Easel sizes

[Joel_L]

I just bought a 14x17 4 blade easel. When looking at easels in general 14x17 just seems like an odd size, real practical limit is 11x14 unless you cut bigger sheets down. I would have liked a 16x20 but the price really jumps after 14x17.

I think I will get a lot of miles out of it, but am I missing something in thinking it's an odd side to make an easel considering standard paper sizes?

 

[MattKing]

Is it one of the Saunders easels?
If so, it is only 14x17 when set up as a fixed size easel - i.e. if you slide out the removeable masking blade system.
With the masking blade system back in, it maxes out at 11x14.
Some of the European easels are sized to permit 12x16 paper. IIRC, there is also a Beseler easel that you can use 12x16 paper in.
I use a two blade easel for the small amount of 16x20 work I do, but I have friends with a 4 blade Saunders 16x20 easel, and it is a thing of beauty

 

[Joel_L]

I picked up the LPL DX-1417, I think it does say 14x17 is a fixed border size, very similar to the Saunders but has a couple more paper slots.

 

[MattKing]

If it has 12x16, that is a real advantage - I really like that size.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is it one of the Saunders easels?
If so, it is only 14x17 when set up as a fixed size easel - i.e. if you slide out the removeable masking blade system.
With the masking blade system back in, it maxes out at 11x14.

That is what I was going to say.

 

[GregY]

The way they advertise the easels is somewhat odd. I have 3 Saunders 4 blade easels: 11x14 / 16x20 /20x24. The V tracks models are very nice. It's odd to me, that they advertise the 11x14 easel as 14"x17" "prints from passport size up to 11x14"..... while the others are simply advertised as 16x20 & 20x24. That said, I use the 11x14 the most....& have used it to print on 12"x 16" paper....although there's no slot.

 

[Joel_L]

If it has 12x16, that is a real advantage - I really like that size.

Looks like it does have a slot for 12x16.

 

[gone]

All of these print sizes are odd! Ever gone to a place like Hobby Lobby or Walmart looking for budget priced, pre-cut print mats? Good luck, especially if you shoot 35mm. I have to cut my own mats to avoid cropping my photos. All I can figure is that they go back to the dawn of time in film photography, when most cameras were usually 4x5 or 8x10 (same thing) and people contact printed things.

Probably stated and kept into effect by these expensive custom frame shops in order to guarantee themselves steady business.

 

[Roger Cole]

Not all the Saunders easels are/were named and marketed like that. I have an 11x14 V-Track and it acomodates 11x14 paper using the four masking blades. But yeah on those "14x17" ones. The V-Tracks didn't last as long on the market and are rather different (though it's a very, very nice easel.)

Like Matt I have a two blade 16x20 that I use for 16x20 and only for 16x20. I'd love to have a quality 16x20 four blade easel but boy-howdy, I wouldn't love it enough to pay what they bring these days, not for the few times I print that large.

 

[Sirius Glass]

All of these print sizes are odd! Ever gone to a place like Hobby Lobby or Walmart looking for budget priced, pre-cut print mats? Good luck, especially if you shoot 35mm. I have to cut my own mats to avoid cropping my photos. All I can figure is that they go back to the dawn of time in film photography, when most cameras were usually 4x5 or 8x10 (same thing) and people contact printed things.

Probably stated and kept into effect by these expensive custom frame shops in order to guarantee themselves steady business.

The 35mm format has always been a bit off for the standard US sizes of 5"x7", 8"x10", 11"x14", 16"x20" and 20"x24". I got away from those problems and moved to the square format, cut the paper and custom mats.

 

[MattKing]

For 35mm, you can always move to half-frame which gives a nice 4/3 aspect ratio - fits great in a 5x7 or 11x14 mat

 

[Roger Cole]

The 35mm format has always been a bit off for the standard US sizes of 5"x7", 8"x10", 11"x14", 16"x20" and 20"x24". I got away from those problems and moved to the square format, cut the paper and custom mats.

More often than not I end up cropping my 6x6 negatives to essentially 645 when I print them anyway (almost always having that in mind when I shot the photo.) Not always - some images do work better square. So for most but not all images my TLRs yield the same effective negative size as my 645 camera.

 

[Mick Fagan]

The two most economical paper sizes for 35mm enlargement with minimal wastage are:- number one, Ilford's 297mmx210mm (A4) sized paper. Available for decades and if you do the maths, one can see there is minimal difference between the short and long side.

