Originally Posted by ROL
Brutal, but so true IMHO... My interaction with my subject dictates the framing, aspect ratio and perspective I choose to use, not my film or camera. I don't think that the world comes packaged neatly in 4x5-inch packages anymore than it comes in 24x36mm or 6x6cm or ... packages.
Whatever tool I choose to use is under my control and all its possibilities stand open to me, including shooting full-frame, which I occasionally do
Hardly brutal. More like sarcastic and oblivious of how others might think and act to make their photographs. Don't you find that if you go out with, say, a square format camera that you see your potential images in square format, or if you have your 35mm camera with you that you see them in the one to one and a half format and so on? Surely part of our work is packaging the world up into these various packages we take with us?
Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder
Maybe the best explanation of "why" I work the way I do is that it is a continuance of the contact printing process that was how I made my first photographs? Who knows? Who cares? Does it matter? The final result is the only thing that matters.
I also like printing full bleed, or using an unmasked large format glass carrier to print not only the edge of the film, but to black out the entire sheet of paper aside from the image. Suits certain images really, really well.
The black border around a full frame photograph has been called a verification border. The photographer includes it to signify that they take full responsibility for everything the lens laid on the film. It's either a boast or an affirmation depending on how you want to take it.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
Of course, unless you're including the film-type edge-markings and/or sprocket holes, it's easy enough to just burn the border black...
Originally Posted by Maris
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I generally compose based on the camera frame, but have no issue cropping when I print. Especially with 35mm I find the image I want doesn't fit the camera imposed aspect ratio, so I crop a lot. Surprisingly to me I rarely crop my square images.
I get pleasure from seeing prints from whatever the ratio, whether golden, elongated or square.
If the worst that happens is you get a portfolio of square prints because you chose a square format camera... the world is still a better place with you in it.
Originally Posted by Regular Rod
I guess we work very differently. I determine framing and aspect ratio without a camera, i.e., with my eye before I unpack my equipment. Since I shoot negative material, I have the luxury of not having the negative as a final product (as with transparencies), but can use the portion of the negative that corresponds to my original concept of the framing, which is subject-dependent.
Yes, I do shoot some square pictures, but mostly on 4x5-inch sheet film... And, I even shoot full-frame 4x5 from time to time. Always, however, each image has its own specific borders, determined by subject itself, and not by film format.
FWIW, I dislike square film formats, not because I don't like square for some images, but because I usually end up cropping too much of the (already small) negative area away in so many cases. With 4x5 I have a nice compromise between long-and-skinny, for panorama, and square, which then gives me about 3-1/2 inches square vs. the 6x6 cm of MF square format cameras.
An old, unwritten rule of 35mm photography has always been "fill the frame". Mostly I think it comes from slide photography where what you shoot is what you get and no option to crop later, as a slide anyway. Also, another idea being to reduce the amount of enlargement as much as possible because of grain.
Why this obsession with full frame?
All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.
You guys are lucky to be able to see 'straight' enough to get whatever is in the frame aligned so that it's perfectly aligned every time.
I could never manage it.
I almost never print full frame for that reason. Nothing like a crooked horizon...
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh