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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.]

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.]

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]

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

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.]

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

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

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]

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