Print size.

[georg16nik]

It depends on whether you prefer to frame at the moment of shooting or when printing.
Traditionalists print the “gate” contour + perforations, in which case you cover 8x10.

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

 

[MattKing]

I like printing on 12x16 paper. I think it would be great if 35mm cameras created frames of 24mm x 32mm.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

+1 He gets it.

 

[eddie]

Anytime arbitrary "rules" are imposed, it will eventually (if not sooner) impinge on creativity.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

As cleary refuted by

Anytime arbitrary "rules" are imposed, it will eventually (if not sooner) impinge on creativity.

LMAOROTFWBMHATW*






* LMAOROTFWBMHATW ==> Laughing My Ass Off Rolling On The Floor While Banging My Head Against The Wall

 

[eddie]

LMAOROTFWBMHATW*

I don't see why you're doing all those letter things. Everything you've posted on this thread agrees with my post.

 

[tkamiya]

reminds me of a trash can or my Italian grandfather.

Buahahahahaha........!

 

[tkamiya]

I guess this thread proves some people sees their world in certain proportions. Interesting.... I wonder what format the said Italian grandfather shot??

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't see why you're doing all those letter things. Everything you've posted on this thread agrees with my post.

eddie, I am laughing with you, not at you. Your quotation bears out the absurdity of the first quote. I have learned a lot from you over the years.

 

[eddie]

Sorry, Sirius. I missed the "as clearly refuted by" sentence. I knew we agreed...

 

[Roger Cole]

After seeing Sandy King's article in View Camera on Sam Wang's circular photographs I've been tempted to experiment with this too. A complete break from rectangles entirely:

http://www.btzs.org/Gallery/SamWang/

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?111102-Why-rectangular

The netherworld must be freezing over because I agree completely with Sirius. Use what works for the scene and be free to be creative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sorry, Sirius. I missed the "as clearly refuted by" sentence. I knew we agreed...

I added that clarification after I read your post. No need for an apology.

 

[Sirius Glass]

After seeing Sandy King's article in View Camera on Sam Wang's circular photographs I've been tempted to experiment with this too. A complete break from rectangles entirely:

http://www.btzs.org/Gallery/SamWang/

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?111102-Why-rectangular

The netherworld must be freezing over because I agree completely with Sirius. Use what works for the scene and be free to be creative.

Edison considered a round format for movies as a more natural format.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The netherworld must be freezing over because I agree completely with Sirius.

Shhh ... if you do not say anything about the subject agreement, neither will I.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I use as much of the paper Ican but crop with a masking frame to get thin straight-edged cleanborders.

 

[Tony-S]

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.

4x5 and 6x7 film are the same 1.25 aspect ratio.

 

[Sirius Glass]

4x5 and 6x7 film are the same 1.25 aspect ratio.

Don't quibble about the facts when crossing a bridge with troll living under it.

 

[Hatchetman]

huh?

 

[Roger Cole]

4x5 and 6x7 film are the same 1.25 aspect ratio.

That was my first thought when reading that too but then I decided:

Don't quibble about the facts when crossing a bridge with troll living under it.

This.

 

[MattKrull]

4x5 and 6x7 film are the same 1.25 aspect ratio.

Umm... Is my math wrong? Because 5/4 = 1.25 and 7/6 = 1.16... so... not the same (close enough depends on what you're trying to do - dividing a pizza, sure; posting on the internet, Dear God no).

I use as much of the paper Ican but crop with a masking frame to get thin straight-edged cleanborders.

That's what I usually go for.

 

[Ian C]

My 4” x 5” Riteway film holders have a format window of 95.4mm x 120.0mm for an aspect ratio to two decimal places of 1.26.

My Mamiya RZ67 format is 56mm x 69.5mm, which gives an aspect ratio to two decimal places of 1.24. Other makes or models of 6 x 7cm cameras or 6 x 7cm film backs might use slightly different dimensions. The same differences for 4” x 5” film holders might be seen among different makes or models.

For most practical purposes these two formats are close enough to each other to consider them the same.

 

[darkosaric]

Umm... Is my math wrong? Because 5/4 = 1.25 and 7/6 = 1.16... so... not the same (close enough depends on what you're trying to do - dividing a pizza, sure; posting on the internet, Dear God no).

No, your math is good. They are not the same.

And again I post this link http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[Tony-S]

No, your math is good. They are not the same.

You'd be surprised at how many people think 6x7cm cameras produce images that are 6x7cm in size.

 

[Tony-S]

Don't quibble about the facts when crossing a bridge with troll living under it.

I'm optimistic they just don't know and are willing to learn something new!

 

[darkosaric]

You'd be surprised at how many people think 6x7cm cameras produce images that are 6x7cm in size.

Well, I am one of those it seems . I know that square are 56x56mm, but in some cameras I get 6x6 cm, so I was thinking that 6x7 are 6x7 cm.