PDA

View Full Version : Do you use 100% of a LF negative?



Tin Can
27-Jun-2019, 06:45
I ask this, as I once read that 'Pros back in the day' didn't shoot for 100% usage of sheet film.

Meaning they left room for edge effects and cropped as necessary to perfect a print.

It seems full sheet usage including rebate areas is a modern affectation?

Often used in contact prints and scans.

I have LF portraits of grandparents that are purposely vignetted. Almost certainly from 1920 or before.

I look at them everyday!

Michael Kadillak
27-Jun-2019, 06:56
I contact print and use 99.99% of the entire sheet of film on 8x10 and ULF. Yes, it is regularly a PITA to get the image properly framed to exacting proportions as well as properly process the film and dry it without any defects and/or dust, but those are the cards I choose to play. I know others that enlarge regularly get away with "close enough" knowing they can crop the image later but IMHO it comes at a price and as long as that price is acceptable in the final print I say go for it.

RichardRitter
27-Jun-2019, 07:22
I crop.
I allow for edge damage.
I crop 8 x 10 contact prints when I cut the mats.
A negative is just part of the process of getting to a final print of the makers liking.
Plus you can not always get the camera in a position where you can fill the negative with the image you are after.

Where as when I work on Dags I use the whole frame.

Alan9940
27-Jun-2019, 07:48
I crop, if necessary, but try to fill the entire image area with meaningful information. However, I don't like black borders around my images so I will trim off the rebate area (applies mostly to 8x10 contact print.) As a matter of fact, I've been known to compose so tightly that when framing an image with an overmat, things on the edge of the frame get lost and/or don't work for me. If that is the case, nowadays I will scan it, add a bit more canvas to the edges, print, then frame the result. If I'm dead set on it being a silver print, I'll just drymount and move on.

Vaughn
27-Jun-2019, 08:00
Platinum prints I show 100+%, Carbon prints I mat to the image area.


Plus you can not always get the camera in a position where you can fill the negative with the image you are after.
If I can not, I do not make the image. Plenty of images (an infinite amount) out there, so moving on is not an issue with me.

Corran
27-Jun-2019, 08:16
I try to yes, always on contact prints. Enlargements only get about 97% because of the limitations of holding the film in place.

BrianShaw
27-Jun-2019, 08:22
Generally, yes. But I’m not opposed to cropping when required to get the best image.

I also don’t consider rebate as part of a “full negative”. But for anyone who does, then my answer changes to, “almost never use 100%”

Drew Wiley
27-Jun-2019, 09:45
I don't follow any rote unthinking rule. It all depends. I tend to compose using the entire visible groundglass; but that doesn't mean I never crop when printing. But logistically, sometimes it helps to factor in a bit of buffer zone around the very perimeter of an image for sake of higher fbf from development near the edges of some films, as well as to allow a bit of extra punch hole room if a registered masking system might be involved; and I use a register punch even when contact printing.

Eric Rose
27-Jun-2019, 10:34
I crop.

Jim Noel
27-Jun-2019, 10:43
I use 100% for all my alternative prints. Sometimes I will mask with a mat to hide some minor distraction.

Kevin Crisp
27-Jun-2019, 10:46
Yes except when using Grafmatics.

neil poulsen
27-Jun-2019, 11:24
Yes, I edit negatives. I think that editing is a crucial part of the creative process. Usually, editing is done to simplify, to remove extraneous details that don't contribute to the core of the message. In this way, one can drive home the message in the most powerful and direct way.

With that said, I carry more lenses than many photographers. I pick my perspective (camera position in a 3D space), decide on my frame, and then I select the lens that fills as much of the negative as possible with that frame. After all, the reason we're LARGE FORMAT photographers is to get that beautiful, luscious tonality that greater negative areas can provide.

It occurs to me, is it really necessary to confine our compositions to rectangular frames? Wouldn't it be interesting, as part of the editing and creative process, to not be restricted to a rectangular image? Imagine how such a process might shape the overall effect?

Corran
27-Jun-2019, 11:27
I think that editing is a crucial part of the creative process. Usually, editing is done to simplify, to remove extraneous details that don't contribute to the core of the message.

I agree. But some of us do that pre-exposure.

