Lately, I have been noticing magazines using the rough film edge included with the photo (polaroid edges, 35mm sprockets w/ film name, alt process zigzags etc). I know some of the platinum prints are sometimes displayed to show this rough edge and I think it sometimes detracts from the print. Is this displayed to show that it is an original?
I was just curious to see what others think about this trend and do you use this in some of your prints.
Henri Cartier-Bresson and others would file out their negative carriers to show that the print was an uncropped, full-frame enlargement composed entirely in the camera. Whether one regards composition in camera as a virtue is another thing, but the frame edges showed that the photographer regarded it as a virtue, perhaps a reflection of the influence of cinema on still photography.
Now we also see this as a way of laying bare the process for the viewer, and showing that the print is a handmade thing, in addition to showing that the image was composed on the full frame in the camera.
It's also become something of a fashion, though, so even digital images sometimes have sloppy edges Photoshopped in for the sake of funkiness.
If there's a real idea behind the use of the frame edges, I don't mind it. If it's just to be hip, well, that's kind of shallow.
Sprocket holes included on prints are so overdone. It was hip several years ago, now it is just sad... kind of like 1/2 the cloths in my closet.
well, I hope you still like my postcard bmac... the postcard I printed for the exchange is the first print I've ever made that included the edges of the negative, but I'd like to think I had a reason. The image has a lonely feel to it and I needed to enclose the image, but the sky reagion is blank due to no clouds and no filter (black and white film) therefore printing with a black border seemed to work.
Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!
Forget it, have the mailman tear it up! jk, I'm sure your postcard will be great!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I view "rough edges" as merely a an aesthetic decision.
Personally I find it overdone by many. I mean you don't need to do it ALL THE TIME. For some it seems a personal mission to use every single edge in their copy of "Ted's Big Collection of Funky Edges for Photoshop".
At other times though it really works. Personally I find it the best when used appropriately on alternative processes. I've seen Pd/Pt prints that had the brush strokes left on and it really looked nice. In part because the deep black of the brush strokes helped to frame the image. It also appeals to me when the image itself has a very soft "painted" feel to it.
Otherwise I think 90% ofthe time edges are best left to contact sheets.
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
For 35mm or 6x6 streetphoto style shooting I prefer to have a black border around the image - it is a fundamental statement about the uncropped real thing, about the unaltered capture of a moment. When enclosing an image in its negative border the moment captured are transfered to the next stage in the photographic process - the printmaking. Yes, it is for esthetic reasons, like everything else in photography. A matter of personal taste & choice.
I don't care very much for the rough borders, nor the sproc-holes either. Just a fine thin black border around the image. My Picture A Week theme includes several prints I have made this way: http://www.henning-jansen.com/portfolios/PAW2003/
Stavanger - Norway
I have nothing against black borders as a "fundamental statement about the uncropped real thing". I do that myself occasionally.
What I do NOT like is when all the photos in a book have the same frame number, or when colour photos seem to have been shot on BW film...
I have a book of Annie Leibowitz' photos. Several of the pictures presented there - with "film frame" - have been published elsewhere in different (larger) crops.
Now THAT is blatantly fake. I do not like that at all.
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
Now THAT is blatantly fake. I do not like that at all.[/quote]
I have worked with 2 well established members of Magnum in the past and both told me that Cartier-Bresson did sometimes use a small section from a larger format negative and have his printer put the black border around the image. It is well documented that Bresson never cropped his images. I'm mystified as to why such a gifted image maker should feel it necessary to bend the truth. I don't care whether an image is full frame or cropped, the important thing is the image and Cartier-Bresson certainly made some of the outstanding images ever made.
As for black borders, IMO they are a fashion and a dreadful affectation and add nothing to an image.
Black borders can be nice on some images, IMHO. But they don't need frame numbers or sprocket holes - and certainly not the same frame number on a whole production...
-- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist