man & nature # 47 ~ slam bang
Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 09:30AM 
Screaming yellow leaves with fence • click to embiggenWhile we're on the notion of the frame and the process of selection, I thought I would take the opportunity to explain my rationale for my use of the black edges and, to a lesser extent, the vignetting on my pictures.
As many of you who come from the good 'ole days of film might know, photographers of all persuasions often printed with negative carriers that allowed the edges of the film to print. Many did so to "prove" that their pictures were un-cropped - a sort of badge of pride that demonstrated that they didn't need no stinkin' cropping (other than the confines of their chosen camera format) to make good pictures. That, whatever the picturing circumstance, they could utilize the medium's inherent process of selection to "perfection".
I must admit that that was one of the reasons I printed the film edges on most of my personal work. Picturing first and then cropping later always seemed like the "easy way" of picturing. Not exactly cheating, but, at the very least kind of "lazy". Kind of like pointing a camera at something that you know has a good picture in it somewhere, but not taking the time or making the effort to figure it out on the spot - because later you can just crop the "good" picture out of the raw material of the full frame.
To be honest, I still feel that way and, to be accurate, this prejudice derives from the very beginnings of the medium - back then there were no enlargers, virtually every picture was a contact print that was the same size as the original negative image. As a consequence, photographers learn to "fill the frame" right out to the edges.
But for me, that black-edge badge of pride, is really quite secondary to the primary reason I like and use the film edges - now, in the digital age, pseudo film edges. That reason is intimately related to the idea of the process of selection and the notion of the frame as 2 of the medium's inherent characteristics.
Obviously, the black edges constitute a very visible frame in and of itself and I use it to draw emphatic attention to the fact that the picture is "cropped" from a visually continuous reality. To emphasis the fact that I have selected a specific segment of that pageant to which I want to direct the viewer's attention and that that segment is defined by and limited by a very deliberate act of framing/selection.
The black edges also erect a strong visual barrier at the edges of my pictures. The eye and the mind tend to slam right up against them as they seek to know what's outside the boundaries of my process of selection, IMO, in manner that is quite different from white bordered pictures.
This is especially so, because I do tend to fill the frame right out to the edges with lots of detail. All of the detail found in my pictures presses right out to the edges of the frame even though I tend use a "centered" type of "composition". The black borders deflect the viewers attention and eye back to the center of the image which is where the nominal referent of my pictures reside.
That deliberate use of visual deflection / redirection is also reinforced by my use of vignetted corners. Although, my use of vignette is primarily aimed at mimicking the manner in which the human eye, when it stares at a fixed object - sees the world. Things in the center of the eye's field of vision are sharp, those things at the edges (peripheral vision) are soft.
So there you have it. I usually only have to explain this to photographers, who, IMO, should know better. At least they should know better if they have a working grasp of the history of the medium and its intrinsic characteristics (as opposed to all the tech crap with which they are normally so enraptured).
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Tom Frost wrote: "Much of your work on the web looks like Diana or Holga pictures. Light fall off, blurred relative to the center of the image. Are they, or are you using software to get there from a digital image? Your comment about the 'good ol' days of film' suggests a post-capture intent to achieve a desired look. If the start is digital, you either have to set out with the intent of cropping to square, or mask it off in front of the sensor. Don't mistake this inquiry as a tech-geek comment, I'm asking where you are coming from.
my response - I love the look of Holga/Diana pictures. What I don't like is those camera's lack of focus and exposure controls (which limits picturing possibilities to only certain conditions), not to mention the present day hassles of buying and processing film (I live in the middle of nowhere). So, I start with digital and process in Photoshop to achieve a square and "modified" toy-camera look.
I used to mask the LCD screen to square but no longer do so because I just don't need that "aid" anymore.
So, where I am coming from is this -
I would buy a true square format sensor camera in a nano second (but none exist) because I really like the square format.
I use the post-capture processing for the reasons mentioned above - to add the edges and vignetting to achieve the results mentioned above - and to create naturalistic photography ala Peter Henry Emerson.
I also like to de-digitalize the look of pictures created with digital capture which, to my eye and sensibilities, is a little too "cool" and a little to "clean". To that end, I also add a small amount of monochromatic noise to my pictures.
The "modified" toy-camera look differs from the real toy-camera look in that, except for a small areas at the corners of the image, 90% of the picture area is sharp and "properly" exposed. To my eye and sensibilities, the soft vignetted corners - and if you look closely, the black film edges where they meet the image - add a slight dream-like quality to the pictures, which I use to reinforce / suggest the sense of "memory" of a past event because every photograph is, in fact, a "memory" of a past event.
In a very real sense, I my intent is to mimic the look of prints from the "good 'ole days" of film.
Reader Comments (4)
Just want to add that the recent entries involving "foliage" in this region are brilliant Mark. This one in particular with its DOF and slightly hidden moments (bird house, fences, people's yards, endless blurred leaves, and true lighting/color), immerses me in this place...in the piles of leaves I imagine outside your frame and in the town soaking in it. I think this feeling is created by your choice of frame and the way you "fill" space, as you point out, but I noticed a difference in the way you are shooting "this fall" as opposed to what I remember from last fall's work. You seem to have a bit "darker" feel this year, which may have to do simply with the weather...but it feels more like a choice to me. It's sadness underlying the joy of thise season. And it's also somehow more intimate than I remember from last year. And while there are none present, it makes me think of the people living in this town. Regardless, it's incredible...
I like a crisp 1px black border on my images (the web versions at least). Even when I was printing in a darkroom I'd make a black rule around the mounted print.
It prevents light coloured/toned areas escaping the frame and seems to "finish" the image nicely.
Much of your work on the web looks like Diana or Holga pictures. Light fall off, blurred relative to the center of the image. Are they, or are you using software to get there from a digital image? Your comment about the 'good ol' days of film' suggests a post-capture intent to achieve a desired look. If the start is digital, you either have to set out with the intent of cropping to square, or mask it off in front of the sensor. Don't mistake this inquiry as a tech-geek comment, I'm asking where you are coming from.
thanks for the comments
and, James, a special thanks for the feedback on my pictures - something that I receive very little of here on The Landscapist.