Jac@stafford.net
27-Jun-2019, 11:30
No divine entity designed our formats. I crop as I wish. Although I admit to being a full-frame fanatic back in the days when I was a 35mm photographer dodging dinosaurs.

Drew Wiley
27-Jun-2019, 13:47
Pre-exposure editing, Corran? Does that mean whacking a distracting vine out of the scene with a tripod leg, like I sometimes do, or an obnoxious tourist if they don't move out of the way?

Bob Salomon
27-Jun-2019, 13:54
Pre-exposure editing, Corran? Does that mean whacking a distracting vine out of the scene with a tripod leg, like I sometimes do, or an obnoxious tourist if they don't move out of the way?

Or cutting down the telephone pole?

Drew Wiley
27-Jun-2019, 14:08
I suspect there are quite a few Haydukes among us.

Tin Can
27-Jun-2019, 14:11
Seldom

Vaughn
27-Jun-2019, 14:11
Pre-exposure editing, Corran? Does that mean whacking a distracting vine out of the scene with a tripod leg, like I sometimes do, or an obnoxious tourist if they don't move out of the way?
I have been known to lay branches temporarily across ferns in the foreground and/or hold branches aside. I recently asked a fisherman not to walk in front of the camera during a long exposure -- fortunately I did not have to resort to whacking him with the tripod -- I would have had to reframe the image.

But like Corran, all my cropping is done pre-exposure. Just the way I work...not about purity or any such nonsense. But I will be exploring and hopefully be successful in producing a body of work this summer that involves a different form of cropping (pt/pd images from 11x14 negs, and perhaps some 8x10 negs.)

Pere Casals
27-Jun-2019, 15:07
Generally, yes. But I’m not opposed to cropping when required to get the best image.

+1

I'd add that many times this is seen at shooting time. Sometimes we'll just print what we have in the framing, this sports a sort of authenticity I cannot explain, but sometimes we don't have the exact focal that we would want for a certain composition, then we may use a wider than necessary lens to later crop.

Willie
27-Jun-2019, 15:15
No divine entity designed our formats. I crop as I wish. Although I admit to being a full-frame fanatic back in the days when I was a 35mm photographer dodging dinosaurs.

Oskar Barnack? - 35mm
Ernst Wildi? 2 1/4 Square
Jack Deardorff? 8x10

You really aren't suggesting these men are not Gods, are you?

Bob Salomon
27-Jun-2019, 15:29
Oskar Barnack? - 35mm
Ernst Wildi? 2 1/4 Square
Jack Deardorff? 8x10

You really aren't suggesting these men are not Gods, are you?

All great people but Ernst worked for Hasselblad USA. Victor Hasselblad invented the Hasselblad but Rollei and some other European makers had 66 well before Hasselblad

Jack was a friend but he inherited Deardorff, his family made 810 far before Jack was involved, or possibly born.

Greg
27-Jun-2019, 16:47
Print full negatives but mat openings are 1/2" less than the negative's dimensions.
For example 7.5" x 9.5" for 8x10 negatives.
Sidebar: this allows me to use some extra wide angle lenses that barely cover the full film's format.
Also was able to order 20+ pre-cut mats and get a discounted price for them.
Contact prints from whole plate, 8x10, and 11x14 all in 16x20 mats and frames. Got a bulk discount on a large order of 16x20 frames. When exhibited side by side, the have a good visual consistency in their presentation. At first thought 16x20 mats were too large for whole format prints, but after exhibiting several last year in a retrospective show next to 8x10 and 11x14 contact prints I was wrong.

Bernice Loui
27-Jun-2019, 22:48
For film, the entire film sheet out to the borders of the film holder is always used for any film image. Do not believe in cropping post processing except to clip off the film holder frame.

What goes inside the frame of the film holder happens before the camera and lens is set up. Camera position, height and lens to be used is also mostly figured out before the camera is set up. Once the camera and lens is set up, position of the camera & camera height is adjusted as needed to make the contents of the film holder frame as the initial vision of what should be in the film holder frame.

Lens focal length is used to adjust size of objects foreground_background within the film holder frame. Lenses are not used to "fit" the intended image into the film holder frame.

