Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,970   Posts: 1,523,496   Online: 869
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Black Borders

  1. #21
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath View Post
    g'day keith, so what do you believe digital capture has done to photography?

    i see extremes, on the one hand more people are empowered and encouraged to do photography - that could be a good, or a bad thing

    on the other hand, more and more bad imaging is accepted as the norm - even that could be good or bad

    lastly, for now, many talented photographers are too narrow minded to explore the possibilities that digital could bring to their practice

    just because an image is digi doesn't mean it's a poor image, just as gum over pt/pd etc etc doesn't automatically make an image good

    what are your thoughts?
    Sorry, just found your response... pardon my late reply!

    I think digital has increased the quantity of photographs taken by a factor of 12,369,438 times or so, without any change in quality. So I think what digital has done is decrease the quality by dilution. Too many people taking too many shots based on too few thoughts. And too many people using basically the exact same tool and getting roughly the same output.

    I don't think that an experience film user is 'narrow minded' if they prefer not to go digital. I forayed into digital (briefly) and thought it was fun, in the same way that a toy is fun. But at the end of the day I thought, geez, it is basically impossible to distinguish yourself with digital capture- almost everybody has the exact same tool and hence the exact same capabilities in terms of what they can actually capture.

    So much of what I love about film photography is the diversity of equipment (RFs, TLRs, LF, pinhole, you name it) and hence unique capabilities. Recently I went to do some sport shooting and I noticed that everybody had DSLRs and everybody was taking basically the same shots, you know, at 5 fps. What's the point of taking a shot that anybody can take? I don't know, I just don't get any pleasure out of this herd mentality.

    And I also love the personalities of the films that I use; and they are so diverse! Again it is about diversity, in my opinion. I like my slide and my b&w and my IR film. It isn't enjoyable to me at all to try to insert personality into a shot via photoshop. I don't see why I should emulate film effects when I can just go out and do the real thing. I like thinking about a shot before it is taken, I don't like the back-heaviness of digital, the idea that you make the photo after the capture.

    I do think that people should use whatever tools allow them to express themselves. If that's digital, fine.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Windsor, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    182
    Digital is not such a bad thing; I wouldn't have discovered photography -- and film photography -- without buying a DSLR first.

    So despite the trend of people "upgrading" to digital, some of them "come back" and some of them even "come" to film and chemical photography...

    I started with a DSLR, and now I shoot LF, MF, 35mm, I do wet prints in silver, and I even do alternative printing... All that thanks to digital !

  3. #23
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath View Post
    hcb also liked to show that he did not crop his negs, a bit of a wank but it is good practice to crop in camera not on the neg

    I was taught that the inclusion of the rebate was called the verification border. I print al of my personal work with the verification border showing. It is a self imposed rule that makes me work harder to produce a better image. Hardly a wank.

    IM-not so- HO the addition of the verification border also enhances the drama or formality of the format.

    jdc
    mercent banker

    *

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Okay, back to the original question regarding the black borders, I heard H.C-Bresson's printer was using Leitz Focomat and Omega DII for printing with the borders. Focomat can give you a little space around the frame from a neg, but some frames are slightly bigger and wider than others depending on the shooting lenses and their apertures, so it needs some adjustment. Some people do file the neg carrier for that.

    The same goes for the Omega. And the 4-blade easel is a must to cover the bleeding and keep sharp on the edges.

    But I have also created black borders on PS after scanning my photos for publication. Basically I touched up the rough edges with a stamp tool, and that looked nice. The trick is that, just like traditional darkroom printing, you need to file the neg holder/carrier used for the scanner a little bit before scanning the images and allow scanning the original edges as much as possible. Then you will have a very smooth transition.

  5. #25
    ben-s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    443
    Images
    11
    HCB was undoubtedly a brilliant photographer, and a pioneer to boot, but he wasn't perfect - no one is.
    Think of all your negs that will never go beyond contacts - he must have had his share too.
    Just because the public haven't seen them doesnt mean he didn't screw up on many images.
    I have been wondering how to get a black border on my prints recently. I don't want to hack my carrier about.
    I think I'll make up a mask for the print area, and just blast the borders to black.

    Quote Originally Posted by buze View Post
    Digital is not such a bad thing; I wouldn't have discovered photography -- and film photography -- without buying a DSLR first.

    So despite the trend of people "upgrading" to digital, some of them "come back" and some of them even "come" to film and chemical photography...

    I started with a DSLR, and now I shoot LF, MF, 35mm, I do wet prints in silver, and I even do alternative printing... All that thanks to digital !
    At risk of this turning into another film vs digital debate (or flame war), I started out with (and still use) a DSLR, but when I realised that the lenses would fit the film bodies that are available for peanuts, I bought a couple. Since then, I have started a darkroom, and even ventured into E6 processing. All thanks to digital.

    (although a nice little snub to digital; I was shooting an event with the digital, when the mirror drive pin wore through, rendering the camera useless.
    I was very glad of the EOS 500 and case of film in the bag that day!)
    Lens caps and cable releases can become invisible at will. :D

  6. #26
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    If you wish to have a black border and do not want to file your neg carrier do one of the following:
    1. create a neg carrier from 1/8" black gator board. make the opening as large as needed.
    2. use an oversized glass carrier and black tape


    I've filed carriers, made gator carriers and now only use glass. I also expose as little of the rebate as possible to reduce flare.

    *

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    I just saw the documentary video/film about HCB today. Those of you who are obsessed about creating or not creating the black borders should see it, too.

    I highly recommend it.

  8. #28
    Maine-iac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Island Heights, NJ, but will retire back to Maine.
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Sorry, just found your response... pardon my late reply!

    I think digital has increased the quantity of photographs taken by a factor of 12,369,438 times or so, without any change in quality. So I think what digital has done is decrease the quality by dilution. Too many people taking too many shots based on too few thoughts. And too many people using basically the exact same tool and getting roughly the same output.
    Brooks Jenson has an interesting editorial in the latest edition of Lens Work on just this subject. Apparently Adobe is coming out with a new software database designed to help digital photogs cope with the vastly greater number of images they are capturing. I tend to agree with your point about no great corresponding increase in quality. Analogous to a film photog using a motordrive to excess, I suppose. Same result in the end. Quantity doesn't necessarily translate to quality. Numbers of images are no substitute for well-seen images.

    Larry

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    905
    An alternative would be to cut a piece of Rubylith or Amberlith to the size of your enlargement, then carefully cut the amount of border you want. After that, you simply lay the ruby/amberlith down over your expose paper and let'er rip.

    erie

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,050
    Enlarging the cutout in a neg carrier will increase the flatness problems already present in a glassless carrier.

    Use a double glass carrier for 4x5 and mask off the stray light as required.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin