Borders on your prints/scans?

[twvancamp]

What sort of border, if any, do you prefer on your prints and scans?

Would love to see examples of course!

 

[retinax]

I think the survey should be split between scans and prints. I for one like and need a white border on prints, but I find it a bit corny on negative scans for online use. My borders tend to be between 5 and 8% of the paper length. I sometimes wonder whether I should standardize more strictly in the interest of easier and cheaper matting, but in the end I tend to vary the image dimensions based on content. I'm annoyed that standard mattes that come with frames assume one makes impractically thin borders.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I like to see on the print the "natural" border of the negative, like this, but then as thin as possible.

gelatin silver print (summicron 50mm f2 rigid) leica m3

Erik.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I agree with retinax that we should differentiate between prints and scans. Personally I don't believe a print is finished until it is mounted, and I only sell mounted prints. I float mount with a 3/8"-1/2" distance to the overmat and typically use the same dimensions as Bruce Barnbaum suggests for mat size

Flickr

 

[Guy Pinhas]

I agree with Erik.

Parasol by Guy Pinhas, on Flickr

 

[cjm]

Also agree with Erik:

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

Me, the "rawer" the better. The border reminds me of where it all comes from: chemistry.

 

[Prest_400]

Prints from 35mm I print with the full border of the carrier which is a bit "dirty" and has rounded corners. Lately my main size (and the lithable paper I have) is 18x24cm fitting a nice full frame with thicker borders.
Larger prints and/or medium format I tend to leave a 1 to 2.54 cm regular border on each sides with a slight bottom weighting.

Sometimes, as the largest enlarger in my darkroom has a 13x18cm glass carrier I will print borders with sprockets or edge imprimpting.

Enviado desde mi Redmi Note 9 Pro mediante Tapatalk

 

[agentlossing]

If I could get my scanner to reliably scan into all four edges of the film, I would probably leave borders on my film images, but most 35mm scanners don't "see" quite that far into the edges (unless there's a setting somewhere that I haven't found yet).

 

[Highway 61]

Agree with Erik, cjm and Guy Pinhas, both for scans and FB wet darkroom prints off 35mm negatives.

Chinatown Branch Public Library - Chicago

If I could get my scanner to reliably scan into all four edges of the film, I would probably leave borders on my film images, but most 35mm scanners don't "see" quite that far into the edges (unless there's a setting somewhere that I haven't found yet).

You have to file down the edges of the film strip carrier window, given that your scanner sensor is a real 24x36.

 

[dourbalistar]

I'm not at the darkroom printing level yet (maybe one day), but I use a white border for my digitized 35mm negatives. What you see is actually the edges of the Leica BEOON's negative mask. It's a black mask, but inverts to white. If you look closely or zoom in on Flickr, you can see the slightly ragged edge of the metal mask.


2020.10.06 Roll #259-05433-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr


For 120, I include the rebate with the edge markings. Totally personal preference, as I know some people don't like it. I wouldn't include it if I were printing, but I like it for displaying on the web. 🙂


2020.06.08 Roll #248-05183-Pano-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[Highway 61]

The same with scans and FB wet darkroom prints off 120 negatives but there, like dourbalistar, I like to play with the gimmick of letting the film edge markings appear in the natural wider black border, as well as the pinpoint marks of the Rolleiflex frame counter sprockets on the opposite edge (don't know why, but I like it).

Beach of Follonica - Tuscany, Italy

 

[dourbalistar]

The same with scans and FB wet darkroom prints off 120 negatives but there, like dourbalistar, I like to play with the gimmick of letting the film edge markings appear in the natural wider black border, as well as the pinpoint marks of the Rolleiflex frame counter sprockets on the opposite edge (don't know why, but I like it).

Beach of Follonica - Tuscany, Italy

Yes, sometimes the rebate leaves clues about the camera used. The Rolleiflex pointpoint marks are a very subtle clue, but there's also the telltale notches from Hasselblad V cameras or 4x5 film. There are a few other cameras I can think of that also have unique rebate "signatures". 😎

Beautiful beach photo, by the way.

 

[Geo Toreno]

I agree with Erik, cjm, Highway 61, and Guy Pinhas.

 

[Guy Pinhas]

Great images Andrea and the borders fit perfectly with the content/style which I think is also important in this conversation.

Me, the "rawer" the better. The border reminds me of where it all comes from: chemistry.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I agree with Erik, cjm, Highway 61, and Guy Pinhas.

Nice stack of prints Toreno!

 

[Erik van Straten]

With my 1928 Leica 1a it is quite difficult to keep the perforation out of the picture frame, so I put the film in an old Leica-cassette and use a take-up spool with the top wheel removed. Then it goes just a fraction deeper into the camera.

Erik.

 

[PRJ]

I used to mat prints like Deardorff above, and looking at his example, I wonder why I stopped. These days though I mat them to the edge of the print. For displaying on the internet, I just display the image without a border most of the time.

 

[John Bragg]

In my darkroom days I used a double glass universal carrier in my Kaiser enlarger and printed the entire negative and a sliver of black rebate.

Artist at Mevagissey by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr


These days I replicate this on my scanned negatives using Gimp. Sometimes I use a mobile app for speed.

Eddie by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

 

[Pál_K]

Although I enjoy seeing the negative info and artifacts of the camera/film holder, on my own prints I don’t want anything detracting from the image. So, I always choose a white border.