In the case of 5x7_13x18cm, this means direct magnification prints of 10"x14"_ish, 14.5"x20"_ish and similar. The standard size print paper is "cropped" to the full film size. The print is then mounted on to a industry standard size mat board of 16x20 for a 10"x14"_ish print and...

Knowing image presented on the ground glass will be what the image will be within the film holder frame is part of the beauty of using a view camera.

Much the same apples to all imaging devices from phone camera to digital to any film camera. Exception being technical documentation images with text notations. These are made for sharing information with not significant artistic value of any kind.


Bernice

Larry Gebhardt
28-Jun-2019, 04:56
I always plan to crop the very edges with sheet film. I like to not be locked into a particular aspect ratio. I do try to use one full dimension of the film such as a the long for a panorama or the short edged for a squarer aspect ratio than the film. I also like to float mount the print which requires a cut at least on the very edge of the image. I try to keep the process out of my work so I don't want sheet film holder edges and such in the print.

To me the important issue is not whether I cropped or not, it's whether I saw the final print when I took the shot. It feels like a failure to take a shot with the hope that you'll find a print when you get back to the darkroom. But I do admit to doing that when I have the camera setup and things just aren't working. Sometimes I'll shoot a sheet just so I can move on and study the scene on the film later. It's a cheap learning tool.

Bernice Loui
28-Jun-2019, 07:46
Painters work within the limits of their canvas, paper or what ever size flat format media they have chosen.

-Do painters "crop" their work after they have painted it?


Bernice

Vaughn
28-Jun-2019, 08:00
Painters work within the limits of their canvas, paper or what ever size flat format media they have chosen. -Do painters "crop" their work after they have painted it? Bernice
I guess you could say they crop before they paint.

Edited to add: I use to cut window mats for fellow students and for faculty at university for my beer money. Cutting them for my mentor was always a joy and a challenge. Since the window would cover 1/16" of the image (perhaps a little more), I had to pay very close attention to what was happening at the edges of the images as not to break any tension that was being created there and that sort of thing. The power of the edge -- I found it very educational.

Bernice Loui
28-Jun-2019, 08:09
Precisely Vaughn.
Again, "Photographers" have a LOT they can learn from Painters and their long history of Artistic excellence.

Photographers can build upon the foundations of Painters or fall prey to their own ego, ignore what has been proven to have an ability to
express human emotions within a flat 2D image so very well or do their own ego driven thing only to discover what the Painters have known all along so very well again.

Bernice



I guess you could say they crop before they paint.

Tin Can
28-Jun-2019, 08:57
My last wife oil painted Old Master portraits of Punks, took at least 6 months per. Big canvas and lots of layer drying time.

I made stretchers and some frames. She stretched her own canvas.

Any frame covered about a 1/2" margin. Marnie was very particular.

Moving her framed work required removing doors, windows, trucks while she hovered and worried about her babies. Several were stolen from galleries. Teamsters got them back!

One owned by Cleveland Rock & Roll museum, bought and donated by a famous Punk which paid our home down payment. I miss it from our walls. Long time past...RIP all of them.


Painters work within the limits of their canvas, paper or what ever size flat format media they have chosen.

-Do painters "crop" their work after they have painted it?


Bernice

Jim Jones
28-Jun-2019, 09:05
I usually crop since I cannot tell when capturing the image on film exactly how I may use it over the coming years. Sometimes circumstances dictate otherwise. For example, in the glory days of Kodachrome, Kodak's slide mounts determined how the subject was framed in-camera.

Bernice Loui
28-Jun-2019, 09:07
Consider the time, effort and resources involved by your wife put into these paintings and how much of her is in these works of art.
Photographers should do much the same in terms of investments into their works of art. That 1/2" margin is constrained by the size of the canvas or "Pre-Cropped".

There is NO post painting cropping of the completed work of art. To do this means discipline of composition and a LOT more.


Bernice



My last wife oil painted Old Master portraits of Punks, took at least 6 months per. Big canvas and lots of layer drying time.

I made stretchers and some frames. She stretched her own canvas.

Any frame covered about a 1/2" margin. Marnie was very particular.

Moving her framed work required removing doors, windows, trucks while she hovered and worried about her babies. Several were stolen from galleries. Teamsters got them back!

