# David Bailey - Black Frames



## lewismalpas

Hey,

Just been looking at David Bailey's photographs and have always wondered how he adds the black border to his scans, can anyone explain how this effect is achieved? Does he simply scan the negatives on a flatbed?

http://writtenonskin.nl/wp-content/uploads/man-ray-1968-photo-david-bailey.jpg

Many thanks,
Lewis.


----------



## D-B-J

It just looks like a bad cropping job with an awkward/crooked border.  I'm assuming it's probably done in PS or something, but that's just an assumption. 

Jake


----------



## photoguy99

Those are probably wet prints made with a filed-out negative holder.

It's an affectation to show that the entire negative is being printed, no cropping. This is supposed to indicate that the photographer got it right in camera and is therefore awesome.

If they're not wet prints on a filed-out holder, then it's a fake designed to look like that.

It was de riguer for a while.


----------



## Derrel

photoguy99 said:
			
		

> Those are probably wet prints made with a filed-out negative holder.
> 
> It's an affectation to show that the entire negative is being printed, no cropping. This is supposed to indicate that the photographer got it right in camera and is therefore awesome.
> 
> If they're not wet prints on a filed-out holder, then it's a fake designed to look like that.
> 
> It was de riguer for a while.



Yup, right on all counts. It was an affectation, and it became pretty widely held by "some" who considered it a valuable way to prove their mettle with a camera. Kind of like high-wire work without a net, or rock-climbing without safety gear, or driving without a seat belt.


----------



## gsgary

As above, here's one of mine from tonight next time i'll get it black right round


----------



## gsgary

D-B-J said:


> It just looks like a bad cropping job with an awkward/crooked border.  I'm assuming it's probably done in PS or something, but that's just an assumption.
> 
> Jake


Here you go again talking BS you got it totaly wrong


----------



## D-B-J

gsgary said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just looks like a bad cropping job with an awkward/crooked border.  I'm assuming it's probably done in PS or something, but that's just an assumption.
> 
> Jake
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go again talking BS you got it totaly wrong
Click to expand...


Totally*


----------



## dennybeall

You know it does look like "a bad cropping job with an awkward/crooked border" and could easily be achieved with Photoshop.
From what Derrel says that may not be correct but it's a valid statement. Not sure why someone would make a personal attack about that.


----------



## D-B-J

dennybeall said:


> You know it does look like "a bad cropping job with an awkward/crooked border" and could easily be achieved with Photoshop.
> From what Derrel says that may not be correct but it's a valid statement. Not sure why someone would make a personal attack about that.




To each his own, I guess. I understand now that it was a form of flexing your photography muscles, but still stand that it seems rather distracting and looks like a haphazard border. 

Jake


----------



## Gary A.

photoguy99 said:


> Those are probably wet prints made with a filed-out negative holder.
> 
> It's an affectation to show that the entire negative is being printed, no cropping. This is supposed to indicate that the photographer got it right in camera and is therefore awesome.
> 
> If they're not wet prints on a filed-out holder, then it's a fake designed to look like that.
> 
> It was de riguer for a while.


That would be my call. Having shot professionally in the film-only days ... that's how I used to print. The negative carriers did not have very close tolerances which often caused a negative to 'slip' a bit, rendering the borders less than perfect.











Gary


----------



## Derrel

I used to print the same way, knockout borders,NO cropping, on a Leitz Focomat on Kodak fiber-based papper. I was taught that was "*the way to do it*". It took a long time to realize that it was merely an affectation. A schtick. But hey, it was a different era back then. We lived in fear of "*the bomb*" and "*the Russians*". We thought Reagan would get us in a war in South America. The US government funnel war materials and supplies into Afghanistan. We TRAINED Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban followers, so they could fight our proxy war in Afghanistan, against the Russians!!  We talked about "the wall", and East and West Germany. Hell, Pink Floyd had an album named The Wall that was the biggest selling album of the year. Knockout borders didn't last too much longer as "the way". 

