I don’t want to be a whinger but ….

[millera9]

I voted to disallow film borders and, now that I see my opinion is not shared by everyone, I will argue my case.

The Farktography rules, ever-changing as they are, are geared toward forcing people to take better photos. Whether “better” means technically better, funnier, more emotional or whatever else doesn’t matter and is up to the photographer. Even on the weeks when the silly/funny photo wins it means that particular photo resonated with more people than any of the others entered that week. Even if it is a technically terrible photo with no real art value, the photographer still must have captured and manipulated the subject in a way that is somehow special.

As I see it, the reason we don’t allow unrealistic post-processing is because – while you can certainly create beautiful pieces of art with photoshop – they don’t necessarily require you to take a good picture. In other words, you can take a genuinely mediocre picture and make it something really special with photoshop if you know what you’re doing. Just look at some of the photoshop contests, there’s real artistry there, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to really good photography.

Film borders (and borders of any kind frankly) are not really part of the photo. They are not manipulated or taken into account when the actual photograph is taken nor are they a part of the post-processing procedure. They do not speak to the talent or ability of the photographer or his/her work. Borders don’t tell us anything about how good you are at using a camera. They do invoke a certain tone or mood into a photo, but so does a cheesy use of selective color on a digital photo. That doesn’t make it legal for these contests for the very same reason that borders shouldn’t be.

/*steps off soapbox*

[jpatten]

Good argument Miller, but I think equally valid is saying that at least for certain formats the border is a part of the picture, and if the border evokes a certain mood, then that is part of the message, certainly we are making a statement with our pictures.

Of course film and digital are 2 separate mediums, overlapping yes, but separate. What holds true for one does not always hold true for the other and having one rule fairly cover both is difficult balance at best. I think the general guideline of minimal post-processing does that well and holds the spirit of the contest, show your best picture fairly well. I voted don’t care, because to me both sides have valid points and I like to think I can compete against the others here borders or not.

[soosh]

They are not manipulated or taken into account when the actual photograph is taken nor are they a part of the post-processing procedure.

Again, I disagree. I absolutely take the idea of the film into account before the photo is taken, and that’s part of why I reach for the camera that I do. Not every medium-format photo I take do I include the border – generally only those with expired film, or one of the cameras that leaks more light. It’s as much a part of the process as choosing whether to take the photo with a Holga or something with a sharper lens.

Likewise, using a Holga, one of the ideas I have that I have yet to try is not fully winding the film to separate two images, making a sort of in-camera panoramic of 9×6 or 12×6 rather than the standard 6×6. I don’t know if artificially stitching images in Photoshop is allowed, but if I can picture an effect and pull it off in-camera, then I believe that I am experimenting and improving my photography, and I’d be more than happy to explain how I create any effect in any of my photos if someone would like to emulate the effect.

[millera9]

soosh
First off, let me say that the second photo you posted is absolutely spectacular. I mean, really good. Nice work.

I understand what you’re saying about choosing what medium to use under what circumstance. You’re right to do that and I do it too in choosing how to shoot a subject and what lens to use, etc. The border, though has nothing to do with the actual photo you took. I have a very hard time believing that you intentionally framed the photo so that the lettering would be positioned in a certain way and aside from those letters it’s just a grayish black border. My point here is to say that the border isn’t a part of your composition. It’s not something you see in the viewfinder when you look through it, and it’s not something you took a picture of that factored into the creative process. In fact what we’re looking at is a photo of a photo in that this is a scan of the film.

What I’m trying to say is that the inclusion of a film border tells us nothing about your abilities as a photographer to capture a certain theme or concept. The border may give the photo a certain mood but it’s artificial. The viewer’s evaluation of the photo should come from the photo itself, not what you’ve framed it with. I could add a festive border to a depressing photo and it might change the way other people look at and evaluate the photo. It wouldn’t change what I actually accomplished with the photo; it would still be depressing. Example below:

vs.

That’s a silly example, but if I were going to be serious, I could spend a lot of time thinking about what kind of border I could add to my images to lend them more credibility. I don’t do that because it’s antithetical to the concept of the farktography contests which is to judge your abilities as a photographer; not as a framer.

/Note: the woman is my mom, so tread lightly!

[soosh]

First off, let me say that the second photo you posted is absolutely spectacular. I mean, really good. Nice work.

