Dirty borders also prove that you are stubborn... I use them and cannot escape their tyranny... I just can't imagine looking at a print of one of my negatives - without seeing the entire negative. For me it is like seeing the print in person. I have to see it all. For me there is no choice, save yourself.
Originally Posted by Cybertrash
Since I must use dirty borders, I can tell you what's happening.
If you paint the edge of the filed negative carrier black, you will still reflect a fair amount of light from the cut-edge of the top and bottom of the negative carrier.
When you don't paint the edges, then you get MORE reflections. These reflections can shoot out and inside the edge of the negative. So you may see echo images of negatives near the border... Or maybe a black/white/black effect.
It all depends on the cut and the finishing of the negative carrier opening.
I guess it all started for me when I got prints back from my slides. Cropped by the slide mount... Further cropped un-aesthetically by the lab... I thought a particular slide was rubbish until I removed it from the mount and saw their (horses) ears were not cut off.
I was reading in one book why HCB insisted on full frame: not because of purity, but because western newspapers cropped picture sometimes to absurd level.
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
What was too much to him was attached photos: they tried to show how life in USSR is miserable, and how women are not free in USSR.
My Durst m670 bw has a negative holder that looks like a book (sort of), where the top-side is newton glass and the bottom is open.
Then you insert the negative mask, 6*6, 6*7 or 35mm, depending, and close the "book" after also placing your negative in there.
The negative masks are made of metal and are almost exactly the thickness of the plastic used in DVD covers.
So, since I was missing a 35mm mask at the time, naturally, I made one by cutting out the plastic of a black DVD-cover to the correct specifications of my negative 6*7 mask.
(the only difference is the hole in the middle)
Then i made the "hole" for the 35mm negative with a sharpie.
- Actually I was trying to be as precise as possible, but the hole was way too big, creating a wide, black border outside the negative.
- So i used black electrical tape to close the gap to fit more with the 35mm negative
The good thing about this method, is that you don't have to ruin your real negative holders, as getting replacements isn't that easy these days.
I also made a dirty border for 6*6 frames out of cardboard, but this has too much paper-fiber on it, looks ugly, so i may just make one out of plastic for that too ^^
Mileage and enlarger-systems may vary, just be creative with some scissors and a knife and some tape, and you can probably make something that works :)
Once I was told by a photography appraiser that the clean borders on my platinum prints were not preferred by collectors, they want to see my brush strokes. To which I replied that it is too bad for them. I don't make my work for anyone else but myself, and I like the borders clean.
To me they detract and distract from the image itself an awful lot, and I find myself not focusing on the content of the picture as much as I would like to.
But each printer has the freedom to choose how they want to print and show their work. When you look at Diane Arbus's prints in museum shows, for example, the foundation has extremely clear instructions of exactly how the prints may be displayed in their frames, and the image borders HAVE TO be shown, and then a certain distance between the image edge and the over-mat border is mandatory.
To each their own. I try to rely on my pictures being satisfying enough, (to my own senses), that I don't have to rely on effects outside the image area to improve it. Of course somebody else will think that I'm a lunatic for doing so, or thinking that way, but that's how I feel.
When I print full frame I use a glass carrier or purpose-milled full frame carrier. I can't stand raggedy borders, but I think an ultra clean, 1-2mm black line is really sexy on b/w prints.
I eschew them when I crop ever so slightly to correct a crooked horizon, but if it's part of a series of printed work, I will make a mask the size of the image area and burn the line in with white light from the enlarger.
They're using some kind of special aesthetic. :laugh:
Originally Posted by Cybertrash
Making a print with non-original border effects came up last year in another forum. Here is my attempt at manually recreating the design of the digitally-reproduced example at the top of the linked thread. (That image in the link was made digitally as the agency digitised all their files years ago, and the original neg is rather valuable!).
To show a little of the edges of the neg around a print, the simplest way would usually be to use a glass neg-carrier, while using the carrier's masking arms to limit the amount of extraneous light to just the narrow strip you need. This method is shown in the 'straight' version of the print I made in the linked thread, though showing pretty much the whole neg rather than a narrow strip.
To make a simple, evenly sized, black border around any format of print, decide your cropping and then cut a piece of black card (or 3mm foamcore) the same size as the exposed area of the paper. Decide how wide you want your thin black keyline and trim the card by that amount on two edges. Make two fogging exposures, one each with the card pushed top-left and bottom-right to produce the black key lines symmetrically.
Using a glass neg-carrier, the sky is the limit to the strange edge-changing items you can put in there with the neg, if you didn't want to make your chosen effect with multiple exposures.
Bill has it right.
Originally Posted by Bill Burk
Funnily enough, I have been printing a fair bit recently and have made this choice for a few negatives.
I use an Omega D6 with an Ilford Multigrade 400 head - a diffusion source.
The glassless negative holders are aluminum - painted black on the bottom piece, and white on the top.
The attached example was shot in an RB67 - TMY-2 developed as an experiment in Pyrocat (PMK).
I like the aesthetic for certain photographs, including the sense of three dimensionality it gives to the result of the process.
Unfortunately, the APUG re-sizer seems to defeat my efforts to upload a sharp version of this scanned print.