In a society filled with fakery and lies and deceit, the knockout border conveyed authenticity; it showed "the whole negative"; it showed that it had been done "right", in the camera. In an era filled with network TV fakery,bogus TV advertising slogans, and sanitized network news doled out in 1/2 hour increments by only three national networks, the knock-out borders showed us the real truth, and assured viewers that what they saw was "real".

Things changed. By the time the Berlin wall fell, the knockout border had died off. Video, and MTV and VH-1 had come to dominate pop visual culture, and B&W concepts of the 1960's were pretty much dead by the late 1980's.


----------



## Gary A.

Derrel said:


> I used to print the same way, knockout borders,NO cropping, on a Leitz Focomat on Kodak fiber-based papper. I was taught that was "*the way to do it*". It took a long time to realize that it was merely an affectation. A schtick. But hey, it was a different era back then. We lived in fear of "*the bomb*" and "*the Russians*". We thought Reagan would get us in a war in South America. The US government funnel war materials and supplies into Afghanistan. We TRAINED Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban followers, so they could fight our proxy war in Afghanistan, against the Russians!!  We talked about "the wall", and East and West Germany. Hell, Pink Floyd had an album named The Wall that was the biggest selling album of the year. Knockout borders didn't last too much longer as "the way".
> 
> In a society filled with fakery and lies and deceit, the knockout border conveyed authenticity; it showed "the whole negative"; it showed that it had been done "right", in the camera. In an era filled with network TV fakery,bogus TV advertising slogans, and sanitized network news doled out in 1/2 hour increments by only three national networks, the knock-out borders showed us the real truth, and assured viewers that what they saw was "real".
> 
> Things changed. By the time the Berlin wall fell, the knockout border had died off. Video, and MTV and VH-1 had come to dominate pop visual culture, and B&W concepts of the 1960's were pretty much dead by the late 1980's.



That's an interesting take. We, my peers and I back in the film-only days, were never taught to print outside the borders. We were just told that some did so. In the digital world, after growing up a bit. I realized that the borders not only proclaimed the skill of the photog but also an arrogance. Over time I've been removing my Henri Cartier-Bresson borders from my images.

Striving to capture images that are only cropped in the camera, significantly improved my photography.  If a shot needed any kind of post-capture cropping, even fixing/un-tilting the horizon ... it was dumped. I am far from my photographic prime ... but I am striving to get back to full-frame, no post-cropping captures. But this time around, the only person who needs to know ... is me.

Gary

PS- I strongly suggest to advanced photogs to shoot FF/no post-cropping. Jumping into this  type of shooting really forces you to sharpen your composition eye and increases your attention to detail.
G


----------



## D-B-J

Gary A. said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to print the same way, knockout borders,NO cropping, on a Leitz Focomat on Kodak fiber-based papper. I was taught that was "*the way to do it*". It took a long time to realize that it was merely an affectation. A schtick. But hey, it was a different era back then. We lived in fear of "*the bomb*" and "*the Russians*". We thought Reagan would get us in a war in South America. The US government funnel war materials and supplies into Afghanistan. We TRAINED Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban followers, so they could fight our proxy war in Afghanistan, against the Russians!!  We talked about "the wall", and East and West Germany. Hell, Pink Floyd had an album named The Wall that was the biggest selling album of the year. Knockout borders didn't last too much longer as "the way".
> 
> In a society filled with fakery and lies and deceit, the knockout border conveyed authenticity; it showed "the whole negative"; it showed that it had been done "right", in the camera. In an era filled with network TV fakery,bogus TV advertising slogans, and sanitized network news doled out in 1/2 hour increments by only three national networks, the knock-out borders showed us the real truth, and assured viewers that what they saw was "real".
> 
> Things changed. By the time the Berlin wall fell, the knockout border had died off. Video, and MTV and VH-1 had come to dominate pop visual culture, and B&W concepts of the 1960's were pretty much dead by the late 1980's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary
> 
> PS- I strongly suggest to advanced photogs to shoot FF/no post-cropping. Jumping into this  type of shooting really forces you to sharpen your composition eye and increases your attention to detail.
> G
Click to expand...


