Easel, Ratio, 35mm Neg

[CMoore]

I did a search, tried some suff, but i am still confused
When i use a Saunders Enlarger, with 35mm film, my settings on the easel are about 9 x 6.25.
Is that about what you guys use.?
What is the math to Enlarge the aspect ration of 35mm film and make it "fit" on 8x10 paper.?
I use quotes around the word fit, because i know a person can do whatever they want.
At the moment, i am interested in knowing the (round numbers) math for "preserving" the 35mm negative ratio onto 8x10 paper.
Thank You.

 

[Carriage]

It kind of depends on what you're wanting to do and if you want a border.
If fully 10 inches on the longest dimension it'll need to be 6 and 2/3 inches on the shorter. If a quarter inch border, the actual image size will be 9.5 inches by 6 and 1/3 inches.

The aspect ratio of 35mm is 1.5. 10/1.5 is 6 and 2/3. 9.5/1.5 is 6 and 1/3.

 

[Neal]

Dear CMoore,

To rephrase the correct answer above: A 35mm frame is 24mm x 36mm. The ratio of the sides is 2:3. As you can see, your results are quite reasonable.

When printing, I deal with all photographs by cropping to get the image I want.

Neal Wydra

 

[tezzasmall]

For a while now, I have been printing the majority of my 35mm film full frame on 10 x 8" paper. This has always left a good amount at the bottom unused for that print but which I cut off to use for test strips.

Thinking about dimensions of 35mm negatives and 10 x 8" paper recently, made me view Ilford's website once more. There I discovered a paper cut to the correct (or better) dimensions to that I could print full frame without the loss of a large bit of paper at the bottom. I'd have to look it up again, but when my next box of 10 x 8" gets to near finish, I will definitely be buying a box of it.

Terry S

 

[pentaxuser]

A4 gets you reasonably close, Terry. Was this the size?. I can't think of any other paper size that is closer.

pentaxuser

 

[wiltw]

I did a search, tried some suff, but i am still confused
When i use a Saunders Enlarger, with 35mm film, my settings on the easel are about 9 x 6.25.
Is that about what you guys use.?
What is the math to Enlarge the aspect ration of 35mm film and make it "fit" on 8x10 paper.?
I use quotes around the word fit, because i know a person can do whatever they want.
At the moment, i am interested in knowing the (round numbers) math for "preserving" the 35mm negative ratio onto 8x10 paper.
Thank You.

2:3 as 8":n, so n is 12" and since your paper is only 10" long you need to crop off 2" of the image to fit on the paper while filling the short dimension of the paper
2:3 as n:10" so n is 6.67" and since your paper is 8" tall you have 1.33" white space left over in the short dimension

 

[faberryman]

I print full frame 6x9 on 8x10 paper.

 

[wiltw]

I print full frame 6x9 on 8x10 paper.

If you use 0.25" margins...

• So 2:3 is to X:9.5 (rather than n:10)
  and X is 6.33", for 6.33 x 9.5" image area on the 8x10 paper
• And 2:3 is to 7.5:Y
  and Y is 11.25, so you have a 7.5" x 9.5" image area on 8x10 paper and have to crop off 1.75" of the image in the long direction

simple ratio arithmetic (conversion of fractions)

 

[tomkatf]

I print full frame 6x9 on 8x10 paper.

Same here... and 8x12" on 11x14" paper... A four bladed easel gives you clean edges (if you like)... and if you file out or get a FF negative holder, you can print with a nice black line around the image or back off a bit and get the ragged " Authentic Street Photographer True Full Frame™" outline through the film base and sprocket holes... For the full effect, a Leica M4 w/50mm Summicron, Tri-X in Rodinal must be used.

 

[CMoore]

I print full frame 6x9 on 8x10 paper.

.....and that is just about where i have my Easel set at.
9 and 6.25.
So i guess i am doing it "right".
Thank You

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The long dimension will always be 3/2 the short dimension, short dimension 2/3 the long dimension. So for no borders, 6.66"x10". If you mat the print, 6.5"x9.75", you'll get a 1.25"x10" test strip and 1/8" borders.

 

[MattKing]

If you have a known purpose for the results - such as fitting into a standard size frame or mat - then you should use that to guide your decision.
There are a lot of choices available in 4" x 6" and 5" x 7" presentation options.

