I'm sure it is a matter of opinion but with an impending long spell in the Darkroom planned and hundereds of B&W negs to get through I wondered what the general consensus is when presenting work in a portfolio - boarder or not?

I just can't make up my mind - Is it a case for doing different things to suit different subjects or should a poftfolio have a degree of consistancy in this department?

Interested to hear what others do and their reasons.

Thanks.

Depends what you're going to do with your portfolio, and how you want to present it. I use a border and window mount the prints behind some thick paper/thin card.

Ideally your portfolio should be consistent, it looks more serious & professional, if you're looking at showing it to galleries etc then presentation and also sequencing are important.

Ian

Dear stu,

May I suggest loading the image into an editor and fooling with the border color there? Not sufficient to make a final decision, but it might point you in the right direction.

Neal Wydra

I usually do everything in the darkroom, but I think you're bang on there. I'll give it a go and see where it gets me.

Thanks for the suggestions and advice.
Stu

If you mean, if you should print with a white border, of course, no doubt !

It all depends.

Black borders sometimes work with images that are journalistic in style, or with very high-key images where the border helps separate the image from the matt.

But borders can also be an affectatiion that substitutes for content and quality in the image.

Borders allow additional flexibility in presentation and mounting. You cant mount borderless prints under mat boards using photo corners since they will show. If you frame the image and want to have a visible signature on the print then you will need a white border around the image. The border around the image can be used for an additional border color in the place of bottom mat. If people are going to be handling them, the borders are a nice place outside the image for finger prints.

Cheers,
Mark

excuse my ignorance, but when we talk about borders, do we mean a thin black line or the strips of unexposed paper circumferencing the image?

Could be either, or both.

Ian

If you have a vacuum easel, printing full bleed is a great way to go - no fatuous "fine-art" borders. For this reason it's good for a commercial book or more contemporary work, mounted to cardstock. Full bleed is probably not so good if you're a traditionalist. A lot of the art directors I know really respond to horizontals as double page, full bleed spreads and it's a great way to combine horizontals with verticals in your book.

Borders allow additional flexibility in presentation and mounting. You cant mount borderless prints under mat boards using photo corners since they will show. If you frame the image and want to have a visible signature on the print then you will need a white border around the image. The border around the image can be used for an additional border color in the place of bottom mat. If people are going to be handling them, the borders are a nice place outside the image for finger prints.

Cheers,
Mark


what mark said :)

john

I personally don't like black borders. Drymount and window matte works for me.

No black borders. We need black borders only when we are dead.

You need a white border for handling the print. Imagine everyone touching your print directly. Thtas the simplest reason for a border.

Then, of course, framing behind passepartout etc ...

Also, the border is often waved/rippled with fibre prints. So there is a benefit. I really like when the white border (and not the print) is a little rippled, this gives the print the "hand made" mark.