Thanks! I truly appreciate the compliment. I love that photo.

The border, though has nothing to do with the actual photo you took. I have a very hard time believing that you intentionally framed the photo so that the lettering would be positioned in a certain way and aside from those letters it’s just a grayish black border. My point here is to say that the border isn’t a part of your composition.

You’re absolutely wrong. The outside of the image is where, in this electronic format, the pixels end. I knew not where the exact placement of lettering would be, but that it would be there. That’s part of the point of the image. If it was going to be presented for display, I would dry-mount a print of the scanned film on a thick piece of sintra and then use a matte cutter to trim to the edge where I wanted the picture to end. From there, the photo can be mounted directly to the wall as-is or be mounted within a frame. I personally wouldn’t use a piece of matte board inside the frame, but would use a clear glass front and back float effect.

It’s not a snapshot, no. But it is a photograph out of a camera and the border is a part of the image, not the manner in which it is displayed.

It’s similar to the idea of Through the Viewfinder photos, in which the photo is taken by capturing the image displayed in the viewfinder of another camera, usually a TLR. It’s as much as a part of the process as these incredibly cool altoid can pinhole shots or paint can pinholes or polaroid transfers or hoglaroid shots made by adapting a polaroid back onto a holga. light leaks is another place where this sort of thing is practiced. I participate on these other sites, too, but I’m a farker who’s a bit nuts about photography, and these are the photographs I’ve created. I rarely go out and shoot just specifically for the contests, but rather read the themes and try to find something I’ve already taken and use it here. I participate here because it’s fun and I get to show off what I can do with a camera just like anybody else.

[Curious]

The outside of the image is where, in this electronic format, the pixels end.

while that is literally true of this display medium it’s not necessarily true as to what the viewfinder sees. i’m a minolta fanboy and all my 35mm film cameras see 90% of the final image. my maxxum7d sees 95%. for these contests i usually leave any “extra” image area rather than crop since i’m not going for high art here. if i crop it’s to pick an area or subject from an image to highlight it to match that weeks theme. any border would have to be applied in post production. and it my considered opinion that we would stretch ourselves more as photographers if there was NO post production allowed. not even cropping.

as a practical matter would that give film users a border option since they can pick the perimeter of their scan? probably but to tell them that they MUST submit w/o borders means they have to crop either in the scan or afterwards. and in any case we rely on the honor system for the most part to have folks adhere to “the rules”.

the long and short of this is i agree with millera9. no borders. all the contestants efforts should go to creating the best in camera entry they can.

now all that said your second shot is really neat and (i think) enhanced by the border. also sent my sister the altoids/pintoids link since she is a) a photographer b) currently playing with altered altoid cans.

[soosh]

and it my considered opinion that we would stretch ourselves more as photographers if there was NO post production allowed. not even cropping.

Well, that raises other issues. My digital camera produces images in a 3:2 ratio. If I crop an image to create a more panoramic final product, is that allowed?

Consider these two images:

The difference between them is that the one on the left is how the film came out of the camera, was scanned, and then was treated as an image. The one on the right is from the same film frame, only I isolated the edge of the negative, cropped the image inside the frame, then adjusted it to fit back into the negative border.

My position is that the image on the left should be acceptable as non-digitally altered and eligible for a farktography contest while the one on the right should not be, in the same way that using a clone stamp isn’t allowed.

we would stretch ourselves more as photographers if there was NO post production allowed. not even cropping.

Keep in mind that if you shoot in jpg as opposed to RAW, then the camera is doing post-processing, applying sharpening, adjusting saturation, etc. If you take film to a lab to be developed, someone there is making a decision as to the color balance and exposure applied in developing. Taking a RAW image and applying exposure compensation, white balance, sharpening, etc, so long as it is applied fully across the image is as much a part of the finished product as is choosing the exposure speed and f-stop.

Dodging and burning are considered unacceptable, and I would agree with that. What about this image, in which I used a Tokina 12-24 lens designed for a cropped frame dSLR on a full-frame film body, because I wanted the black vignetting in the final product?

If I had taken that with my dSLR, it would have been image to the edge of the frame, not black. Does that mean I can’t use the film scan because the lens wasn’t designed for that wide of usage on full-frame?

