printing full frame with sprocket holes

[FrankS]

I sometimes do this, deciding intuitively without deliberate thought as to whether it adds to the image or not. I'm trying to analyze what type of images it is suitable for. I've used full frame printing for quirky, edgy, urban, gritty, and grainy types of images. (I have a couple in my gallery, here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/575)

I'm wondering what exactly this technique does for the image, besides drawing attention to the photographic medium itself.

Any thoughts to help me formalize this for myself?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

You certainly do not have to fight the scanner or enlarger to print the entire negative! Still drives me crazy when I can see the entire image on the negative but it loses something in the slide mount, print, or scan.

It does add to the image, it is like a frame around a canvas still life.

 

[hoppinghippos]

I think the kind of photos for me that would fit could be those of a more documentary nature? the sprockets to me makes it feel like the photo was "snatched" out of context and hence suggests a bigger context beyond the photo. for eg, if it was a photo of a mother playing with a young son. without the borders and sprockets, it'll feel like an entire photo in itself, focus will be entirely on the two pple, and their action. but with the borders and all, it'll feel like this is just a transient snap shot of the ENTIRE play episode btwn the mom and son and this photo was just a representation of the whole episode. heh are you lost yet?

 

[Pherdinand]

From a technical point of view, probably it goes well with grainy film, high contrast, cross-processed stuff, out-of-date colour shifted pictures, or frames where other elements show that it's a photograph, thus, where the media has an important role in the full value of the end image. While in case of beautiful landscapes on very low grained, saturated (Velvia et co.) film, i'd dislike sprocket holes since the point is the subject and its appearance as close to real life as possible.

Otherwise, hoppinghippos makes a good point too, i agree with it.

 

[pshinkaw]

Sprocket holes were kind of an affectation back in the 60's and 70's. Some good photographs and a a lot of mediocre photographs by pretension photographers were published this way. In retrospect, I think it adds an important dimension to photography. I can now tell what kind of film was used and sometimes the camera. A lot people today have never heard of Panatomic-X or Super-XX, but there it is on the film edge! On some historical photos, the edge imprinting is the most important part of the photograph.

Also, some cameras like Exaktas feed film from right to left so the filml labels were upside down. Again some historical documentation.

It's a good historical record. I'm sorry I denigrated those photographers over the years.

-Paul

 

[jdos2]

I remember them- the words "Kodak Safety Film" running down the side of the roll.

In some cases it does add to the picture. I like contact sheets, too.

 

[vladhed]

pomo

pomo

I should ask my wife, queen of art theory, what she things about this.

Including the sprocket holes remind the viewer that it is a photograph - I'm sure McLuhan said something about this.

I like to scan the image to just include a thin bit of the negative just outside the image. Having that natural frame there, including the nice bevelled corners, makes it look more like you are actually looking through the view finder.

It also boasts that I know to frame a shot and don't need to crop later in PS.