I definitely agree that that's a solid idea in theory, but what about in practice? I shoot more loosely than you suggest above, but for a reason. I want to be able to crop for a specific print size exactly how I want. If I were to shoot it right in camera, I'd be severely limited in how I could crop the prints. But I should also add that I rarely if ever crop to a proper ratio. I crop to what I feel is appropriate for the photo. So maybe I just do it all "wrong," so take my points with a grain of salt. [emoji6]

Jake 





Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary A.

D-B-J said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to print the same way, knockout borders,NO cropping, on a Leitz Focomat on Kodak fiber-based papper. I was taught that was "*the way to do it*". It took a long time to realize that it was merely an affectation. A schtick. But hey, it was a different era back then. We lived in fear of "*the bomb*" and "*the Russians*". We thought Reagan would get us in a war in South America. The US government funnel war materials and supplies into Afghanistan. We TRAINED Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban followers, so they could fight our proxy war in Afghanistan, against the Russians!!  We talked about "the wall", and East and West Germany. Hell, Pink Floyd had an album named The Wall that was the biggest selling album of the year. Knockout borders didn't last too much longer as "the way".
> 
> In a society filled with fakery and lies and deceit, the knockout border conveyed authenticity; it showed "the whole negative"; it showed that it had been done "right", in the camera. In an era filled with network TV fakery,bogus TV advertising slogans, and sanitized network news doled out in 1/2 hour increments by only three national networks, the knock-out borders showed us the real truth, and assured viewers that what they saw was "real".
> 
> Things changed. By the time the Berlin wall fell, the knockout border had died off. Video, and MTV and VH-1 had come to dominate pop visual culture, and B&W concepts of the 1960's were pretty much dead by the late 1980's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary
> 
> PS- I strongly suggest to advanced photogs to shoot FF/no post-cropping. Jumping into this  type of shooting really forces you to sharpen your composition eye and increases your attention to detail.
> G
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I definitely agree that that's a solid idea in theory, but what about in practice? I shoot more loosely than you suggest above, but for a reason. I want to be able to crop for a specific print size exactly how I want. If I were to shoot it right in camera, I'd be severely limited in how I could crop the prints. But I should also add that I rarely if ever crop to a proper ratio. I crop to what I feel is appropriate for the photo. So maybe I just do it all "wrong," so take my points with a grain of salt. [emoji6]
> 
> Jake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


When I was shooting news, if it wasn't right in the camera, I didn't print it. 

Then and now I print with wide borders to accommodate the differences in aspect ratios between film and paper. With digital printing I print through DTP. I use multiple borders with different widths which accommodate the differences between cropped and un-cropped aspect ratios between image and paper. 

Gary


----------



## gsgary

dennybeall said:


> You know it does look like "a bad cropping job with an awkward/crooked border" and could easily be achieved with Photoshop.
> From what Derrel says that may not be correct but it's a valid statement. Not sure why someone would make a personal attack about that.


Because when this was taken there was no digital or photoshop


----------



## photoguy99

Faking it in a wet darkroom is trivial.


----------



## Designer

Derrel said:


> In a society filled with fakery and lies and deceit, the knockout border conveyed authenticity; it showed "the whole negative";



I remember some prints made with the sprocket holes showing.


----------



## Gary A.

Designer said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a society filled with fakery and lies and deceit, the knockout border conveyed authenticity; it showed "the whole negative";
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember some prints made with the sprocket holes showing.
Click to expand...

I think printing the sprocket holes can be a bit distracting.


----------



## lewismalpas

Hi,

Many thanks for all of your replies, very helpful. Whilst I wouldn't want to add the black borders to all of my images I do quite like the effect on certain images.

Best,
Lewis.


----------



## Designer

Gary A. said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember some prints made with the sprocket holes showing.
> 
> 
> 
> I think printing the sprocket holes can be a bit distracting.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, that seems to have gone out of fashion.


