Composing for framing?

[Patrik Roseen]

I shoot 4x5" and I used to put my prints inside those very simple glassboards where there is no actual frame around it besides the glass itself having the same size as the print. Recently I started to mount my prints of e.g. size 6.75x9" into real frames of 12x16" where the excess space is filled with a thick passepartou. As I was leaning back in my armchair enjoying the prints it struck me that I still have a few things to learn and master... probably not to anybodies surprise ;=)

With the simple glassframes I deliberately shot the negative so that there was space around the subject and it always looked good. But as I looked at the ones with a passepartout the extra space did not add any value, rather the opposite! And this was most apparent in those prints 'standing up', i.e. portrait mode.

Now I do not like getting too depressed about things I can possibly change so I thought maybe I could learn something from this.

To reprint those 'portrait mode negatives' and removing the extra space in the top and bottom would not help since the subject instead would extend passed the borders on the sides...so this would mean that I need to change the way I frame the subject already at the time of exposure...and that I probably need to know which type of mounting I will use for the final print. (Man, is that not taking the 'previsualization' a bit too far?)

I then eagerly started to glance through some of my 'professional photobooks' to see if I could find an answer...and you know what... for portrait mode I found the following:

1) some prints did not include any space at all around the subject, be it still life or pure portraits (and they all looked very good)

2) many many prints included lots of space above the subject...but there was seldom anything interesting/contributing in the top of the picture

3) the space to the left right and bottom of the pictures were usually very symmetrical and narrow

It would seem to me that there is a general challenge of actually determining the 'appropriate' use of the top of a standing negative and that I and probably others might be afraid to fill the frame to the top!

Of course some people would claim that 'the negative probably include lots of space around the subject ...it's just a matter of cropping'. But I'm not happy with this since I shoot LF for the large negative and also want to make full use of it. (And I guess those who are fortunate to do contact prints from an 8x10 negative must master this without cropping, right?)

I would be interested to understand how you more experienced LF-photographers master this challenge and if you think about the mounting already at the time of exposure?

[darr]

Try using a ready-made black 4x5" window opening mat (usually found on 5x7" or 8x10" surfaces), or have a local frame shop make you one and use it as a compositional framing tool. Here is an example or you could try the Visualizer

[Ralph Barker]

There are many ways to approach the issue of in-camera composition, Patrik. It's generally a good idea to consider how the image will be presented before making the exposure, however. For example, if shooting for a magazine cover, you may need to allow for the magazine's masthead and typical cover text (often called "cover lines" - essentially, "teasers" for the articles in that edition) when composing.

Overall, the composition and framing question can perhaps be simplified to two approaches:

1. compose tightly in-camera, and mat/frame to the aspect ratio of the camera's format, using "standard" sizes of mats and frames, or

2. compose in-camera such that the enlargement can be cropped to the aspect ratio you've pre-visualized, and use custom-cut mats and frames to conform to that composition.

Personal tastes vary on this, of course. Some people I know compose very loosly in the camera, based on the idea they might prefer different compositions or crops when they get around to enlarging. Then, there are people who insist on showing the rebate edges of the film in the print as proof they composed tightly in-camera.

For the majority of what I do for myself, I usually compose in-camera based on what I'm doing with the negative. If I plan to enlarge, I usually compose slightly loose in the camera, giving myself a little "wiggle room" when printing. That might be 1/8" to 1/4" of extra space on the ground glass. If I plan to make only contact prints (e.g. 8x10), I compose tightly to the edges of the ground glass.

If I'm shooting for a client, I compose based on what they are going to do with the image, having discussed that with them in detail in advance. The final prints, for example, may need to be a "non-standard" size (e.g. 9"x12" for most fashion-model portfolios), so you need to compose accordingly. Plastic overlays of the desired final aspect ratio or layout for the ground glass are helpful.

[robc]

you need to ask yourself whether you are composing to fit a frame or framing to suit a composition.

