Jump to content

Negative carriers size for black borders


Aryel

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, aesop said:

 

          …thanks for the treatise, Ornello.

Alas, I have not had any real-world issues using the 17012, probably because my day-to-day rarely involves direct comparisons between carriers. For context, I've enjoyed shooting and printing using Leitz/Leica hardware since last century. That notwithstanding, you may be on to something here - the corollary being that the boffins at Leica knowingly manufactured and sold oodles of ‘defective’ negative carriers. Yikes.

Re: the Focotar-2 50mm, I still own one of these superb lenses but, without theorising or generalising too much (what light source, anyone?🙄), regularly pick Schneider’s APO-Componon 40mm ahead of it.

Another equally absurd choice, non? YMMV. Of course.

 

 

 

It is also a good idea to mask off enlargers and cover any areas that may reflect light with black cloth. Stray light can come from enlargers and reflect off adjacent surfaces.

Edited by Ornello
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2021 at 7:22 PM, Ornello said:

You may not notice the flare increase except in direct comparison with a print from a smaller carrier. All lenses suffer from flare to some extent. The areas of thinnest density in properly exposed negative have more density than the 'rebate' area (the 'blank' areas surrounding the exposed portion); thus, allowing additional light from those areas to pass through the lens will increase flare above that generated from the image area alone.

The result may resemble the slight 'fogging' from excessive safelight exposure. There is also the possibility of this light reflecting from the easel.

It seems absurd to me to use the finest equipment and lenses (I use a Focotar-2 50mm enlarging lens) only to degrade the image in this way. Delicate and subtle tonal differences are what we pay for with Leica lenses. Why throw that away? The Focotar-2, by the way, is the best enlarging lens that I know of.

Ornello, respectfully, you also asked who started this fad and why. Now you ask why throw that away, with a reference to the quality of Leitz lenses. Perhaps you should ask Leitz this question. There was a time when we called the black border "the Leitz border". Because the Leitz Focomat Ic and the Leitz Valoy II enlargers came with negative masks that gave us these borders and in quite a beautiful manner: narrow, soft and precise on the inside line of the border, playful on the outside. These borders were alive.

The original poster of this thread asked information about what he called "these beautiful borders". To me that question comes from an emotion. Yes, photography is about delicate and subtle tonal differences, I agree. But it is also about emotion.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, M.Hilo said:

The original poster of this thread asked information about what he called "these beautiful borders". To me that question comes from an emotion. Yes, photography is about delicate and subtle tonal differences, I agree. But it is also about emotion.

This is spot on, thanks a lot. I love these black borders, I even tried to draw them with a black marker. In any case, I will end up with two sets.

Thanks a lot for all the advices. Kienzle confirmed that they can make  them for my enlarger so I will order soon 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2021 at 3:17 PM, Aryel said:

This is spot on, thanks a lot. I love these black borders, I even tried to draw them with a black marker. In any case, I will end up with two sets.

Thanks a lot for all the advices. Kienzle confirmed that they can make  them for my enlarger so I will order soon 🙂

If black borders are desired, that is not the best way to do it. It is possible to fog the edges of the paper, before or after the image exposure, using a piece of metal or cardboard cut to leave a small area around it for the size of paper being used. I don't think the black borders created by filing out the negative carrier are beautiful at all, but rather it shows a lack of technical knowledge, in regard to the flare produced by this technique.

Some enlargers come with negative carriers that have sliding blades that can be adjusted to create any size opening. Durst and Rollei come to mind.

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2021 at 7:11 AM, M.Hilo said:

 

The original poster of this thread asked information about what he called "these beautiful borders". To me that question comes from an emotion. Yes, photography is about delicate and subtle tonal differences, I agree. But it is also about emotion.

 

I haven't the foggiest idea how such borders can contribute to, or evoke an emotion in a photograph. It's just sloppy technique and a fad that shows a lack of knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ornello said:

I haven't the foggiest idea how such borders can contribute to, or evoke an emotion in a photograph. It's just sloppy technique and a fad that shows a lack of knowledge.