----------



## Josh66

Gary A. said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a society filled with fakery and lies and deceit, the knockout border conveyed authenticity; it showed "the whole negative";
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember some prints made with the sprocket holes showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think printing the sprocket holes can be a bit distracting.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to do on a scanner.  Most film holders will cover the sprocket holes, but some don't.  I can see the point if the image goes beyond where the edge of the frame would normally be (so the sprocket holes are actually "in" the image), but even then I find it distracting too.

Scanning with the borders showing is not hard though.  In fact, all of my scans are like that before I do any cropping.  I do like to crop it pretty close to the edges though, just in case I want to do a different crop later - to maximize my cropping options.

You see it a lot in the film groups on Flickr.  And of course instagrammed shots all have the same Fuji Velvia markings on them, lol.  Personally, I don't like seeing the edges or the film markings on a finished product.


----------



## qleak

I remember when I brought some steve gullick photos of nirvana to a photography class and my instructor explained to me the filing out of the enlarger boards. I simultaneously thought that was a good idea and realized I'm a little bit of a photo snob lol

For those of you aspiring rock and roll photographers here's his website www.gullickphoto.com


----------



## timor

photoguy99 said:


> Faking it in a wet darkroom is trivial.


You don't fake things in the wet darkroom, all you do is real and cost you money. Computer fakes things, you can fake such a borders in photoshop.
Black borders not necessarily are only around prints of full negatives. One can have black border around any print of any part of a negative. No need for damaging the carriers.
Black borders and "sloppy" burning and dogging were also sort of photographic mannerism in 60 and 70 era. The picture OP is linking has all the hallmarks of that.


----------



## photoguy99

I'm pretty well acquainted with the wet darkroom. I'm not sure where my meaning became unclear to you, but I thought it was obvious that what I mean was:

One can trivially create the look of a filed out negative carrier, in a wet darkroom, without filing out a negative carrier. It's perhaps not quite as easy as just filing out a negative carrier, but it's certainly not hard.

This is a statement I stand by.


----------



## timor

photoguy99 said:


> I'm pretty well acquainted with the wet darkroom. I'm not sure where my meaning became unclear to you, but I thought it was obvious that what I mean was:


"Fake" ?


----------



## photoguy99

If I create the look of a filed out negative carrier, without using a filed out negative carrier, that's "fake"

The fact that it cost money and was made with things one can touch is irrelevant. "Fake" means "not genuine, a forgery, or sham", it does not mean "digital".


----------



## timor

Black border is a black border. You guys are hung up on this filling out the negative carrier ? Sounds like lomography of that time. . The border in OP sample is too perfect to be done this way unless the artist used some sort of laser cutting device to enlarge the window in the carrier.


----------



## photoguy99

I have no idea why you continue to argue here, about essentially nothing. Enjoy yourself!


----------



## timor

Just laughing...


----------



## photoguy99

Had you bothered to actually read the thread you might have learned something, but, laugh away. It's easier than reading!


----------



## Gary A.

timor said:


> Just laughing...


It isn't about black borders, it is what the black borders signify.


----------



## timor

photoguy99 said:


> Had you bothered to actually read the thread you might have learned something, but, laugh away. It's easier than reading!


Yeah, I did. That's why I am laughing. Amazing...


----------



## timor

Gary A. said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just laughing...
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't about black borders, it is what the black borders signify.
Click to expand...

Agree with that ! There is more to it, than just one explanation.


----------



## desertrattm2r12

Affecttion. If you were Joe Cool New York Photographer you could not crop your negative, a rule mandated on pain of death or being forced to live in New Jersey. The second option was the terror. Now we have tons of folks who affect "bokeh" and grumble the main ingredient in their photo looks awful, out of focus, ignored and cast aside. And the "Barnack" boys who affect shooting with a camera and lenses Barnack gave to the world via a burning bush-- a whole philosophy and system of photography ready to go with one conflageration. No mind Mr. Barnack only wanted a small camera to use to test small rolls of movie from.


----------

