What do you do about aspect ratio?

[Ariston]

I have recently started printing some of my photographs. I am becoming frustrated, because the native aspect ratio of a 35mm camera does not jive well with standard frames (8x10 especially). I frame a shot the way I like it, and when I crop or distort the image to make it fit a standard print size, it really screws up what I worked to get right in the first place.

How do you guys handle this problem? Buying custom frames for my lowly photographs is not really an option for me...

 

[Brook Hill]

C
Crop the paper to fit the negative. The strips of paper you cut off can be used as test strips.

Tony

 

[BrianShaw]

I generally frame so that I’ve accommodated “excess” so I can crop for my desired print format.

I plan for a few “standard sizes” of prints: 4-5; 8-10; 11-14. And 8-8; 10-10.

 

[Luckless]

I second the idea of getting a test strip off your paper from cutting it down to meet your desired form factor.

Have you considered buying uncut mats and custom cutting them to fit larger frames? I've basically given up trying to find reliable and cheap square frames, and just use 8x10 frames for my square prints.

 

[Pieter12]

Print the full-frame on 8x10 paper, leaving a white border with slightly more top and bottom than sides. If you want to get fancy, make the bottom border a bit wider than the top.

 

[cramej]

You don't have to fill the entire sheet of paper...

It took me a long time to get over the idea that I had to print a full 8x10 with a 1/4" border all around.

 

[removed account4]

I crop the negative to fit whatever it is I want it to look like. I buy sheets of matboard and cut my own windows
and frame to whatever standard sizes are, or I get Plakmounts so I give the company the prints and they mount and laminate
it to whatever it is that I want it to be sized at. They are UV glazed and look great. Been doing this ( plakmounts ) for the better part of 15 years, and cutting my own mats since about IDK 1984? ). sirius glass mentioned plakmounts a long long time ago in a now burried post, and it turns out the company that makes the equipment or something like that is about 1/2 hour away from where I live, so I just had everything mounted local. Its extremely cost effective ( and it looks good ) and costs less than matting and framing even if I cut the mats and make the frames.

YMMV
John

 

[ciniframe]

For those who want to shoot and print the full 24X36mm frame. It is also good to remember that the number of 35mm SLR’s that have 100% viewfinders can be counted on one hand. ( and don’t even talk about 35mm RF)
And...typical negative carriers for 35mm ‘full frame’ also crop a bit of the negative. So, it can be difficult and not always wise to include important compotisional elements too close to the frame edge.

 

[guangong]

For what it’s worth, at some time or other, I do all the above.

 

[foc]

When I shot weddings on 35mm (Reala) in the 80's & 90's, the standard print size for an album was 8x10 inch. If I shot a family group (landscape) or a bridal portrait, I needed to leave space at the sides of the 35mm frame so there was no cut-off of the subject.

In fact, it was easy to learn how much space was needed in the viewfinder, but I also put a lined focus screen into my Olympus OM4ti that helped with keeping the subject inside the limits.

I simply composed the shot to suit the final print size.

I see a lot of digital shots and they are nearly all shot with the subject filling all the frame and so will be cut off in anything that isn't 3:2 ratio.

Leave some space around your subject. You can always crop in BUT you can't crop out. (reminds me of the old saying, measure twice, cut once)

 

[tedr1]

to the OP

your idea for how the picture appears has a value that far outweighs the aspect ratio of the paper in-hand. Print the way you see it, paper is cheap, crop and discard or use as test strips as others have suggested. Printing can be fun, play with the materials and the processes, be alert for mind-traps like predetermined aspect ratios and push them aside.

PS FWIW the older formats that predate 35mm were different proportions, many closer to 8x10, and there were, and are, many other common film formats which are "less wide" than 35mm.

 

[Ariston]

I don't know if I was clear, but I don't mind discarding unused portions of a print. I want to be able to frame an image cheaply with an off-the-rack frame. Unfortunately, the 3:2 ratio doesn't allow for that. John, I may just end up doing like you and buying a stack of cheap, uncut mattes.

 

[Jim Jones]

I'm with Brian Shaw, make the print fit the available mats and frames. Some subjects might not look their best this way, but being practical can beat being perfect.