Fad or no fad, I like them. You actually made me very curious about the flare. I really want to try it out, especially on some photos where the subject isn’t near the borders. In any case, there is only one way to find out and learn. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Aryel, are you aware that you can also create the black borders with the help of your easel? Then the borders will be 'sharp' on the outside. This is what I do. I filed out the negative holder of the Focomat Ic and end up with too much black around the image. Then I use the easel to make the borders the exact size I want them to be. Or I use the Focomat IIc with glasses in the negative holder. This holder has a slot underneath the lower glass and I use black cartons with a cut-out slightly larger than the negative. And again I mask the borders to the right size with the easel.

This way I end up with clean borders. When I began printing (long ago) I liked the fuzzy borders. But now I find that too much of a good thing.

I use the black borders about half the time, for me it depends on the image. When prints get matted we leave 3mm white around the borders

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, M.Hilo said:

Aryel, are you aware that you can also create the black borders with the help of your easel?

Yes, however I use a ‘speed easel’ quite a lot. These are not adjustable. My enlarger have some masks that can be adjusted as described by Ornello so I will try this first. I think I should be able to get clean borders this way. If this doesn’t work out, I have an adjustable easel and will use this when I want clean black borders. 

 I will try in a couple of weeks, currently traveling 🙂.

Thanks a lot , really appreciate all the advices. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

I have been printing black borders from a filed out negative carrier for years and have never seen flare produced by the border/carrier.

 

I haven't either but this could be different with different enlargers. I use Valoy II, Focomat Ic and IIc and a wall mounted Laborator 1000. However, since 1990 I use easels and mask borders when I print them

You?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

I have been printing black borders from a filed out negative carrier for years and have never seen flare produced by the border/carrier.

 

You may not recognize it unless you do a side-by-side comparison. This is called 'veiling flare', and is not the same thing as spot flare. It is similar to the effect of dust on a lens.

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/99591/what-is-veiling-glare-how-does-it-affect-my-photos-and-how-can-i-avoid-it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veiling_glare

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for lucid thoughts, Ornello. It could possibly be that you are not seeing that someone else may have a different perspective on aesthetics than you. For instance, I use black borders almost always with both scans and prints. This is because I like them - it adds to the joy my pictures give me. Is this "sloppy technique", a "fad", or a "lack of knowledge" on my part? Respectfully, that's really not for you to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, stray cat said:

Thank you for lucid thoughts, Ornello. It could possibly be that you are not seeing that someone else may have a different perspective on aesthetics than you. For instance, I use black borders almost always with both scans and prints. This is because I like them - it adds to the joy my pictures give me. Is this "sloppy technique", a "fad", or a "lack of knowledge" on my part? Respectfully, that's really not for you to say.

Would you ever have thought of it on your own? I rather doubt it.

Edited by Ornello
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aryel,

Here some examples with different ways to include the negative borders.

The horse and the portrait of Chet Baker are by two friends, the Hogweed is mine

the horse: typical border from the negative mask of the Leitz Focomat Ic and Valoy II. Between different masks there is never an identical border. This is also due to negatives from different cameras hardly ever being identical

The portrait of Chet Baker: the borders were probably masked by the enlarger, I think a 6x6 Durst

The Hogweed: printed with a Leitz Focomat Ic and a filed out negative mask, then masked with the blades of the easel

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited by M.Hilo
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, M.Hilo said:

Aryel,

Here some examples with different ways to include the negative borders.

The horse and the portrait of Chet Baker are by two friends, the Hogweed is mine

the horse: typical border from the negative mask of the Leitz Focomat Ic and Valoy II. Between different masks there is never an identical border. This is also due to negatives from different cameras hardly ever being identical

The portrait of Chet Baker: the borders were probably masked by the enlarger, I think a 6x6 Durst

The Hogweed: printed with a Leitz Focomat Ic and a filed out negative mask, then masked with the blades of the easel

 

 

Really great examples. Thanks a lot for sharing these. It really works for these images and contribute to draw the eyes on the subjects. I really like it on the last one, where it blends perfectly within the photo. 
Seeing the real prints must be even better.

Thanks again for sharing 😊
 

edit: forgot to say that the horse and the portrait are both fantastic !

Edited by Aryel
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/29/2021 at 2:20 PM, Ornello said:

Would you ever have thought of it on your own? I rather doubt it.

