Are borders non -cool?

[mattdm]

Originally Posted by jdepould

That's an interesting thought. Only downside is that a lot of the more popular photosharing sites don't let you tweak the CSS.

Yeah.

When done this way, though, another advantage is that metadata like captions or location information can be inherently searchable text rather than being pictures-of-text.

[guy-montag]

The only place you should see a border is on printed and mounted photos.

A border on a digital photo is a horrendous thing indeed.

[Pernod]

I use a standard black border on all of my 'uploaded' shots which includes the date and image name in the bottom. Its mainly a way of discouraging people from just stealing the images. Sure, a watermark would be more effective, but i find them even more intrusive than borders ;-)

[Jamesc359]

Originally Posted by mattdm

I vote for "kinda tacky". But beyond that, they kind of offend me technically. The border shouldn't be part of the image, but rather part of the display mechanism: frame/matting for a print, or HTML/CSS for online.

Thankfully DPS does allow you to use CSS for creating your own border. I like to insert a bit of CSS code into the image tag. No sane man can tell me my custom border is uglier than the default border the forums place on your linked images.

[Peach]

I used borders on my pictures. I think 'within reason' is a good line to live by in relation to borders. I've seen some hideous borders added that are just eye sores. I keep mine to white (or black depending on the picture) and around 2-4 pixels wide. I do think they can add more depth to a picture but yes they CAN be over kill. I don't like when people try to get too fancy-schmancy with effects. A very simple border is all I like. Most importantly though, it depends on the picture. I have pictures that do not have borders on them and others do.

So I'm more of a 'sit on the fence' kinda girl over this issue. I think they can add to the picture if done right on the right picture, but they can also be a mess if done incorrectly or on a picture that really shouldn't have one.

[Major_Small]

It depends. For things like posting in critique forums and stuff like that, no borders. If you're posting the images in an online gallery... it's kinda tricky. A nice, elegant border can make a solitary picture stand out, however to look at a page full of pictures with borders is annoying. The way I see it, when you're working with pictures online, you have to think about the overall layout of the page.

As for printed pictures, a border printed on the same paper as the picture is absolutely horrendous. Please don't do it. Frame your picture, or mount it, or both, but printed borders are just plain bad in my eyes.

Either way, you need to make sure whatever you do doesn't take away from the image itself. If you're posting the image for a critique, don't post a border. If you're posting the image to show off in a blog or portfolio, go for a border so long as it fits in with the overall theme.

[RePete]

I think that if it doesn't distract from the picture, but add some dimension to it, then it is good.

[mrodgers]

I have seen borders similar to my example at the end here. I don't mind borders like this. I don't think it works for my photo, but for a photo that is darker, it isn't distracting or anything. Some borders I've seen are quite hideous, such as borders attempting to look like an actual picture frame for example. I don't like those at all.

(This was quickly done just for example purposes. I know that there is an area that isn't straight, found post-export)

[qronoz]

It's kinda confusing for me. For me, using border really depends on the picture dimension, if I do some extreme crop (too narrow, usually landscape), then I get it bordered.

[neilwood]

Im entirely on the fence with this.

I havent used them (never felt the need) but i can see that there are occasions where they may be good for presentation. On the flip side, i can agree that,if done badly i would tend to skip past them.

Ouch this fence isnt too comfy