Number two:- is to use ½ of a standard 8"x10" sheet for a 5"x8" print, this also enlarges very well on both the short and long side. When doing wedding photography and 135 colour film, I used my Jobo Varioformat easel to make shed loads of borderless 5"x8" colour prints, two up on each sheet.

My biggest LPL easel is a two bladed 14"x17" unit, no paper slots just the hidden adjustable top and left side paper stops. I've never thought of it as an odd size, but now that I'm aware of the maximum size....

I've always lusted after any of the LPL 4 bladed easels, never been successful in getting one though.

For the ultimate in enlarging easels, borderless vacuum easels are something else entirely, and so wantable. (is that a word? )

 

[Joel_L]

I seem to recall 4x6 came to be the format for 35mm and I used to do a lot of 4x6 prints. For some reason I have usually done color prints borderless and B&W prints with a border. Until the LPL shows up I only have a borderless easel. I used to have a two blade easel but it seems to have disappeared.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The two most economical paper sizes for 35mm enlargement with minimal wastage are:- number one, Ilford's 297mmx210mm (A4) sized paper. Available for decades and if you do the maths, one can see there is minimal difference between the short and long side.

Number two:- is to use ½ of a standard 8"x10" sheet for a 5"x8" print, this also enlarges very well on both the short and long side. When doing wedding photography and 135 colour film, I used my Jobo Varioformat easel to make shed loads of borderless 5"x8" colour prints, two up on each sheet.

My biggest LPL easel is a two bladed 14"x17" unit, no paper slots just the hidden adjustable top and left side paper stops. I've never thought of it as an odd size, but now that I'm aware of the maximum size....

I've always lusted after any of the LPL 4 bladed easels, never been successful in getting one though.

For the ultimate in enlarging easels, borderless vacuum easels are something else entirely, and so wantable. (is that a word? )

OR just switch to 4"x5" and then prints fit on 4"x5" and 8"x10" just fine.

 

[mshchem]

For a very long time, in the US, the standard size, color print from 35mm was 3 1/2 × 5 inches including the white borders (apx 3/16 inch) . Instamatic 126 was 3 1/2 × 3 1/2 inches. Then 4x6 borderless came to be popular, I prefer the older size with borders.
Ilford used to sell 3 1/2 × 5 inch paper in 100 sheet boxes.

 

[Mick Fagan]

OR just switch to 4"x5" and then prints fit on 4"x5" and 8"x10" just fine.

Actually the RB67 negatives were the closest fit to Kodak 8x10" colour and B&W paper when I was doing bulk enlarging in the 80's.

Followed by 645 negatives, then with ever so slight differences came 4x5" and 8x10".

Actual image size on the negative, as opposed to stated or advertised size, certainly made slight differences.

 

[Joel_L]

This brings up a thought, how often do folks real print a negative edge to edge without cropping? Though I'm just now getting back into printing, in the past I seem to remember cropping a lot.

 

[GregY]

I very rarely crop

 

[guangong]

Besides my Saunders, I have an old easel with cutouts for three print sizes, plus an old two blade Leitz easel that fits into a slot in the enlargers baseboard so that it can be locked into place, and also can be tilted for perspective control in conjunction with a special Leitz negative carrier.
There is no rule regarding cropping. Even painters, such as Degas and others, sometimes removed or added canvas to their paintings. As photographers, the negative limits adding, but cropping often makes sense to create a stronger picture.

 

[Joel_L]

Yes, I found I cropped more on 35mm to get what I wanted, maybe not so much on other formats ( 6x6, 6x7 at the time ). I have in the past couple years added 4x5, 645, and 6x8 to the mix. My initial feeling is 4x5 I wont crop much, but for all the new to me formats, I'll just have to see.

 

[MattKing]

This brings up a thought, how often do folks real print a negative edge to edge without cropping? Though I'm just now getting back into printing, in the past I seem to remember cropping a lot.

I abide by no particular rule regarding cropping when enlarging from a negative.
Although I kind of like this effect, which arises because oh how some light sources interact with some negative carriers:

 

[Mick Fagan]

I pretty much crop everything I print, cannot remember the last time I used the whole negative regardless of the format.

 

[Roger Cole]

This brings up a thought, how often do folks real print a negative edge to edge without cropping? Though I'm just now getting back into printing, in the past I seem to remember cropping a lot.

Almost never for me. Others never crop, or rarely. I almost always crop at least a bit.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I pretty much crop everything I print, cannot remember the last time I used the whole negative regardless of the format.

I rarely crop anything I print, cannot remember the last time I used cropped negative regardless of the format. I do my cropping before I take the photograph. That makes the darkroom work much easier.