 

[CMoore]

If you have a known purpose for the results - such as fitting into a standard size frame or mat - then you should use that to guide your decision.
There are a lot of choices available in 4" x 6" and 5" x 7" presentation options.

They probably fit better.?
I should have mentioned, for now i am wanting to stick with 8x10.
Really, i was just wondering (if they typically set and forget) what numbers people see on their Saunders Enlargers, when they print 35mm onto 8x10 paper.

 

[ic-racer]

At the moment, i am interested in knowing the (round numbers) math for "preserving" the 35mm negative ratio onto 8x10 paper.
Thank You.

It doesn't fit with an even border. The ratio of the length of the sides of the rectangles are different.
The magnification ratio I use is about 5x for 8x10 paper.

 

[CMoore]

It doesn't fit with an even border. The ratio of the length of the sides of the rectangles are different.
The magnification ratio I use is about 5x for 8x10 paper.
View attachment 199023

What do you mean by "even border".?

See the easel in your picture.?
When you enlarge a 35mm negative, is your ratio close to the same as the negative.?
What numbers are your easel blades set at.?

 

[Carriage]

By even border I assume what is meant is that you can't have the left and right border the same size as the top and bottom border while showing the entire 35mm negative on 8x10 paper.


Personally, I often crop the negative and print 8x10 with a 1/4 inch border. If the negative doesn't quite work like that, I'll try 7x10 (same border, again needing to crop)

 

[CMoore]

By even border I assume what is meant is that you can't have the left and right border the same size as the top and bottom border while showing the entire 35mm negative on 8x10 paper.

Of course.
Does somebody think i do not know a 35mm Neg is not square.?
I am simply asking, when you reproduce the ratio of a 35mm Neg, with a Saunders type easel, onto 8x10 paper, what numbers are showing on your easel.......

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The long dimension will always be 3/2 the short dimension, short dimension 2/3 the long dimension. So for no borders, 6.66"x10". If you mat the print, 6.5"x9.75", you'll get a 1.25"x10" test strip and 1/8" borders.

These.

 

[MattKing]

Does somebody think i do not know a 35mm Neg is not square.?

Your 8 x 10 paper would only show even borders if your 135 negative was 24mm x 30mm (not square) instead of 24mm x 36mm.
But as for what people set their easel too: what size borders do you like to end up with, and what framing and presentation options do you prefer?
I tend to crop according to what the image is suited for, and what I intend to do with the result.
Full frame is frequently not the best choice.

 

[CMoore]

Hey Matt -
To paraphrase my own OP.........
"What is the math to Enlarge the aspect ration of 35mm film and make it "fit" on 8x10 paper.?
I use quotes around the word fit, because i know a person can do whatever they want.
At the moment, i am interested in knowing the (round numbers) math for "preserving" the 35mm negative ratio onto 8x10 paper."

Again, i realize you can print whatever you want.
I sometimes crop out edges or tops that show stuff i wished i would have missed in the Negative....a bunch of bricks in a building that are not important...too much grass...too much sky.
There are 101 options.
My question was, like i quoted above....."i am interested in knowing the (round numbers) math for "preserving" the 35mm negative ratio onto 8x10 paper."
It was not a question about what looks good, or what might look better, or what borders i need for mounting.....i was simply wondering about reproducing the ratio of a 35mm Negative onto 8x10 paper, with a 4 bladed easel.
I am not concerned about squeezing out an extra 1" test strip. I am not worried if the top/bottom has a 1 inch border and the sides have a 10 mile border.

It would seem i am doing it "right" at 9 x 6.26
Thanks for all the help and all the replys.

 

[ic-racer]

Of course.
Does somebody think i do not know a 35mm Neg is not square.?
I am simply asking, when you reproduce the ratio of a 35mm Neg, with a Saunders type easel, onto 8x10 paper, what numbers are showing on your easel.......

Each frame can be a little different, depending on the camera used for the exposure. I bring the blades in to cover the same amount of the projected frame on all 4 sides, usually this matches what the viewfinder saw. I don't go by the numbers. I may set the top and bottom and squeeze in the sides, or set the sides and squeeze in the top and bottom. I use the numbers as a reference to see that the image is centered.