Why print film rebate?

[Steve Gledhill]

I've wondered for a long time why anyone would want to see film rebate printed or displayed around images. And, I've always been a little reluctant to ask why it's done. I fully understand that the rebate or border becomes an integral part of the image but what does it ever add to the image. I'm at a loss to understand the rationale. It's a relatively common practice so perhaps some of you who do it can help out here please. This question could be answered from several points of view - the photographer and what (s)he wants to achieve, the photographer and what (s)he thinks the viewer will make of it, and the viewers and what their reaction to it is.

Such a question may be seen as naive, unthinking, insolent or even provocative - but none of those is what prompts me to ask. I just don't see what it ever adds to an image - for me it almost always detracts from the image - so I'm wondering whether I'm missing something important for me to consider. One thing's for certain though, it's definitely not wrong to do it - it's a matter of choice. I'm looking to understand what influences that choice.

By the way - before posting this I tried a quick search of this forum but haven't been able to uncover anything that might shed light on the subject.

[jb7]

Personally, it's a reminder always to compose full frame-

I try to do that on 35mm (long time ago) 6x9, 6x12, 4x5, Polaroid 55, and 8x10.
I never feel the same about digital- well, they don't have a border, and their lenses nearly always need correction...

I'm never as satisfied with a picture that needs something off the edges-
unless it's only a mat covering the rebates.

[Sirius Glass]

Well, to begin with it comes for free when contact printing the negative.

Steve

[Jim Jones]

. . . for me it almost always detracts from the image . . .

Yes, indeed. Perhaps it is done just because the photographer saw it done elsewhere in a more famous photographer's declining years. Maybe he isn't clever enough to use all of the tools of photography, including cropping in the darkroom. Maybe the photographer is too poor to afford the right size negative carrier, and wants us to believe he owns so many lenses that he can always compose to the edges of the film.

I must admit to always composing full frame when shooting and projecting Kodachrome, but the Great Yellow Father's slide mount covered the ugly edges of 35mm. I also didn't mask out the edges of film when making contact strips. Honesty compels me to share these transgressions to fellow LFPT members, but conceal them from others.

[ic-racer]

When one contact prints, its just going to always be there. You can get rid of it by projection printing; using a 4 blade easel to mask it off. Or you can just trim it off with a paper cutter if you don't want it.

[Bruce Watson]

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

Some people seem to do this as a point of pride -- they like that everything in their frame is integral to their image, and printing showing the rebate supposedly proves to the viewer that they used the entire frame. Many of them consider cropping to be "cheating" somehow. I don't know why, but I've heard and read that a number of times.

I'm not saying it's wrong to compose to the aspect ratio of a given film size. Just like writing poetry in iambic pentameter is not wrong. Some people work better with more restrictions.

But personally, I find prints showing the rebate to be rather silly looking and lacking in subtlety. But that's probably just me.

[Flauvius]

If you are using a non-staining developer, this non-staining developer comment is a very big point in addressing your question, printing the rebate will show you if your developed negatives are out of register. That means, your unexposed film area on your rebate appears darker on your print than the area of your negative that received five stops of under exposure.

The point of all this is: If your exposure and ensuing developement for the darkest part of your subject area, and that you deem important to render accurately, is correct; then all the other color tones on your b&w print through Zone VII will also be correct. This "matching" concept is the essence of determing your personal film speed.

Developing for tones beyond Zone VII, means that your zones 1-5 beging to print progressively "lighter", because those zones gradually become "too" dense for the appropriate amount of light to pass through.

In conventional Zone system terms, if you print a negative that has been underexposed (5) stops, you should not see any difference in the "black" of the rebate area from the "black" in the negative.

However, as I said at the begining, all of the above does not apply if you are using a staining developer.

Robert J. Triffin, "Flauvius"
Drexel Hill, PA

[Jack Dahlgren]

It has been a fashion as long as I can remember. People used to file out the edge of the negative carrier so you could see it. I thought it was faddish 30 years ago, but it is still with us and probably always will be.

Some like it, some don't.

[PViapiano]

It's a matter of taste sometimes.

Some feel that a particular image may need a frame within the image area itself to set it off. I usually don't include it in my gelatin silver optical prints, and usually matt out rebates or brush marks on pt/pd prints, but I view it as subjective on an image-by-image basis.

[tgtaylor]

It's also a little lagniappe for the business-minded photographer.