If my dSLR takes a 3:2 ratio photo, can I submit a photo with a 16:9 ratio, so long as it’s one cropped image and not multiple images stitched? Can I submit a 6×6 image taken with a 4/3rds ratio digicam? Is this image, where the film was purposely not wound completely and then the camera panned for a second exposure, eligible as a single image?

[swampa]

Well, that raises other issues. My digital camera produces images in a 3:2 ratio. If I crop an image to create a more panoramic final product, is that allowed?

Thats fine, you aren’t changing the image itself, just what portion of it you wish to show everyone. Plus in this case you are probably hurting yourself as it would end up being 640×250 on Fark and hard to see.

Consider these two images:
…
My position is that the image on the left should be acceptable as non-digitally altered and eligible for a farktography contest while the one on the right should not be, in the same way that using a clone stamp isn’t allowed.

I agree (the vote is looking like film frames are fine so I’m happy to accept that)

Dodging and burning are considered unacceptable, and I would agree with that. What about this image, in which I used a Tokina 12-24 lens designed for a cropped frame dSLR on a full-frame film body, because I wanted the black vignetting in the final product?

It is fine. The vignetting is applied at the time you took the image, it isn’t someone getting into and using the tools to add the idea of vignetting.

Although this brings up another thought, I know that in PS2 and 3 when you open a RAW file, one of the options will allow you to add extra vignetting to a photo. Would that be legal to use?

Does that mean I can’t use the film scan because the lens wasn’t designed for that wide of usage on full-frame?

Again I don’t see a problem. It was a choice you made while taking the photo so the image is created as you expected, not modified afterwards to give it that look.

If my dSLR takes a 3:2 ratio photo, can I submit a photo with a 16:9 ratio, so long as it’s one cropped image and not multiple images stitched?

Yes

Can I submit a 6×6 image taken with a 4/3rds ratio digicam?

Yes

Is this image, where the film was purposely not wound completely and then the camera panned for a second exposure, eligible as a single image?

No, it still looks like two distinct photos, just side by side.

[Elsinore]

Wow, this sure is covering a lot of territory. I agree with swampa‘s interpretations as above. Cropping is explicitly allowed in the rules, so it doesn’t really matter how you crop your image in terms of aspect ratio, etc. However, presenting what amounts to two different photos side by side wouldn’t be kosher in my mind. Multiple exposures in the same frame with film or the few digital cameras that can do it has always been accepted, however.

It is fine. The vignetting is applied at the time you took the image, it isn’t someone getting into and using the tools to add the idea of vignetting.

Although this brings up another thought, I know that in PS2 and 3 when you open a RAW file, one of the options will allow you to add extra vignetting to a photo. Would that be legal to use?

Bibble will also allow this, but I have never considered it to be Farktography-legal. It amounts to a spot treatment in my book since it isn’t applied evenly across the entire image.

[soosh]

However, presenting what amounts to two different photos side by side wouldn’t be kosher in my mind. Multiple exposures in the same frame with film or the few digital cameras that can do it has always been accepted, however.

Fair enough.

I really appreciate the consideration that has gone on with all of this, and thanks for all the clarifications.

[swampa]

This is why I love Farktography. What started as a discussion on one topic got me thinking about how to do things I wouldn’t have thought of previously.

This photo was posted by soosh as an example in the other thread:

It got me thinking if I could do it with my dSLR. Here are some quick and dirty attempts (combined with the recent theme :P):

Done by taking the frame from above and printing it on a transparent sheet and holding it out in front of the camera (if I was trying to do it properly I would need a holder to keep it still, it was flapping around a bit in the wind today – you can see some artifacts from that around the top right insulator)

Done by combining two photos in the camera. I shot the frame picture on a white sheet and that made combining them harder, I should have shot it against the sky instead so I could have made the frame photo more dominate without making the focus picture too light.

Anyway, thanks for the fun 😀

[soosh]

That’s really cool. I love playing around like that.

[corsec67]

More fuel on the fire:
The Library of Congress flickr profile has almost all of the pictures showing the film boundaries.

[Elsinore]

In all honesty, I would chalk that up more as a time saving thing for them than anything else. If they have to take the time to crop down the images during or after the scanning process, rather than just run them through wholesale, it’s gonna take a lot more time to digitize what they have.

[staplermofo]

Some are even crooked.
The Library of Congress lives up to its namesake again.
(I’m still in favor of allowing it)

[Author]

Posts