Potentially stupid question: image doesn't fit 100% on easel

[IloveTLRs]

I print with a 35mm LPL enlarger, with two different, 2-blade LPL easels. I adjust the blades to set the borders, but I noticed that with a standard 50mm lens, I can't quite get 100% of the frame onto the paper. No problem, I just print what I can. This happens with small paper and up to 8x10.

The other day however, I was fooling around and screwed a 35mm lens into my enlarger, and lo-and-behold, I was able to get everything in. Have I been doing things wrong all this time? :confused: What stupid mistake have I made this time??

 

[darkosaric]

I always peal off easel with rasp for metal to have around 110% of negative - in that case you can have black border around picture, and it is less problematic: you don't need to be super precise when putting negative in a carrier.

 

[hgernhardt]

I print with a 35mm LPL enlarger, with two different, 2-blade LPL easels. I adjust the blades to set the borders, but I noticed that with a standard 50mm lens, I can't quite get 100% of the frame onto the paper

What size negative are you printing?

When it comes to enlargers, you want the focal length of your enlarging lens to (roughly) match that of a normal(ish) lens for the format your printing. For instance:

• 35mm full-frame: 50mm
• 120 square format: 75mm
• 6x9 format 120: 105mm

Using a shorter focal length will give you greater enlargement. If you can't get the elevation with a normal lens to fill your paper, switch to the shorter focal length. Be advised, though, that you may experience vignetting towards the edges of the negative as a result. Depends on the lens.

Good luck!

 

[ann]

It isn't you doing anything wrong. 35mm negatives do not fit the ratio of a piece of 8x10 paper. You can print 6x9 and it will fit, but not with the standard borders.

When you changed focal lengths you also change the relative distance between the negative and the paper, so success.

 

[IloveTLRs]

Ah! So I wasn't being dumb this time Thank you for the responses! I wondered why it wouldn't fit.

The next time I'm in the dark, I'll try printing with a 35mm lens and see how it comes out

 

[Nige]

It isn't you doing anything wrong. 35mm negatives do not fit the ratio of a piece of 8x10 paper. You can print 6x9 and it will fit, but not with the standard borders.

When you changed focal lengths you also change the relative distance between the negative and the paper, so success.

that would be a 'qualified success' though, cause you will have cropped some off the ends to get the vertical (assuming printing landscape orientation) to fit... which based on OP's reply needs to be emphasised. So to repeat Ann's 1st reply, 35mm will not enlarge to 8x10 without cropping. Print it 6x9 and it will fit on 8x10 paper with uneven borders.

 

[andrew.roos]

Ilford's 11.75 x 8.25 " paper has an aspect ratio of 1.42 which is closer to the 1.5 aspect ratio of 35mm frames than standard 8x10 paper. If you print with 5/8" borders all round, the image area will be 10.5 x 7 which will fit an entire 35mm frame perfectly.

 

[IloveTLRs]

I just finished printing a little while ago. With a 35mm lens on 12x16.5cm paper, I was able to get almost the whole frame in. Especially 1/2 frame.

 

[bsdunek]

Years ago, 8 X 12 paper was available for full frame 35mm enlargements. That's long gone. If I need that, I cut it from 11 X 14 and use the rest for test strips.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Another alternative is to cut a 1" strip from the long side of 8x10. That leaves you with 7x10. With 1/4" margins there is 6.5 x 9.5" of image which is awfully close to 6x9/2x3/24x36.

As bsdunek mentioned, you use the cut off bit for test strips.