Why print film rebate?

[tbeaman]

How does it differentiate analog from digital when it's a simple matter to add a film rebate to any digital image?

The honour system? Really, there isn't, except that it really isn't all that simple to add one that doesn't look fake, to those who are familiar. No offense Frank, but even yours, although some of the better ones I've seen, are still not quite perfect. The film identification text and the edges are just too clean. You should anti-alias/feather them a tiny bit, and make the text not such a solid tone. You could even put a tiny hint of a shadow in.

In the end, the fact that digital users will even go to that much effort in the first place supports my argument.

I don't do that myself but if in fact film carried "prestige" among the people who typically see my photographs I might consider it. The reason I don't do it with digital images and never did it with film (in fact I went to a lot of trouble to get rid of the rebate when I was contact printing) is the same reason why I use white window mats and a plain black or aluminum frame rather than colored mat and a fancy frame. I'm interested in the image, not the process, and I don't want to do anything that calls attention away from the image, which I think the rebate as well as fancy frames and mats do.

Exactly, though I should have been clear and said that obviously it depends on the audience. The concept doesn't really jive with you landscapers as much as the art types (er... flickr types). For you, it's a bad thing, for a lot of them, it's intrinsic.

I've always gotten the distinct impression that showing the non-image border of a
piece of film in an actual print or image reproduction is CORN-E, WANNABEE, ARTSY-
CRAFTSY, as well as a very boring cliche by now.

That's one valid opinion, of which I often find myself in agreement with.

I used to like it with 35mm (sprocket holes included), but I quickly tired of it. The same with Polaroids and the reverse peel to leave the rough border. I still like the look in medium and large formats (I can only say it seems classy, both in aesthetics and meaning), but I imagine there will come a time when that seems hokey to me too.

[Frank Petronio]

Mine aren't accurate, I drew them and then made the notches and "TXP" larger than they are in real life ;-) In real life they are all slightly different based on the holder. I should probably do a Grafmatic version, I like the round dial.

I figure if I am going to be cheap and silly about them, I should make them bold enough to stand out.

[Robert Budding]

Sometimes the rebate is the most interesting part of the image!

[tbeaman]

Sometimes the rebate is the most interesting part of the image!

Haha, that's clearly the most insightful comment made thus far.

Mine aren't accurate, I drew them and then made the notches and "TXP" larger than they are in real life ;-) In real life they are all slightly different based on the holder. I should probably do a Grafmatic version, I like the round dial.

I figure if I am going to be cheap and silly about them, I should make them bold enough to stand out.

In a lot of ways, that's more admirable. You're suggesting an idea, without necessarily trying to pull the wool over sheep's eyes. And, at least at base, it's still authentic.

[John Jarosz]

Sometimes the rebate is the most interesting part of the image!

WOOHOO! I'm with you too!

[Bill Burk]

Some objective comments:

Pro:

Including the rebate and standardizing print size and enlarger height allows me to print with a consistent quality. (But for a clear explanation how you can achieve the same result by cropping to standard sizes check out member ROL's website).

When cropping by cutting the mat opening, I have not already cropped (I don't have to crop to allow further cropping).

Sometimes the composition is perfect but dangerously close.

(Moderators please forgive this 6x9 selected to illustrate the point. Also forgive the derivative work - I had recently checked out a Dorothea Lange book when my friends stopped by.)

Illustration of a composition that defies cropping, even defies matting:
http://www.beefalobill.com/images/firstbornpacifica.JPG

You can always trim the print and dry mount it.

Con:

Hard to figure out where to sign the print if you plan to cover it with a mat or trim it for presentation.

If the composition is unsuccessful, you have to move on. (Again, ROL's site makes compelling case for enhancing print beauty by cropping).

[Bill Burk]

Forgot to add two Pro's:

Forensics.

Proves you didn't turn over control to an art director or editor.

[Peter De Smidt]

I've wondered for a long time why anyone would want to see film rebate printed or displayed around images. <snip>

Pretentiousness.

[jb7]

Who would have thought- such a divisive subject.

A pretty even split between those for whom it's part of their process,
and those who carry so much prejudice, it's impossible for them to see inside the frame without condemning the photographer first.

Proud to announce their prejudice, condemning an image without even needing to see it.

Pretentious? Stupid? Poor? Rich? Wannabee? Unoriginal? Artsy Craftsy? Clichéed? Arrogant? Flickr Types?

You really must all be without sin-

[Drew Wiley]

The first time I saw it, at least the uneven edge style, was on Misrach's night prints.
That was almost forty years ago. Looked cool on a couple of them, but after that just
a cliche for this particular photographer. Now its a cliche all around. The last instance a few months ago that the Geographic tried to be artsy and do an article in black and
white, they had the hard-edged film border showing, and around the same time, some
4x5 shots with the edge imprinting and code notches showing. Guess they thought that was real cool and new or whatever - like, hey, guess what, we just invented non 35mm photography! But when someone above called this the most interesting part of the image, I wonder what on earth was between the borders. What came to mind is what Merle Haggard stated in an interview recently, how when he was young, he and
his fellow Oakies viewed Bakersfield as the promised land. ... well, if that was the case, I'd sure hate to see what Oklahoma was like back then.