Presentation of Square Prints.
 

I have been using a Rolleiflex for a few years now and usually print the negatives around 8"x 8".

I am more used to 35mm and 6x7 format films, so I would like to know how some of the FADU 6x6 format users like to present their prints including image print size, borders or not, mount sizes and framing etc.

I would like to avoid cropping as much as possible.

Thanks in advance.

Keith.

I love a square print Keith. :)

Where ever possible I try to print the full negative = as long as I have composed well in camera of course. I then quite often leave a thinnish black border, using a slightly filed out negative holder. I know it's not everyone's taste, but I think it suits a lot of images and stops any border lighter areas bleeding into the borders, of which I leave at least 1/2" to 3/4" with a bit extra left at the bottom.

It'll be interesting to hear others views.

Terry S

I tend tp print full frame and on 9 1/2x12 paper which makes my prints 8 1/2 by 8 1/2,and mounting onto again square board, 19x19 with a 4 1/4 border all round
Richard

This is 32.5cm X 32.5cm on 40x50cm paper and frame. Sorry about the reflections!

I'm working on mounts and frames max 60x60cm but these are pricey.

I print in a format which is best suited to the image. Limiting yourself to the format of the camera you are using is a bit like the tail wagging the dog. Surely the format must be what is best for the image. The advantage of square format is you have maxium choice of format, you can always crop out any unsuitable part of the negative but you can't add in any part where you have composed too tight in the camera..
I usually print on 11 x 14 paper with a 20mm border with perhapss a bit wider at the bottom, inevitable if I print square. Mount size is 16 x 12 dictated by the rules of the club I participate in. Probably a 20 x 16 mount would look better.

Tony

Two of my favourites, Bill Schwab and Michael Kenna, print many of their square negs full frame at 7”x7” on 10x8 paper - and charge a small fortune for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you ever thought of using a 10x8 camera and a wide angle lens, not bothering too much about composition, developing the neg and then just looking for interesting crops under the enlarger? :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have mainly printed full frame on 10x8, with the image 7x7, and a larger margin below the image. The Durst enlarger I normally use enforces a slight crop as the carrier aperture is smaller than the full negative image. I have, however, recently been using my LPL 4x5 enlarger which has a carrier that shows all of the image.
I understand, from what I have read in old books, that there was a practice of using 6x6 cameras in a way that anticipated cropping the final image to a rectangle. I believe that this was approach of news and magazine photographers who knew that the printed page preferred rectangles. I personally use 6x6 because I enjoy making square compositions, but as Tony said, it also allows you the freedom to consider alternative shapes of picture within the square.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Alex-
My old Yashicamat had two pairs of lines, one horizontal one vertical, etched on the viewing screen. I always assumed they were there to help compose images which would work cropped to a rectangle.

I use 6x6 a lot, and print full frame.

7 inches square on 10x8 feels skimpy, so I tend to use 9 1/2 x 12 paper for a slightly bigger image.
Ikea used to offer a choice of 50x50cm frames, perfect for images printed on 12x16 paper with a good border.
I would never frame a square print in a rectangular frame, even though I've seen it done effectively. Just a bit of weirdness on my part.

When using 12x16 paper I do sometimes cheat to save money, and cut a test strip off one short edge. On smaller sizes I often don't bother- I use the whole sheet which leaves plenty of space to tape the prints on a window for drying.