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
Where are you viewing photographs? Most established 35mm photographers I can think of print to the dimensions of the 35mm frame.
Originally Posted by mporter012
We'll see if I was so lucky today. I included horizon in a few shots and I did my best to keep it horizontal. Any perfecting if needed will need to be done when the print is matted.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
Moral Question re: the term "Full-Frame"
Hello, My name is Loren and I just joined APUG. Happy to see fellow analog photographers out there!
The majority of my work is presented Full Frame. I pride myself on in-camera cropping and often do like to let viewers know that my work is full-frame. So that said, with film photos, I don't always like to show Verification Borders because I prefer either no border or a white border, especially when showing on my web site or social media. SO, my question is this: Can I Morally still caption/describe a photo as "full-frame" without showing a Verification Border? Or do you need to show the border in order to "prove" it's FF if describing it as such?
Same question for Digital: since there is no Verification Border as there is with film: if I have honestly not cropped into an image at all, could I morally include Full Frame in the description/caption?
I appreciate all of your feedback!
Hi Loren. I just read your post which caused me to read through the whole thread, most of which was back in March. For me, the answer would be;
If the picture is full frame, call it that. The borders don't prove anything. I like some images with definite borders, and some without.
If, on the other hand, the image has been cropped, I don't see why you would call it full frame.
I have to say that the distinction is probably only of interest to (some) photographers. I doubt that the majority of viewers would give it a second thought. It's an admirable skill being able to compose a successful image in the confines of your negative area, but there are many outstanding images that were perfected after the initial exposure. The subject matter and circumstances in which the image was made must play a large part in that. That's just my opinion, anyway!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Full frame is useful as a target, not as a rule.
I like to make the best use I can from my negatives, because it makes it easier to print them, and in many case the result shows better.
But whether or not someone else has cropped their negatives makes no difference to me at all.
If you label your negative as full frame, I'll just ignore the label.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
I shoot full frame regardless of the camera; a habit probably left over from shooting 35mm slides for projection. The advantage is it forces me to think about the content and perspective of the picture so I don't get sloppy. The negative is that it's difficult to print to that size if standard sized paper. Any cropping could change the composition in a negative way. Also, it leaves little room on the edges for reduction when you want to keep the same format.
I can pinpoint the moment I stopped cropping. I was working on a newspaper, the first week or so, and the editor clipped off one column width of one of my photos and really wrecked the balance. That was 35 years ago, and I still hold an image in my mind of watching him draw that wax pencil line on the print. I resolved at that moment that I was going to make pictures that forced him to use every bit I gave him, where any cropping at all would wreck the whole thing. It started out as a game, and ended up being a habit. The result was very beneficial for me, though--it taught me to compose tightly and make use of everything in a picture, and leave out what didn't work. As time moved on, my pictures got better because I was making them before I pushed the button, not trying to save them later in the darkroom. The resulting compositions were much better for having been tightly planned and executed rather than being salvage operations from poor planning.
Uhhh.... People who shoot 4x5 and 8x10 and 6x7 kinda like the proportions the way they already are. And since bigger negs temp bigger prints,
we tend to spend a lot more on paper itself. Most of the 35mm crowd have already defected to cell phones and inksmudge printing, if they are bothering to print at all. When I print 35mm film myself, it's generally full-frame. But ya gotta trim the paper when you drymount it anyway.
Same situation when I shoot 6x9 format. Big deal.
Most SLR prisms don't see the full frame anyway.