Shiny side down

[cliveh]

How often do you print a negative shiny side down, to flip the composition? I think I probably do it on about 5% of my negatives for compositional reasons. Any advance on that?

 

[MattKrull]

It was/is done a lot for portraits of people when the subject is also the primary recipient of the print. People are used to seeing themselves in a mirror, so they tend to like mirrored images of themselves better. Can't say I do it very often though. I doubt even 5% of my prints were flipped on purpose. If there is text or logos, mirroring becomes really obvious, and many of my images have one of those...

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Tessina camera reverse the image with a mirror and therefore to print the negative correctly the negative must be turned over. This is much easier to do yourself than to convince a clerk and then the darkroom person to do.

http://www.subclub.org/shop/tessina.htm

 

[snapguy]

whatever

Whatever works, go ahead and do it.

 

[removed account4]

Whatever works, go ahead and do it.

what he says

 

[ic-racer]

I'd say that reversing the image does not alter the composition.

 

[480sparky]

Shiny side up only applies to cars.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Shiny side up only applies to cars.

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do whatever you want. I'm just surprised cliveh would do it. Doesn't it violate some sort of integrity of the negative or something?

Not in the case of post #3. In fact Tessina informs the user to turn the negative over to print.

 

[MattKing]

I did this in error recently, while printing an Ilford XP2 Super negative. I haven't printed any XP2 for a while, and it is moderately difficult to differentiate the two sides.

It wouldn't normally bother me, but the particular scene was fairly recognizable, and therefore recognizably wrong in the flipped print.

 

[NedL]

I'd say that reversing the image does not alter the composition.

I think this is correct, but I have noticed that I have a very extreme sense of "sides" and often dislike the mirrored version. To the point that I probably would not have taken the photograph.

 

[MattKrull]

I'd say that reversing the image does not alter the composition.

I think it does, if only because of the direction of leading lines. The effect of a diagonal line up from bottom left is slightly different from one going up to the right from bottom left. We are used to reading in a certain manner, thus the 'flipped' line may be read as diagonal down to the right. One image may imply upward momentum, while the other downward.

Or I could be full fo pretentious BS, that's up to you.

 

[cliveh]

I think it does, if only because of the direction of leading lines. The effect of a diagonal line up from bottom left is slightly different from one going up to the right from bottom left. We are used to reading in a certain manner, thus the 'flipped' line may be read as diagonal down to the right. One image may imply upward momentum, while the other downward.

Or I could be full fo pretentious BS, that's up to you.

I would also agree with the fact that flipping the image does change composition. This is more noticeable with images that contain movement. Take the scene where you have an animal or person running. The preferred composition is running into space on the right (western civilisation reading right to left), as opposed to running out of space.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would also agree with the fact that flipping the image does change composition. This is more noticeable with images that contain movement. Take the scene where you have an animal or person running. The preferred composition is running into space on the right (western civilisation reading right to left), as opposed to running out of space.

One should consider the direction of travel vis-a-vis a horizontal focal plane direction of travel. The animal could be photographed being either longer or shorter. For example is the animal is a cat and the direction of horizontal focal plane travel is unknown, then before the film is developed the cat is both longer and shorter!

 

[drkhalsa]

Glad I followed the quantum physics thread for a while so I can understand this one.

 

[cliveh]

One should consider the direction of travel vis-a-vis a horizontal focal plane direction of travel. The animal could be photographed being either longer or shorter. For example is the animal is a cat and the direction of horizontal focal plane travel is unknown, then before the film is developed the cat is both longer and shorter!

But I'm not talking about focal plane distortion, or is this a reference to Schrödinger's cat?

 

[bdial]

I prefer to keep the rubber side down…oops, wrong forum.

I have a favorite print from years ago that got printed with the negative upside down, apparently by accident. I went to do a new interpretation of it, dug out the negative, printed it right side up, then had a surprise when I compared it to the original print.
Other than that, I've kept things in the original orientation, but there is no rule that says you must.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just so there's no legible type in the scene, like a street sign or soda can somewhere off in the middle distance, which wasn't apparent until you made the enlargement. I've made that mistake.

 

[NedL]

I would also agree with the fact that flipping the image does change composition. This is more noticeable with images that contain movement. Take the scene where you have an animal or person running. The preferred composition is running into space on the right (western civilisation reading right to left), as opposed to running out of space.

Interesting. I presumed ic-racer meant by composition the overall form, balance, interplay between elements, depth, and so on. These basic elements of composition would be preserved. But I know that I have a very strong reaction to the "sides", and that it can be with the eye drawn left or right, depending...

Sometimes I scan a negative to show it, and I nearly always don't like the way it looks until I "flip" it horizontally to match what I composed. But also when I read your post Clive, I found myself agreeing but was imagining a person or animal running from right to left with the open space on the left to run into... I know I have made more photographs like that of boats, cars, animals, people walking. When I think of famous photographs there are more like you describe. I wonder if that is some kind of dyslexia? My handwriting tilts to the left ( "backwards" ) too... I'm surprised you don't agree since you drive on the wrong side of the road over there...

 

[Sirius Glass]

But I'm not talking about focal plane distortion, or is this a reference to Schrödinger's cat?

Both

 

[NedL]

I just came back from the dentist. In the reception area there is a large signed framed print of a view of Mt. Tamalpais, looking from the bay side. I think it is a print of a watercolor painting, on heavily textured paper. It's been there for some years and every time I see it I think it looks odd and makes me uneasy. Until today I thought it was because the little valleys and folds and ridges on the side of the mountain are exaggerated and there is too much grass and not enough forest on the slopes.

But today when I was sitting there waiting, I realized what actually bothers me about the view. The shading of the clouds and the shadows on the mountain go together, but the mountain is lit from a direction that does not happen in real life. The sun is never far enough north to light up the view that way. I wonder if it would make someone else uncomfortable, even if they did not know what the mountain looks like in real life...

I expect a mirrored negative could cause this kind of dissonant feeling too.