|
Abandoned by Cacator, on Flickr
|
# ? May 22, 2017 21:34 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 05:52 |
|
P1014769_BW by Dan Packer, on Flickr P1014768_BW by Dan Packer, on Flickr Oh God am I using too much of the borders? Please tell me if you think I need to knock it off... Happy for any other critique too, or not, if it's the wrong thread...
|
# ? May 22, 2017 23:25 |
|
any of those borders are too much
|
# ? May 22, 2017 23:27 |
|
8th-snype posted:any of those borders are too much Is it a borders in general thing, or just "art" borders?
|
# ? May 22, 2017 23:34 |
|
I think it's something like... Actual white matte board around your printed photo: OK White border on your basic atrocity Instagram post: dgaf it's IG White border on your 'good' online pictures: no .. Although, I have wondered about using it at times, as a way to get Flickr photos to display properly across both high- and low-PPI monitors. Basically, keeping the photo small enough that it won't blow up to near 100% magnification on retina displays and the like, but also making the image area larger than the bounds of an average HD monitor... Because somehow images on Flickr look softer if they don't exceed the size of the monitor along one axis or another when zoomed-in. Or at least that's how it is on my MacBook Air. Right now I just ignore the existence of retina displays when exporting my full-size jpegs to Flickr. (Also I like your first photo.)
|
# ? May 23, 2017 01:40 |
|
Hyperspace Mountain
|
# ? May 23, 2017 01:50 |
|
Went backpacking, saw trees, saw clouds, became sore. untitled-5.jpg by jarredsutherland, on Flickr
|
# ? May 23, 2017 03:09 |
|
Choicecut posted:Hyperspace Mountain Related... Zero One fucked around with this message at 04:47 on May 23, 2017 |
# ? May 23, 2017 03:40 |
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I think it's something like... Gotcha, cheers man. Reckon I'll leave those ones up as a testament to progress... :P
|
# ? May 23, 2017 03:50 |
|
p0stal b0b posted:
Borders are terrible unless you are scanning a wet print and have to include them. Never put art borders on a digital photo unless someone is paying you to do so.
|
# ? May 23, 2017 04:43 |
|
Your photo should stand by itself. If you need a border to make it artsy/look better, then the photo probably isn't great.Choicecut posted:Hyperspace Mountain I get what you are going for here, you gotta go all out on the minimalism though.
|
# ? May 23, 2017 06:04 |
|
p0stal b0b posted:
Putting borders around online digital pics is usually a weird self-fellation whereby the author is loudly proclaiming that they believe their photograph is "art."
|
# ? May 23, 2017 08:17 |
|
RangerScum posted:Putting borders around online digital pics is usually a weird self-fellation whereby the author is loudly proclaiming that they believe their photograph is "art." What about when combined with a carefully crafted watermark?
|
# ? May 23, 2017 08:53 |
|
elgarbo posted:What about when combined with a carefully crafted watermark? Then it elevates into "high art".
|
# ? May 23, 2017 08:56 |
|
what if you have the film borders but then you also add sharp crisp white and then black border around that, just to set it off from the background?
|
# ? May 23, 2017 09:13 |
|
"we get it, u shoot film"
|
# ? May 23, 2017 09:26 |
|
elgarbo posted:What about when combined with a carefully crafted watermark? borders make it art, watermarks make it art worth stealing
|
# ? May 23, 2017 09:38 |
|
Wild EEPROM posted:what if you have the film borders but then you also add sharp crisp white and then black border around that, just to set it off from the background? I saw one recently where they had added 35mm film strip borders to the short edges of the image. I guess it's possible that they shot it with a half-frame camera but my heart tells me they didn't.
|
# ? May 23, 2017 09:59 |
|
Thanks for the short but brutal education, chaps... I still love the look of old black & white film photos, but don't have nearly enough patience to use film for real. Opinions on borders on printed & hung photos: same as above? I'll stop cluttering up the thread now, thanks.
|
# ? May 23, 2017 22:36 |
|
The frame you mount the image on is the border.
|
# ? May 23, 2017 22:39 |
|
Choicecut fucked around with this message at 02:25 on May 24, 2017 |
# ? May 23, 2017 22:52 |
|
p0stal b0b posted:Opinions on borders on printed & hung photos: same as above? I'll stop cluttering up the thread now, thanks. If you're hanging it up in your own house, you can do whatever you want.
