Digital BW, The Print

Greetings Digital Printmakers!  (this is a cross posted note on two forums)

OK, the forums are sleepy now...so it is time to spring another philosophical discussion on the boards....Ready?

BACKGROUND:  
I recently scanned through some magazines and websites for galleries etc..and low and behold...I saw lots of sloppiness.  More specifically, the "sloppy border" look.  

POINT OF VIEW: 
Taking a "stance" here for esthetics (which is a personal choice) I think the "trendy" "arty" looking "sloppy borders" look is...in a word....ridiculous (anyone feeling offended?)

I mean if you take a look around you will see it everywhere.  In many cases I just don't see the justification.  And with "digital" images and "digital edges" available, it just seems ludicrous (getting anybody's goat yet?).  

Just the other day I looked at a web site for professioal photographers.  This site displays and prints images for pros who then sell them to the brides and others.  The site offers a "sloppy border" look for "art proofs" that are from scanned 35mm film or digital files.  

QUESTION #1: 
What is the sense of this?  Is it so important to show that the "full frame" was used? Come on!

QUESTION # 2:
Do any of you suspect or know that you are better able to "sell" a Sloppy Border print because it has that sloppy look?  Perhaps the sloppy border look "sells" better?  If so please elaborate.  

I suspect that the desire to have the "look" of full frame..."just like those pros use with big contact prints" is what is driving this.  What gets me is that in many cases the "effect" is so noticeable that it encroaches on the image to a point where the image would probably not make it on its own...without the "effect."  

To this curmudgeon, the "big glass plate looking fake border" looks...like a cheap pastiche. 

What do you folks think about the Sloppy Borders Full Frame Effect? 

Steadman

P.S. Hope this did not offend anyone.  Just meant to stir up some opinions both for and against. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Interesting post Steadman.


snip
> POINT OF VIEW: 
> Taking a "stance" here for esthetics (which is a personal choice) I think the
> "trendy" "arty" looking "sloppy borders" look is...in a word....ridiculous
> (anyone feeling offended?)

The look is definately trendy, that is the whole point is it not... it must
sell because I see it everywhere... but I think the look is on the decline.

> I mean if you take a look around you will see it everywhere.  In many cases I
> just don't see the justification.  And with "digital" images and "digital
> edges" available, it just seems ludicrous (getting anybody's goat yet?).

I actually like the look of some of my "sloppy edges" but I do not use
filter effects or purchased effects, nor do I digitally produce mine. I use
my own edges when I feel so inclined... it totally depends on the image.
Same goes for my texturing techniques, I do not use anything premade or
purchased. I just prefer my own unique look.

I too am tired of the same edge technique used on so many images, this is
one reason I have always used my own... no one else has them. ;-)

Now, If a photographer uses the edges of their whole scan and it represents
their look or style then I find it  suits their work and the effect is
lovely...  

I personally love the look of a gum or other alternative print framed in
it's full glory with the edges (if the whole paper was not coated) of the
coating visible.

> I suspect that the desire to have the "look" of full frame..."just like those
> pros use with big contact prints" is what is driving this.  What gets me is
> that in many cases the "effect" is so noticeable that it encroaches on the
> image to a point where the image would probably not make it on its
> own...without the "effect."

There are different looks you are referring to in this post... the look of a
textured or masked edge with paint or other effects...  the look of a
contact print or platinum glass rod pull, polaroid or full frame photo etc.
The grunge design so popular in the nineties may have strated this "sloppy
border" look or have contributed to it's popularity, but the full alternate
photo look has been around a long time hasn't it?


my 2 bits... Carolyn

Steadman,

Many years ago I printed all my 35mm negs full frame with a sloppy border 
from a hand-sawed out neg carrier and yes, it was partially bragging that 
I could catch exactly what I wanted and nothing more right in the 
viewfinder (g). I've gotton over that. Now in darkroom prints I'll do it 
if the image warrants - if it gives the image something - but not 
otherwise. In digital/inkjet I didn't do it at all until very recently. 
In fact the current Print Exhange print is the first time I've used that 
effect (using a scan of one of my old silver prints to get the same 
border from my venerable negative carrier). I like the effect for some 
images - it gives them a look almost like a movie frame, an instant out 
of a scene that is going on. It is appropriate for some images and not 
for others. I do generally like a hair-thin black border defining the 
edge of a photo from the white paper surface and have occasionally played 
around with a larger border picking up a grey from the print itself. This 
is basic PS technique but I've never messed with the canned pre-packaged 
borders. Nothing against them particularly, just don't need them for the 
fairly simple stuff I like.

In conclusion, it *is* a fashion that comes and goes over the years (and 
has been around a long time) but I think it should be nothing more than 
an aesthetic decision based on the image itself - some look better 
framed, some don't.

And I'll even sometimes crop photos now if that produces a stronger image 
(g).

Cheers,

Nina

>Taking a "stance" here for esthetics (which is a personal choice) I think 
>the "trendy" "arty" looking "sloppy borders" look is...in a 
>word....ridiculous (anyone feeling offended?)
>
>I mean if you take a look around you will see it everywhere.  In many 
>cases I just don't see the justification.  And with "digital" images and 
>"digital edges" available, it just seems ludicrous (getting anybody's goat 
>yet?).  
>
>Just the other day I looked at a web site for professioal photographers.  
>This site displays and prints images for pros who then sell them to the 
>brides and others.  The site offers a "sloppy border" look for "art 
>proofs" that are from scanned 35mm film or digital files.  
>
>QUESTION #1: 
>What is the sense of this?  Is it so important to show that the "full 
>frame" was used? Come on!