One owned by Cleveland Rock & Roll museum, bought and donated by a famous Punk which paid our home down payment. I miss it from our walls. Long time past...RIP all of them.

invisibleflash
28-Jun-2019, 09:30
I don't.

But most of the old 5x7 - 8x10 contacts in my archive are 100%

faberryman
28-Jun-2019, 09:36
I shoot 4x5. I compose to that aspect ratio and print full frame.

Vaughn
28-Jun-2019, 10:47
There are painters and there are painters. Many paint from photographs that they took themselves...and they may or may not be decent photographers. My MIL painted us a watercolor from a photograph my (ex)wife took in the SW. She even included the vignetting caused by the lens hood on a wide-angle lens. So it goes.:cool:

Bill Poole
28-Jun-2019, 12:16
I use every tool at my disposal to get an image that moves me. That means I sometimes crop. And I edit preexposure, move stuff around when possible so the composition feels right. And not having access to a darkroom, I use digital editing tools to burn, dodge, sharpen scans, etc. I understand that this approach is less pure in some ways, but after fifty years of shooting, I prefer to live with that knowledge and end up with images that please me. It's an interesting discussion, though--learning what others do.

cowanw
28-Jun-2019, 12:23
The picture tells me what to do.

Jac@stafford.net
28-Jun-2019, 12:26
Bernice is a consistent and welcome standards bearer for better or worse. I differ, but am just another person. We all are. I stated my unimportant position earlier. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152987-Do-you-use-100-of-a-LF-negative&p=1506515&viewfull=1#post1506515)

BrianShaw
28-Jun-2019, 13:18
Painters work within the limits of their canvas, paper or what ever size flat format media they have chosen.

-Do painters "crop" their work after they have painted it?


Bernice

Actually... sometimes...

Corran
28-Jun-2019, 15:19
Just because painters are bound by a canvas doesn't mean we have to be. Photography is it's own medium. To judge photography rules based solely on painting paradigms seems incredibly limiting.

PRJ
28-Jun-2019, 15:52
I'd love to use the whole neg but the glass neg carrier I have for my Saunders 4550 crops in. Annoys me to no end... I am thnking about getting another one and having it machined.

Bernice Loui
28-Jun-2019, 19:04
Consistent and unbending comes from the passage of a few decades at doing this sheet film stuff. Fortunate to have the opportunity to experiment with film during the peak of the film era circa late 1980's to mid-1990's. Add being able to spend time with more than a few excellent Artist-Photographers will affect your own work. With more passage of time, one can and does develop their own style, preferred tools and all related as a means of creative expression. Essentially, I'm going to say what needs to be said regardless of any external opinions, criticisms or ... but know this is well tempered by all those decades of studying Art, Science, Math, Literature, Engineering, Materials fabrication and a lot more. All of which will be applied to this image making endeavor.


From Jonathan Haidt
192877

If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against.
The struggle between 'for' and 'against' is the mind's worst disease;”
― Jianzhi Sengcan


Bernice



Bernice is a consistent and welcome standards bearer for better or worse. I differ, but am just another person. We all are. I stated my unimportant position earlier. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152987-Do-you-use-100-of-a-LF-negative&p=1506515&viewfull=1#post1506515)

Jac@stafford.net
28-Jun-2019, 19:32
Consistent and unbending comes from the passage of a few decades at doing this sheet film stuff.

My aching 73 year-old body with over 50 years of photography begs to differ.

Bernice Loui
28-Jun-2019, 19:34
Not far behind Jac...

Bernice


My aching 73 year-old body with over 50 years of photography begs to differ.

BrianShaw
29-Jun-2019, 07:27
Not far behind Jac...

Bernice

Me too. “Far” seems to becoming increasingly relative! Started LF in 1978. But chronologically I’m probably well behind both of you. :)

Jac@stafford.net
29-Jun-2019, 08:48
Not far behind Jac...

Bernice

Take care of yourself. We are paying now for our youth. Gads, it's expensive!

Bernice Loui
30-Jun-2019, 07:19
Did not do much of the self indulgent youth thing. Most of my youth was spent trying to care for me in good ways. This has worked out OK so far. Others from my past have done much of the most self indulgent things in their youth are now forced to deal with their youthful indulgences with significant cost in many ways.

