 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / April 2004full frame 35mm display
I was wondering what is the most common method if displaying gallery work for 35mm full frame prints? I have seen some mat cuts where the window is just outside the 35mm print border? is this a common way of displaying 35mm full frame prints when you're doing mats? thanks. k. > I was wondering what is the most common method if displaying gallery work > for 35mm full frame prints? The same as for displaying any other print. If you want the uncommon black stripe and ratty negative holder method look I can not help you.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > If you want the uncommon black stripe and ratty negative holder > method look I can not help you. Maybe it is time we lowered our standards in order to make a few bucks as social security goes bankrupt. :( Let's market some matts with pre-printed raggy edges and sprocket holes. All Pyramid schemes eventually go belly up. Why should social security be any different? > Maybe it is time we lowered our standards in order to make a few bucks as > social security goes bankrupt. Signature"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of the government. The history of government is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of government, not the increase of it." --Woodrow Wilson > jjs wrote: > > Maybe it is time we lowered our standards in order to make a few bucks as > > social security goes bankrupt. > All Pyramid schemes eventually go belly up. Why should social security > be any different? I thought Social Security was a 'Ponzi' scam: http://www.mark-knutson.com/thescheme.html But I guess a Ponzi scam is a variation on a pyramid scheme which is a variation on a chain letter which is a variation on Herbalife. Or is it the other way 'round? SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > > jjs wrote: > > > Maybe it is time we lowered our standards in order to make a few bucks as [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a variation on a chain letter which is a variation on Herbalife. Or > is it the other way 'round? The only difference between SS and a pyramid scam, is that with a pyramid scam, all you have to do is hit, "delete", and go on to the next e-mail.....With SS, the government made a law that says you have to join whether you're smart enough to see through the scam or not........ > The only difference between SS and a pyramid scam, is that with a pyramid > scam, all you have to do is hit, "delete", and go on to the next > e-mail.....With SS, the government made a law that says you have to join > whether you're smart enough to see through the scam or not........ That's the truth. At one time a very smart man named Russell Jalbert, who once worked for the Social Security Administration, said (paraphrase) "A good report from the Social Security Administration should be interpreted as 'the people have not risen up in a full revolution against it'. Yet!" Yes, he was bitter. The government is just waiting for the would-be beneficiaries to die off. Rather like the way they handled the Vietnam Agent Orange crisis. > If you want the uncommon black stripe and ratty negative holder > method look I can not help you. UN-common? -- Martin Francis --- this space left intentionally blunt --- > > If you want the uncommon black stripe and ratty negative holder > > method look I can not help you. > > UN-common? Yes: Pick up a book of photographs, open a magazine, go to a gallery, a museum and count: with black border Vs without black border. Just a thought exercise: which do you think will be the more common? Black borders were first done to be UN-common: not like the crowd. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >>>If you want the uncommon black stripe and ratty negative holder >>>method look I can not help you. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Black borders were first done to be UN-common: not like the > crowd. Actually I think Ilford invented the black border, Cibachrome prints done with a blank border means a black border rather then a white one. Some folks thought it was cool, and could be done with Negative prints, simply by putting something over the exposed print raising the easel border, and then giving it double tim exposure under the enlarger with no negative in the carrier. Burns the border in wonderful black. I always thought with the rich colour saturation of Cibachrome prints, the black border looked better, with the lower colour saturation of negative prints the white border looked better, but that's just my opinion. Paul In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Paul Schmidt <wogsterca@yahoo.ca> wrote: > Actually I think Ilford invented the black border, Cibachrome prints > done with a blank border means a black border rather then a white one. I think it predates Cibachrome by quite a long way. I've got a book "Miniature Photography" by Richard Simon published in 1937 in which the author explains how he prints dark borders on his prints. After making an enlargement, take a piece of card the size of the print minus the border and place it on the enlarging paper and expose the edges with a pocket flashlight or the enlarger with negative removed. > Some folks thought it was cool, and could be done with Negative prints, > simply by putting something over the exposed print raising the easel > border, and then giving it double tim exposure under the enlarger with > no negative in the carrier. Burns the border in wonderful black. It can look cool if well done, but it certainly predates Cibabchrome by many years. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > Actually I think Ilford invented the black border [...] More likely Robinson Crusoe. > Actually I think Ilford invented the black border Wasn't it Al Gore? -- Martin Francis --- this space left intentionally blunt --- > Yes: Pick up a book of photographs, open a magazine, go to a > gallery, a museum and count: with black border Vs without > black border. The statistical approach to art.... ? Signaturee-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > I was wondering what is the most common method if displaying gallery work > for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > k. Print with clean white boders. Use a masking neg carrier. Forget this crap. Don't take crap from photo instructors. Think for yourself. Rhetorical questions: How many photographers need to use "clean white borders" before critics can consider white borders to be a tired old cliche of printing? How many photographers need to use black frames before critics can consider it to be yet another cliche? If "everyone" cuts the overmat so that its window is just outside of the print, is that also a cliche of printmaking? Which is the cliche: either cropping a negative or printing full frame? Does any of it really matter, or perhaps the photographer should experiment with several variations to determine which he/she feels is appropriate for the particular picture? _________________ _________________ > > I was wondering what is the most common method if displaying gallery work > > for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Print with clean white boders. Use a masking neg carrier. Forget this > crap. Don't take crap from photo instructors. Think for yourself. > I was wondering what is the most common method if displaying gallery work > for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > k. Too common if you ask me. It was probably kind of innovative when the photographer who did this first presented a new style. Now, this "alternative" has been copied into a trite presentation style. I print full frame (9" X 13.5") and cut my mats so that they just barely cover the edges. It takes longer to position prints this way, but it is worth it to get the exact look I intend. Michael > I was wondering what is the most common method if displaying gallery work > for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > prints when > you're doing mats? thanks. The "Crop in the viewfinder" crowd like to show the raggedy edges of the negative to prove their art is "pure". Just decide what you want for YOU and get on with life. For B&W, I sometimes like the 'ragged' edge bit; but for color I prefer it to be hard edged. I have no hard preference, it is NOT important. Some images beg to be cropped following exposure. It's that simple. This cropping can be done by cutting the matte to effect the crop, masking during printing, cutting, whatever. Go to a few galleries and find the looks that appeal to you... Cheers, Alan. Signaturee-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.