• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Print size.

mporter012

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
383
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado
Format
Analog
If printing a 35mm negative on 8x10 paper, is it most common to enlarge the image to cover the entire paper (thus cropping…), or is it common to leave a bit of white space on the edges, say an 1/8'' or so? Hopefully that makes sense.

Thanks,

Mark
 
I find 8x10 to be a very odd size.

The way that my 8x10 look best is when I print an image the size of a 5x7 right in the middle.
 
A 35mm negative prints full frame as a 8x12. I've printed 8x12 on 11x14 paper. Full frame on 8x10 paper is something like 7.25x9. For a full 8x10, then you would have to crop 2 inches off the long side. I really is going to depend on the image; is there room to crop or not.

As far as leaving a small edge around the image, that depends on your easel.
 
I too have problems fitting 35mm photographs on 8"x10" paper. Now I rather shoot square with 120 or 4"x5".
 
I don't know what is "most common" for everyone else. When I'm printing on 8x10 paper, I usually enlarge 35mm negatives to 5 x 7 1/2 inches, sometimes to 4 1/2 x 6 3/4 inches. Sometimes I'll print them smaller, say 3 x 4 1/2", on 5x7 paper. Early on I sometimes pushed a 35mm negative as far as 6x9 inches on 8x10 paper, but it's been many years since I've last done that.

Try it different ways and see what you like best.
 
i print on 8 by 10 paper with a border of about an inch and a half on the long side and less on the short side so i can print full frame -- it leaves an attractive border. I could make the image larger and the border narrower, but then it looks funny to me .. on those negatives that allow it, I even leave a black edge to add to the framing effect.

It makes a nice presentation for the print when it is unframed/unmounted.
 
I've done both: printed the full 8x10 area (with the same 5mm border around all four edges), thus cropping the 2:3 135 neg to 4:5 paper; plus I've printed the full 2:3 135 neg to the same 2:3 ratio, something like 6.6x10" with a long white border top and bottom.
I've also cropped a 135 neg square and printed 7x7" on an 8x10 sheet.
It all depends on what the image requires.

It also depends on what the frame requires. If you're going to put it in a frame and lose 10mm on every edge, you might want to put a white border around it that'll get hidden in the frame anyway. Or if you're just mounting to a backing board, maybe it's best to print borderless.

At the end of the day, there's always a guillotine anyway.
 
Don't get me started on this. I don't like the 8x10 format either, and feel the same about the 6x7 negative. It's just not a good format for composition. I wish the paper companies would make papers in sizes that made sense, because 8x12 is the correct size for 35mm, and I am not happy about wasting so much paper when I print 6x6 either. 8x10 is an OLD and obsolete format from the days when a lot of people shot 4x5, so 8x10 is the natural progression for that. When 35mm became popular, nothing changed. It's not hard to make papers the right size. Look at artists sketch pads. You can buy them in all manner of formats, even square.

Then, often you'll see frames made up in completely different formats! If I frame something, which I rarely do anymore, I have to make the frame and mats up from scratch.

It's not like they actually make papers in these sizes anyway, they're cut down at the factories from large sheets. Only hand made papers w/ full deckle edges are in the sizes they were made in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fotoimpex sells MCC 110 and 112 also in 20x30cm.
 
Dear Mark,

Proof the image full frame. When printing for presentation, crop the image for best effect without concern for the paper size ratio. Enjoy the process.

Neal Wydra
 
The smaller I print the image the better it seems to fit. I currently print my 35mm negatives on 8x10 paper with an image size around 4" x 6". I usually overlap the easel blades about 1/8" around the perimeter of the projected image.
 
I dislike the 1:1.5 ratio of 35mm or 6 X 9 frames and crop to fit 8 X 10. 11 X 14, or 16 X 20 paper, formats I find more aesthetically pleasing. I do the same with square 6 X 6 negatives. This is an individual choice; if YOU prefer printing full frame do so.
 
30"x30" from 2 1/4"x2 1/4" black & white
 


I always leave about 1/4" all around the image. I need some way to hold the paper down flat using variety of easels I have, so I have no way to print to the very edge. Another reason is, when I print on fiber paper and mount it, I always trim the edges. So I need that extra space. By trimming, I will have clean and undamaged edge all the way around. Even with RC, I like having an area I can safely handle.