Short term thinking is one of the innate human impulses.


Bernice



Take care of yourself. We are paying now for our youth. Gads, it's expensive!

Vaughn
30-Jun-2019, 08:52
...Short term thinking is one of the innate human impulses.Bernice
"Moderation in all things, including moderation" has been a guiding principle for me.

Of course, 30 years of full-on basketball, a decade of working in the wilderness (including being kicked in the knee by a mule and some fire-fighting), tree planting (carrying 600 trees around my waist up and down steep slopes), backpacking with 60 to 90 pound packs, and that sort of thing have taken a toll on my knees (3 operations including a new ACL) might be considered excessive wear-and-tear. But perhaps that is why, even though my heart goes out of rhythm reguarily, I can still pack around 60 pounds of camera -- just not as far, nor as fast.

My kids, photography, and curiosity helps to keep this old funky heart beating by giving it a reason to. Politics, religions, and the state of the world certainly does not do it for me.

Dang -- what this has to do with using 100+% of a negative I have no idea.

Tin Can
30-Jun-2019, 09:12
Tree planting is 100%.

My Norwegian father had us planting 1000's of trees at 2 ideal locations. Long windbreaks.

Then he sold the lands. He specifically did not want his 3 sons to have it.

I visit the trees every 10 years or so and sure wish I owned that land.

Oh Minnesota...

Vaughn
30-Jun-2019, 09:50
Well, the first few 10k trees were on cut and burnt timber company land, at 2.9 cents a tree in the ground. More industrial than ecological. Later we bid on the contracts ourselves -- gov't and private land restoration, aiming at $10/hr in the late 70s. Did some more planting when I worked for the US Forest Service in the 80s. It would be nice to go back and see the trees. I have been back in the wilderness I once managed -- somewhat sad to see the trails revert back to the shape I found before I got them after spending ten years getting them back in good condition...but it is more like a wilderness when the tails disappear.

What is it about Norwegians? The midnight sun and the noontime darkness must affect the genes...tough strong-willed people.

Tin Can
30-Jun-2019, 10:07
I really know little about Norwegian anything.

Father also forbid the language, he was 1st generation. Assimilation was his goal. We had little contact with any relatives. He disliked them.

He made us so tough that all 3 sons no longer speak to each other. If I see either I will defend myself violently. I am middle son, runt at 70 inches.

King Lear.

Peace

Daniel Stone
30-Jun-2019, 10:35
I crop as needed. Even with young eyes, the ground glass sometimes doesnt show things a finished print (or digital scan) will post-exposure.

Lately, my exposures have been much less frequent, but the quality has gone WAY up. Staring at the ground glass longer allows me to be more choosy with what I spend my hard earned money on when TMY costs $10/sheet. I don't mind, it means less waste, both in terms of time, but in materials.

Right now I'm shooting shots of mountain ridges with haze/dust in the late of the day. Surrealism sorta stuff. Each one has it's own ratio, but it gets shot on a 4x5/8x10 ratio camera to start.

-Dan

faberryman
30-Jun-2019, 10:40
If you aren't going to use all of the negative, why not just shoot MF?

BrianShaw
30-Jun-2019, 10:43
If you aren't going to use all of the negative, why not just shoot MF?

People crop MF? Why not just shoot 35mm? Ha ha ha.

Vaughn
30-Jun-2019, 12:08
If you aren't going to use all of the negative, why not just shoot MF?
Image management -- swings/tilts and other benefits of a LF camera, obviously.

Jac@stafford.net
30-Jun-2019, 12:50
I am guilty of not using the non-emulsion side.

BrianShaw
30-Jun-2019, 13:18
I am guilty of not using the non-emulsion side.

Shame on you. What waste...

Drew Wiley
30-Jun-2019, 14:06
Don't forget film stretchers; it's a good alternative to cropping.

Mick Fagan
30-Jun-2019, 17:02
I don't think I have ever used 100% of any large format negative I have exposed.

I started my photographic journey in the early 1950's with my grandfather and everything was a contact print using a printing frame, he used dark paper to hide things and people he didn't wish to print. So right from the get go as a youngster, I was involved with using parts of a negative to hopefully make an image either more suitable or better, according to the photographer.