Personally I would frame to suit a composition on the basis that I composed to suit the subject. Space around the subject can serve to isolate the subject or emphasize the subject when leaving no space. The framing should compliment the original composition.

[Patrik Roseen]

Thank you all for sharing your experience with me... I never realized how important the in-camera composition really is in relation to the end result including mounting until yesterday.

darr - As for composing through a standard mat with the same relative dimensions - this is something I previously thought was totally unnecessary...with the proof on my wall I think it's a great idea.

Since I use a rectangular frame the mat becomes much wider on the short sides than the long sides, which in 'portrait' mode exaggerates the already tall perspective adding to the space on top of the picture. Another mat where e.g. three sides would have the same width and the fourth (short side) be much wider would probably give a totally different view of the photograph mounted.

Ralph and rob, I now understand the difference of using standard mats or 'cutting my own' depending on composition.

If anyone has any comments to the 'challenging use of the top part of a standing negative' I'm eager to know especially in relation to using a mat. The photobooks I have read all talk about composition in relation to the unmounted picture, suggesting to put alot of space above a subject for this and that reason. I have yet to come across a book that talks about composing for the mounted picture. Thanks alot, Patrik.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Patrik.

This is a good one.

I don't think I have ever worried about composing for framing. I compose an image based on how I see the world and what I am trying to communicate about what I am looking at. The last thing I worry about is how it will appear in a frame.

Most of the time I use a small card such as described by Darr. These are great aids to help visualize your lens selection, horizon line, tripod placement, what to include in the image, etc. Once I get a general idea about how I might like the image to look, I set up the camera and start working the composition, making adjustments to my idea as I go ( and always checking the edges of the frame to make sure nothing is sticking into the scene Idon't want to be there). The card should be cut to the same ratio as the film you use.

In general I only try to include as much in the image as is needed to communicate what I feel about the scene. So for me, less is more. Back in my darkroom, if I see the contact sheet and am excited about what I see, I will probably tweek the composition slightly more by cropping. This is important as I may not have the lens I would like to frame the subject perfectly, so I use the best lens I have for my idea and then will crop in the darkroom to arrive at the final composition. Our large negatives are perfect as they provide us more options in the darkroom than small ones.

Once I get to a final print, I will dry mount the image on appropriate size board ( for a 6X7 image that would be a 14x18 board for example) and then position the image on the board so the bottom of the image has slightly more board than the top ( for example, if I have a 4 1/2 inch boarder at the top I will have a 5 1/4 inch boarder at the bottom). I will cut my own window as I will print different images at different sizes depending on what I think the "proper" size is ("proper" is dependent on you are the artist).

So, in a REAL long winded answer to your question, I think I would for sure use a composition card, be open to cropping as needed in the darkroom, concentrate on composing the image on the ground glass so it is as close to the final as possible, then mount in a simple way the doesn't detract from the vision you are trying to communicate.

Does this help?

Thanks

www.ericbiggerstaff.com

[Patrik Roseen]

Eric, I appreciate your respons...Yes it's what I was hoping for.

As you and Ralph Barker say, I should take advantage of the large negative (4x5) when planning to enlarge,i.e. give the subject some extra room to wiggle it later...rather than seeing this as a failure not filling the whole negative.

I will try to find a book about mounting pictures and the 'theories of perception'....you see I still have questions about whether or not the mat can be a substitution for space in the picture...or if the mat should be seen as just something that isolates the picture from the surroundings.

It's all about my understanding that the picture doesn't end with printing...there is lots more to the perception of the subject and the composition. Thank you, Patrik

[Ralph Barker]

Although opinions are likely to vary, in most cases, I see the mat as something to isolate the image from the surroundings, not as a substitute for appropriate space within the image itself. That is not to say, however, that those spaces can't work together to create the visual response you want from the viewer. Thus, while it's at least convenient to start with a "standardized" procedure, individual images may vary in what they need.