|
# ? May 23, 2017 23:08 |
|
My opinion which no-one asked for is basically this: Film edge borders get lumped in with sepia toning, grunge brushes, duotoning and other effects as "easy ways to make a photo look like something it isn't." I loving LOVE the look of Polaroid Type 55. That look tends to tie together a number of things: (usually) a shallow depth of field due to being shot on large format, rich black and white contrasts, a deliberate touch to the photograph due to the trouble of shooting it, and of course those off-the-hook edges. Now, shy of selling a kidney to buy out remaining Type 55 stock and waste it (or trust the nascent New55 project), there are things I can do to bring aspects of that work into my work. I can shoot fast glass, I can process for contrast, I can slow the gently caress down and think about what I'm shooting. But when I load up a PSD of someone's scanned Type 55 borders and slap it onto my photo, I cross a line in my head between "making my pictures contrasty/intense" and "making my photos look like something they are not." And hell, I've been there. Go far enough back on my Flickr timeline, past the actual medium-formal film borders I flirted with briefly, and you'll find the fake stuff: the photoshopped dirt and tears, the edge effects, the fake light leaks. I did it, and then I stopped doing it. Partially because it's so easy to do that once I'd done it, I realized it adds no value. But mostly because that's not what I wanted to make. If I was purely an aesthete, I'd say, sure, what the gently caress. Pixels have no truth, so I'll just make something that looks good. But I'm trying to do something a little more interesting (to me) with my photography. Not that I don't think that heavy editing is a fine and worthwhile thing: I think all of those Russian girls photoshopping themselves in long dresses hovering over lakes holding umbrellas and whatnot are doing some lovely work. I wish I knew how they were doing some of that. But it's not for me. At least not right now. And when I do edit something heavily, I do it to try and make it something new and interesting (to me), instead of making my photograph/whatever look like it's something it isn't. Film borders look great, use them in film if you want. Sepia toning looks great, use it if you do the process. Digital photography can fake all of that easily. Do you want to do something that easy? If yes, great, do it and hang it up in your house and smile at it. If not, find something harder to do. /rant Edit: I might be able to boil it down to this for myself: Don't disappoint your audience. If you use a film edge and someone asks, "wow, you shot that on film?" and you shyly say no, they might be disappointed. If you give a poo poo about that, don't do it. thetzar fucked around with this message at 00:26 on May 24, 2017 |
# ? May 24, 2017 00:22 |
|
you're talking as if photography has the tiniest sliver of "authenticity" to it. you can slap film borders on all you want, you're just not gonna fool a lot of us
|
# ? May 24, 2017 01:08 |
|
I like taking pictures.
|
# ? May 24, 2017 01:23 |
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Went backpacking, saw trees, saw clouds, became sore. yeah I have some fog
|
# ? May 24, 2017 01:25 |
|
Got eaten the gently caress alive by mosquitos but got this shot I'm pretty proud of this weekend:
|
# ? May 24, 2017 02:08 |
|
Straightening your horizon may not make this a more exciting image but you should do so anyways.
|
# ? May 24, 2017 02:18 |
|
Dread Head posted:Straightening your horizon may not make this a more exciting image but you should do so anyways. Straightened up a bit. Thanks for pointing it out man.
|
# ? May 24, 2017 02:27 |
|
I find that my images are best bordered by the recycle bin.
|
# ? May 24, 2017 02:38 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2017 03:54 |
|
Àrg!!
|
# ? May 24, 2017 04:15 |
|
thetzar posted:My opinion which no-one asked for is basically this: Film edge borders get lumped in with sepia toning, grunge brushes, duotoning and other effects as "easy ways to make a photo look like something it isn't." Thanks man, that's a pretty good explanation.
|
# ? May 24, 2017 04:28 |
|
ansel autisms posted:you're talking as if photography has the tiniest sliver of "authenticity" to it. What do you mean by this? To me it seems a lot more authentic than say painting, where you can paint whatever the gently caress you like and it doesn't have to remotely match reality.
|
# ? May 24, 2017 05:49 |
|
Stephansdom, in Vienna. Can you tell that I really like the roof of this cathedral?
|
# ? May 24, 2017 06:06 |
|
Spooky factory by MerryMark, on Flickr
|
# ? May 24, 2017 06:12 |
|
Wafflecopper posted:What do you mean by this? To me it seems a lot more authentic than say painting, where you can paint whatever the gently caress you like and it doesn't have to remotely match reality. You can do the same with photos and Photoshop too.
|
# ? May 24, 2017 06:17 |
|
At least in painting what the artist had applied to the canvas is what the viewer is to appreciate. There's no way to adjust a painting without applying paint/oil with a tool by the artist. Even in paintings which are initially done almost greyscale and then color is selectively applied as a glaze to certain areas, what you're seeing is the direct intention of the artist at the time of the painting; that is to say there's no way for me to paint a portrait in my style (garbage) and then select a filter to make it look like renaissance era artwork. With photoshop I can shoot a DSLR portrait and then sepia/add film borders/VSCO/etc to make it falsely evocative of something the shot is not.
|
# ? May 24, 2017 06:30 |
|
VelociBacon posted:At least in painting what the artist had applied to the canvas is what the viewer is to appreciate. There's no way to adjust a painting without applying paint/oil with a tool by the artist. Even in paintings which are initially done almost greyscale and then color is selectively applied as a glaze to certain areas, what you're seeing is the direct intention of the artist at the time of the painting; that is to say there's no way for me to paint a portrait in my style (garbage) and then select a filter to make it look like renaissance era artwork. With photoshop I can shoot a DSLR portrait and then sepia/add film borders/VSCO/etc to make it falsely evocative of something the shot is not. That's a bad comparison. Shooting with filters, physical or digital, adding borders, it's still the artist's intention. But with the popularity of instagram today you risk more to be viewed as a lazy artist if you abuse them. That's why people recommend against them
|
# ? May 24, 2017 06:53 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 05:52 |
|
If you shoot with the intention of editing it in a specific way, thats one thing. Velocibacon is talking about taking a poo poo photo and trying to make it good with filters or borders.
|
# ? May 24, 2017 07:29 |