One day I ended up working in a huge industrial photographic studio/lab environment, I don't ever remember seeing the whole negative/transparency used; ever.

I've always thought of Arnold Newman and his image of Igor Stravinsky, if it wasn't cropped the way it was, it would never have become as well known.

https://www.google.com/search?q=arnold+newman+stravinsky&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=7crxGHVSWlwy3M%253A%252CYKbnednnp5v4oM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRrCfhj5rz7Nk5mSN63VuwokAy2LA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib_6X0sZLjAhUEAXIKHTnKALgQ9QEwCHoECAcQFA#imgrc=dOkOKZqXzOEttM:&vet=1

https://www.google.com/search?q=arnold+newman+stravinsky&client=firefox-b-d&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=7crxGHVSWlwy3M%253A%252CYKbnednnp5v4oM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRrCfhj5rz7Nk5mSN63VuwokAy2LA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib_6X0sZLjAhUEAXIKHTnKALgQ9QEwCHoECAcQFA#imgrc=Akmb0KlZXsxvDM:&vet=1


Mick.

Tin Can
30-Jun-2019, 17:29
What about emulations?

Sandro

Malkovich, Malkovich, Malkovich: Homage to Photographic Masters
Signed, titled, dated & editioned verso in pencil by the artist (https://www.irastehmann.com/artists/43-sandro-miller/series/malkovich%2C-malkovich%2C-malkovich%3A-homage-to-photographic-masters/960/)

Doremus Scudder
1-Jul-2019, 12:36
I try to determine my compositions precisely before I even set up the camera. I work with the elements, shapes, lines, spaces (negative and positive), tones and perspective in the scene to build an image I think will be expressive. The camera position, print borders, and whether movements will be needed or desired have all been decided when I start to unpack. Often, I'll meter a scene before setting up as well. Call it planning, pre-composition (or previsualization if you prefer) or whatever you like; the ground glass for me is just for checking borders and focusing, the construction of the image is separate. My compositions arise organically from the subject being photographed. This determines the placement of the borders and the aspect ratio as well. If the aspect ratio doesn't match that of the film I'm carrying, I plan to crop.

Also, there are sometimes situations that force me to crop: bad weather, changing light or whatever that spur me to set up quickly, grab a lens that I know will cover the scene I want and shoot quickly. Many of these shots fail, but the ones that don't usually require cropping to get the image that inspired me to try in the first place. So, I crop.

If I have time, however, I work with the technical aspects of the photograph: setting up the tripod in exactly the right spot at exactly the right height (chin on camera plate, one eye closed, then checking later), mounting the camera and choosing the lens, applying movements, filtration, focusing, etc. If the exact image I want doesn't match exactly the angle of view of one of the lenses I have, I'm forced to use the next widest one I have, and I plan to crop.

At this point I make the negative, process and examine it. Often (most often) my diligence in planning the image is adequate and I don't need to re-imagine the final image at all (don't misunderstand: most well-planned images usually don't make it to the printing stage at all for one reason or another; it's just that the image came out as planned, not that it was worth attempting to print). But sometimes, "the best laid plans of mice and men" aren't enough and the image as planned is flawed. The majority of these are simply failures, but occasionally a good print can be made by re-evaluating and re-thinking the composition of the scene included in the negative. This, necessarily, involves cropping, so I crop.

I just love it when everything comes together and I can use 100% of the image on the negative, but that seldom happens.

One of the reasons I work with 4x5 and enlarge is to have the flexibility to crop what is on the negative to match the image I imagined before setting up (or re-imagined after the negative was made). My images are rarely in a 4:5 aspect ratio, even though that is what my film is. I try to use as much film area as I can for my images, but anything outside the planned (or re-imagined) image is just waste; printing it would make the image weaker and less expressive. I don't feel obligated to include it.

Some hold that cropping is indicative of sloppy craftsmanship or bad planning. I beg to differ. For those that wish to work within the constraints of a certain aspect ratio, for whatever reason, cropping is contrary to what they are trying to express. I respect that way of working. I have an opposite approach: cropping is essential to what I am trying to express. I'll leave it to the viewer to decide if I have been successful.

Best,

Doremus