I also do not always print to full 8x10. If it makes more sense to print square, I will. Or if i need different aspect ratio, I will. That will inevitably leave white spaces. I let the image drive aspect ratio of the final product. Whatever takes to include what I want to include, whatever takes to exclude what I don't want, and whatever enhances the final image is the sizing I use. Since I cut my own mat, I have no need to stick with standard formats.
 
Another one for "sometimes I crop, sometimes I don't" here. I have a four bladed Saunders easel that lets me put the edges pretty where I want them. I've marked on them where I like it for full frame and the easel has measurements for 8x10.
If my final print isn't a standard size - that's why I cut my own overmat.
Frequently, if I'm printing on 8x10, it's for a sort of proof print anyway. For those, I'll usually print the full frame and use L-shaped pieces of mat board to help me figure out where I want to crop for the final print (if I decide to crop).
I've also found it's easier to say where I think someone else should have cropped than to do it on my own shots.
 

+1
 
Neal said:
Dear Mark,

Proof the image full frame. When printing for presentation, crop the image for best effect without concern for the paper size ratio. Enjoy the process.

Neal Wydra
Click to expand...

This. Most often I crop to fit the paper with even borders of 1/2" all around, but if something else fits the composition better I happily print it that way.

I don't understand this making relatively tiny prints on 8x10 paper but whatever suits....

I should say I used to do this since I rarely shoot 35mm B&W anymore. Most of my B&W is either 6x6 (printed square or rectangular as suits and whim), 645 or 4x5. Obviously the squares are an exception to "I don't understand relatively tiny prints on 8x10 paper" because they end up about 7" square with a 1/2 border on the short side of the paper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When capturing an image on film, I leave enough room at the edges for the final print to vary in aspect ratio. 35mm images are cropped to 8x10, 11x14, or 16x20.
 
I think it's important to stick to the original aspect ratio of 35mm film: 1:1.5 (24mm : 36mm). 35mm is such a nice shaped rectangle, it seems silly to change it.

I usually print 5 1/2" X 8 1/4" on 8x10 paper. That leaves me plenty of room to work with while framing.
 
Any more, I print 35mm borderless on 7x11 by slicing a sheet of 11x14 paper in half. It look far better to me than printing it 8x10.
 
Marco Buonocore said:
I think it's important to stick to the original aspect ratio of 35mm film: 1:1.5 (24mm : 36mm). 35mm is such a nice shaped rectangle, it seems silly to change it.
Click to expand...

Why?!? The 24mm x 36mm format is an accident of the original 35mm design by Leica. They could have selected 24mm x 18mm [the size of the 35mm movie frame], 24mm x 24mm [Hasselblad advertized that "Square is the perfect format."], 24mm x 28mm, 24mm x 30mm, 24mm x 32mm [early Japanese cameras used this for a short time], 24mm x 40mm, 24mm x 48mm, ...

Silly is being stuck in 24mm x 36mm regardless of the composition. Custom cut mats are make for a reason.
 
The way I think about this is, the world around us does not fit neatly into 2x3 (35mm ratio) or 4x5 (8x10, 11x14, 16x20 ratio). So why force myself to express them as such? Waste some paper/film maybe but so what? I'd like my image to look its best - simple as that. It'll be silly to capture way too much and crop very heavily but other than that, I have no problems with cropping as much as I need. Dirty borders are neat as well but that's a whole different area.
 
Print the image you want to display. That may be the original aspect ratio (with white spaces on the long sides), the 8X10 with some of the long aspect cropped, 8X10 with more severe cropping, or some other dimension and cropping. Most of us compose in the view finder, so the full aspect ratio print is closest to our original intent. But sometimes another cropping gives a better picture.
 

Whether it's an accident or not, in my opinion the 1:1.5 aspect is a graceful one. The 1:1.25 aspect of 4x5 film, for example, reminds me of a trash can or my Italian grandfather. Short and squat. Even worse is the 6x7 size. Horrible thing.

To each their own, of course. I think if you're printing 35mm, stick to the aspect.

And I cut all my own mats, so using custom mats is not an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register