The choice/use of borders is always a rendering/post-op kind of thing:
- I don't always frame to the edges of a film camera's negative borders to give the "natural" look to the photo's edge.
- Digital captures are always essentially lifelessly bordered ... the image area just stops.
- Mixing different kinds of border treatments in a set of photos assembled around a theme can be jarring, or can have meaning and intent.
So what it comes down to is that you must pick a convention to establish for the presentation of your photos that you feel finishes whatever statement you're making with the specific photographic content. If you are always presenting photos with a single intent, it's easier to pick a border style that suits that intent and just use it over and over again.
I've used several different conventions for the bulk of photos I present on the web over the couple of decades I've been posting photos on line. My current convention is to use a drop shadow effect surrounded by white border space so as to establish the boundaries of the photograph as separate from the backdrop and provide eye relief. And since I do squares as well as both horizontal and vertical oriented rectangular photos, I often "float" the image in a square field if there are mixed orientations in a set. Example:
Surreptitious Listening - Santa Clara 2021
But that's not the only presentation style I use. There are times when I like border effects of a different nature, and even to show the film rebate or print surround of the original capture, as suits my intent or the purpose of the photo ... to wit:
So, in essence, it's my opinion that one should establish conventions for when they make your intent easier to render and articulate what you want to be significant in a photograph, but to also not to be too dogmatic about it and use whatever alternative bordering makes sense for the photograph or series at hand.
One thing I do notice is that there is a tendency, when you use a border or surround on a photograph you post on line, for people to comment more on the content of the photo, and, when you don't, you see more comments related to technical aspects of the photo in question (exposure, sharpness, contrast, etc). I conjecture that there's a psychological weight given to the fact that the photographer has applied a border which somehow indicates looking at it that there was intent involved in 'the photo as a whole' that is somehow less significant when no border is there.
For prints, the choice of border treatments also has to align with notions of how you intend to frame or otherwise present a photo. I don't normally sell prints with mats because I find that most of the buyers I've sold to enjoy the process of working with a framing shop to establish how they want some set of photographs matted and framed to suit the decor of where they want to present them—it's less expensive and easier to just sell the print, usually with a minimal or no border effect in that case, and print with enough paper rebate so that the buyer can choose to mat and frame to suit their presentation needs rather than my intent. Of course, I've also participated in exhibition sales of "finished", matted or matted&framed prints. That depends on the venue, the intent of the work, and the conventions of the exhibition.
No simple answer really suits all of this, eh?
😀
G