Re: [Leica] Re: Schwarzer Zaun

[Henry Ambrose <digphoto@nashville.net>]

>The argument seems to be inclusion of frame lines (those black borders 
>around the actual negative area) is a completion of the photographic
>statement.
>Without the frames 'holding' an image in it's place, it is allowed to have
>free reign beyond the limits of it's boundary. 
A photograph is all about "boundary".  If you mean putting something in a 
box - this is what a photograph does. It is a cut-out from reality, a 
slice of time.
>
>I am reminded of the troubadour artist with the folding box (camera obscura)
>presenting a patron with a newly completed painting of his estate. The rich
>old man studied it at great length, this amazing likeness never before seen
>in such colorful detail.
>He set it down and asked, "But what about this tree over here?" pointing to
>an edge of the painting outside the area of interest, a solitary limb the
>only remnant included.
>
>Okay fine, the artist photographer should print his work as he sees fit
>(with or without the frame lines). Do the lines prohibit the viewers'
>continued interest in the work, are they not a limitation to the
>imagination? 
No, not a limitation at all but rather something that might stir 
imagination. Simply a part of the piece of time you put in the box of the 
camera/frame/print
>So what if the sky flows off the edge of the print into the
>matte? 
Or does the matte detract from the image like the filed negative carrier 
line?
>Doesn't sky do that anyway?
>If you require added black content to bolster your blacks in the image
>itself, something else is wrong with the print?
No, there's nothing wrong with the print.
>
>I like the idea of showing the subject as intended, but the frame lines
>don't provide additional value to the statement. Only detract from it.

Try printing something with lots of open space and no boundry to define 
it - it doesn't work. 

Again, photography IS putting something in a box. 

Henry Ambrose