printing with film sprocket holes

[FrankS]

I've added a couple of new pics to my gallery, and they are both posted with the film sprocket holes visible. There are a few reasons that I do this:

1.) The 35mm neg carrier on my Besseler 4x5 enlarger is over-size which allows the film sprocket holes to show.

2.) My darkroom practice is to print 35mm negs full frame on an 8by10 piece of paper.

3.) Even though the shots in my gallery are editied (heavily) I still consider them work prints, not the final product. The final product would be the matted and framed print hanging on my wall, my friends' walls, or the wall of someone who's bought the print. In the final version, the sproket holes are almost always matted out.

4.) I like the idea of showing what I composed in the viewfinder at the moment the photo was taken.

5.) I like the idea of showing that the print is a result of traditional photography, not digital. I know that you can photoshop in the film sprockets but that then is definitely an affectation because it was added after the fact, and is not an artifact of the actual process.

6.) I like the idea of showing that the print was hand made by myself, not sent to a lab. The film sprocket holes help to determine this because they are not typically present in commercial prints.

I understand that fim sprocket holes are not everyone's cup of tea, but unless someone is paying me to do otherwise, I'm doing this to please myself.

Your thoughts on this?

 

[Roman]

If you like it, then you should keep on doing it.
As for my thoughts about it: sometimes it looks great, sometimes it's just pseudo-artsy fluff (just like reflections from filed neg. carriers or the edges from polaroid LF negs.) - depends on what pictures it is used for.
I personally sometimes include the edges of the neg to ge a thin black frame, but I'm not fanatical about the 'no cropping' dogma, so more often I don't.

Roman

 

[Kin Lau]

Just my opinion, but I find it works better on certain types of shots than others.

The candid or street & doc type shots would seem to suit that style of printing, like "Descent of Man" http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...photo/11019/sort/1/size/medium/cat/500/page/1 . I know someone else commented that they didn't like it, but I find that shots like that have a bit of "rawness" about them.

The landscape type of shots don't seem to suit it... in particular, I found it a little odd when looking at the "Winter Shadows" shots. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/11000/sort/1/cat/500/page/1 . Probably because I tend of think of landscape shots as being more deliberate, taking time to setup, and the sprocket holes don't help. Mind you, I've also see shots using 35mm film in a 6x6 or 6x9 camera (guess what I'll be trying with the Moskva's), and printing with the sprocket holes there seem to work.

 

[FrankS]

Thank you for your thoughts, Roman and Kin!

I agree with you about the street shots/rawness and landscape/deliberateness distinction.

 

[phototone]

It is a gimmick, a technique and a statement. Sometimes "in" fashion, sometimes "out".

You can make fake sprocket holes also, or scan a set of holes, and past your image into them in photoshop.

It's all in the bag of tricks photographers use.

 

[phototone]

Other types of similar technique include showing the edge numbers on medium format images, showing the "smearing" edges of a polaroid shot. Showing the 4x5 film notch.

 

[RayPA]

...You can make fake sprocket holes also, or scan a set of holes, and past your image into them in photoshop.

I think that for this reason alone they have become an affectation, just like any PS frame, regardless of what your intent might be, or whether they are real or not. I don't have an issue with them at all. That is, I don't think less of an image because it has sprocket holes, but an image must be lacking something if it *needs* the sprocket holes. I don't think your images need them. I agree with Roman, however, if you like them, then use them. Opinions be damned! 😛 Nice images, btw.

 

[GeneW]

It was all the rage in the 60's. Everyone was filing back their negative carriers 😀

Gene

 

[wilt]

I am so disappointed that the negative carrier of my Scan Dual IV won't let met include just a tiny line of black film base around the image when scanning.

In Hasselblad photography, it's the notches in the left side that often are included.

 

[hoot]

A few months ago I attended an Henri Cartier-Bresson exhibition consisting of original prints. It appears that the Leica body he used didn't mask the edges of the film, so the film is exposed right up to its edges, including around the sprocket holes. It ultimately made for bigger negatives, so I'm all for it. If you can find a way to do that with one of your cameras, you might be pleased with the results.

 

[phototone]

A few months ago I attended an Henri Cartier-Bresson exhibition consisting of original prints. It appears that the Leica body he used didn't mask the edges of the film, so the film is exposed right up to its edges, including around the sprocket holes. It ultimately made for bigger negatives, so I'm all for it. If you can find a way to do that with one of your cameras, you might be pleased with the results.

Ah, the mark of s screw thread Leica. Often these produce an image right into the sproket holes. and very little spacing between shots also.

Phototone

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

for me, edge happens. I had to get reaquainted with film edges when I returned to film photography. Still getting used to it.

Sometimes I don't crop. It isn't based on some aesthetic. Just a whim.

 

[Doug]

I guess it is/was a fad to show the true-ness of one's original vision. What's a little strange about it is that few cameras actually show 100% framing, and with RFs framing is a rather casual matter at best! So there's an unseen element of randomness in this vision... 😀

OTOH, I do like a fine dark line around the outside. When I was finishing prints from my darkroom, I'd draw a narrow black line with a pen. Now it's very easy to do digitally.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

...OTOH, I do like a fine dark line around the outside. When I was finishing prints from my darkroom, I'd draw a narrow black line with a pen...

A rapidograph maybe?

 

[nikon_sam]

I recently started printing my 35mm negs full frame with the tiniest hint of black on the edge. I wasn't happy with the results of cropping the neg to fit a 5x7 speed-easel so I framed the shot to allow a 1/2" border all around and I LOVED IT!!!
I have seen pictures with the sprockets as borders and have no problem with that either.
I crop my shots in the viewfinder as I would have them printed. I do this with all the formats that I shoot, 35mm, 6x6, 6x7 or 4x5.
Since printing in this fashion (full frame) I've been happier with the final prints and much more happier with my composition.

 

[FrankS]

Thank you everyone, for kicking this topic around for me!

 

[Doug]

A rapidograph maybe?

Y'know, I think you're right! It's been so long... As I was writing the above the question of the pen did enter my mind, unresolved. But now that you mention it, I believe that's it. I recall the periodic shaking to keep the point open, wiping the tip, and having a scratch sheet handy. I no longer have any Pelikan ink...

 

[wilt]

Ah, the mark of s screw thread Leica. Often these produce an image right into the sproket holes. and very little spacing between shots also.

Spacing between shots is narrow on M Leicas as well, at least on my M3 DS.