Artists have been framing their work for hundreds of years. A black border is just a frame that stops the eye drifting to the white of the paper,  just as the frame of a painting stops you looking at the wallpaper. It's not hard to imagine that a wide black border evokes a different emotional response than a thin border, as does texture or sprocket holes, or think of it as part of the language of photography where a border condenses and confines the visual metaphor. Of course there are many languages.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 250swb said:

Artists have been framing their work for hundreds of years. A black border is just a frame that stops the eye drifting to the white of the paper,  just as the frame of a painting stops you looking at the wallpaper. It's not hard to imagine that a wide black border evokes a different emotional response than a thin border, as does texture or sprocket holes, or think of it as part of the language of photography where a border condenses and confines the visual metaphor. Of course there are many languages.

Yes, there are many languages. There are also parameters that can change our mind. I have had prints with the black border that looked great. Then these images landed inside the many book dummies I make preparing the actual book, and it happened that I felt the black border was not right. So I dropped it. Not always, not often, but it did happen. Over the 40 plus years I have also changed my mind about certain images where it comes to yes or no border.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2021 at 5:09 AM, 250swb said:

Artists have been framing their work for hundreds of years. A black border is just a frame that stops the eye drifting to the white of the paper,  just as the frame of a painting stops you looking at the wallpaper. It's not hard to imagine that a wide black border evokes a different emotional response than a thin border, as does texture or sprocket holes, or think of it as part of the language of photography where a border condenses and confines the visual metaphor. Of course there are many languages.

There is a difference between 'having a black border' and 'printing the area around the negative to get a black border'. My point is that however much you like a black border, you should never print the area around the negative if you care about ultimate print quality. I always mount my prints on black mount board. It focusses the eye on the print  (the eye is drawn to light areas), and the black surround reflects less light to the eye, so the pupil opens up more, making the print look more luminous.

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 12:51 AM, Ornello said:

There is a difference between 'having a black border' and 'printing the area around the negative to get a black border'. My point is that however much you like a black border, you should never print the area around the negative if you care about ultimate print quality. I always mount my prints on black mount board. It focusses the eye on the print  (the eye is drawn to light areas), and the black surround reflects less light to the eye, so the pupil opens up more, making the print look more luminous.

A printed black border is part of the image. When it is well done, it gives a feeling of looking through a window that was created by the photographer for the viewer. It is not for all images, but when it works, it adds to the image.

I am not interested in ´the´ ultimate print quality. I am interested in printing beautiful images. For some of them, a printed black border will definitely be a plus! 

Finally, although I lack your experience, I’d like to point out that you seem to have quite a few ´unbreakable’ rules (Rodinal seems another one). However, it may be good to break free some times. As with any art forms, rules should be more like guidelines and can quickly become limitations if one applies them with too much rigidity. Imagine if our predecessors never bent them! We´d have only rule of third composition. 

Hoping to receive the masks this coming week.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Aryel said:

A printed black border is part of the image. When it is well done, it gives a feeling of looking through a window that was created by the photographer for the viewer. It is not for all images, but when it works, it adds to the image.

I am not interested in ´the´ ultimate print quality. I am interested in printing beautiful images. For some of them, a printed black border will definitely be a plus! 

Finally, although I lack your experience, I’d like to point out that you seem to have quite a few ´unbreakable’ rules (Rodinal seems another one). However, it may be good to break free some times. As with any art forms, rules should be more like guidelines and can quickly become limitations if one applies them with too much rigidity. Imagine if our predecessors never bent them! We´d have only rule of third composition. 

Hoping to receive the masks this coming week.

Why aren't you interested in ultimate print quality? If not, why not use Petri cameras and lenses? I have no 'unbreakable rules' at all. It's just that I have been around long enough to know how to get the best quality with the least effort. I have seen fads come and go and come back again. Many, if not most, photographers believe there is some magic secret developer, or film, or processing trick that will produce some stunning image. Sadly, that isn't true. I have tried Rodinal, many years ago. I have used Adox film, DuPont motion picture film, Agfa film, and many developers. For many years I used Tri-X and FP4 in UFG developer. They both took the same development time, and that was a convenience. I could develop them together in the same tank. If you want 'beautiful images' what you need to do is get out there, find something interesting, and shoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...