did learn about lighting technics with spots and difussors (no flash heads though ). I am comfortable with the darkroom.
I even showed a few of the students how to use the trays and dev/stop/fix by hand. Said "this is the way you'll do it at home." I think I may have addicted a few of them. Once shown, they no longer used "the machine".

Thanks Ralph! Wondered why anyone would do "half frame".

ed,
i am in atlanta.

rbarker said:

Half-frame was an adaptation of 35mm that split the 24x36mm image area of 35mm into two 17x24mm frames, rotated 90° - essentially following the layout of 35mm movie film.

Click to expand...

Actually, the 35mm format we use in still cameras should properly be called "double frame." 35mm film was originally intended to be used *vertically* and the image used in a 35mm projector is 18mm (vertical - defining it more closely for those in Merrie Olde....) and 24mm wide. When Oscar Barnack designed the Leica, he wanted a "landscape" format, so he combined two "normal" 35mm frames - 36mm wide x 24mm high. If memory serves me correctly ... more and more it doesn't ... the Olympus Pen format was described as a "Single Frame 35mm."

I never liked borders, especially white ones, I find them distracting. I just print to the edge of the paper on the long side and trim off the spare room on the short side.

David.

Anything will work some of the time. Most of the time, photos are more balanced without the paper base bleeding into the border area. But there's no hard and fast rule that says you have to do this all the time.

Um...

Okay, first off, do what the instructor says, make him/her smile (if for no other reason, the expression will hurt their face!) and pass your course.

Then do what you like. Some ideas you may want to consider:

Nature does not necessarily always compose in 2/3 35mm format. Or 6x7. Or 5x4. Or square. Why should you feel impelled to constrain yourself by these artificial guidelines? Why is an image that fits this format more valid than one that doesn't?

Secondly, rather than printing your highlights darker to avoid them merging with the border, why not print a black pinline to separate the image from the border? Simply cut a bit of card (preferably black) about 2mm smaller than the image. After printing the image remove the neg from the carrier, carefully position the card on top of the photo paper and give it sufficient white light to fog a black border (about 10 seconds generally works for me, YMMV and probably will!).

Just suggestions. Once you've passed your course you're the guv'nor!

All the best,

Frank

You can try putting your mount board cropping L's around the image to see what a more defined border does for it. Also be prepared to explain to the class why using whites blending into the border works for an image. Maybe show a print with and without the defined border. Could be a good learning experience for the class.

FrankB said:

Nature does not necessarily always compose in 2/3 35mm format. Or 6x7. Or 5x4. Or square. Why should you feel impelled to constrain yourself by these artificial guidelines? Why is an image that fits this format more valid than one that doesn't?

Click to expand...

Although I agree with most everything Frank said, I would like to add a counter point to the quoted section.

Why "constrain yourself by these artificial guidelines?"

Why live within the constraints of b/w, or print at all when you can shoot transparencies or why be constrained by film? Why use a 4x5, 6x6, 2x3 if the formate does not add some value to what it is you are trying to do.

Part of what makes this medium wonderful is that it challenges the craftsperson/artist/documenter with both its wide breadth and narrow constraints.

I am certainly not saying that you must use the full frame.

I am saying that the format is what it is, as are film and paper, every bit as artificial as any other aspect of the medium. To place no importance or even limited importance on the aspect ratio of the camera you use is a kin to shooting everything with a very wide angle and cropping to mime the desired 'focal length.'

Nature presents. The photographer composes and the frame is the canvas.