 

[DWThomas]

There was a somewhat brief period back in the 1980s? 90s? when some photo processors offered 8x12 prints from 35mm. I often wondered why that wasn't more common, but finding suitable frames was likely part of the reason. There are some varieties of "sectional" frames where the sections are sold separately in pairs of various lengths. That allows creating a 10 x 14 frame or 8 x 22 frame, or whatever floats your boat. The only obstacle with that is you are likely on your own for mats and glazing. Mats can be cut with a Dexter hand cutter and a straight edge, though I won't say it's not tedious. Acrylic glazing can be cut using a scoring tool, and glass is scary, but not actually that difficult once you've done it a few times. I suspect most "glass" shops would do that for less than an arm and a leg. There are online suppliers of frames that will do at least some selection of custom frame, glazing, and mat sizes. Generally that is more expensive, certainly more than off the shelf stuff at MalWart or the like, but some of the online sources are surprisingly reasonable.

Another approach is to use a frame somewhat larger than you might normally choose which helps make the difference in aspect ratio between print and frame a bit less obvious. For most of my recent history I've been cutting my own mats -- occasionally even made a frame or two -- for a few oddball projects. I frame my square prints, about 10 inches or so, optically centered in a 16x20 frame; get an occasional pat on the back for presentation.

Another approach, which might beg for a four-blade enlarging easel, is to print the image in the center of a larger piece of paper, one large enough to install it in a window mat with a larger opening and let the wider borders of the print fill in the area around the image. What to do depends a bit on your vision for the final presentation (and maybe your bank balance!)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Do you change your feet so you can wear the only shoe size some cheap store sells? I'd look around for a better store.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have recently started printing some of my photographs. I am becoming frustrated, because the native aspect ratio of a 35mm camera does not jive well with standard frames (8x10 especially). I frame a shot the way I like it, and when I crop or distort the image to make it fit a standard print size, it really screws up what I worked to get right in the first place.

How do you guys handle this problem? Buying custom frames for my lowly photographs is not really an option for me...

never bothered me; I print full-frame onto 8x10 or 11x14 paper.

 

[mshchem]

I don't know if I was clear, but I don't mind discarding unused portions of a print. I want to be able to frame an image cheaply with an off-the-rack frame. Unfortunately, the 3:2 ratio doesn't allow for that. John, I may just end up doing like you and buying a stack of cheap, uncut mattes.

I cut my own matte board when I frame something. If you want to preserve the entire frame, print a small print on a big sheet of paper. You may need to cut a negative mask for your enlarger carrier. I don't print sprocket holes but it's fun (sometimes) to be able to see the entire negative on the print.

I shoot a lot of 6x9 120 negatives, that leaves me some room to crop if I want. When I shoot 6x6 I almost always make square prints. I love square format.

 

[jamesaz]

Years ago I bought a dexter mat cutter. Cutting your own mats is not difficult to learn to do with precision. It only requires practice, arithmetic, a strait edge and remembering to change the blade before it gets dull. There are probably youtubes to show you how. I position the print in the mat and secure it with hinging tape and back it with uncut board before framing. Doing mats myself opened up new aspects for presentation. Good luck.

 

[tomkatf]

I love the 2:3 aspect ratio, so I generally print 35mm full frame at 6x9"-ish on 8x10 paper and 8x12"-ish on 11x14 paper, slightly bottom weighted. The white paper borders make an nice frame for the image. Sometimes with a thin black border (four bladed easel) or the full frame border (as below).

 

[R.Gould]

I print full frame on 91/2x12 paper, yes I waste paper, but it means I can compose to whatever size I am using, either 66,645 or 35mm, and set my masking frame to the the full frame size of the negative,

 

[AgX]

I crop the negative to fit whatever it is I want it to look like.

The OP however wants to stick to the given aspect ratio of 1/1.5 and composes the image for that.,
He inquires on how to deal with the frames then, which typically are not 1/1.5.

 

[CMoore]

As others have said.......
Shouldn't you be using 11x14 paper.?
Isn't that closer to "full frame" for 35mm.?

Then again 6x9 fits just fine on 8x10

 

[John51]

I recently bought two photo frames for 10x7 from a charity shop. Don't know if they're still made but it's close to 3:2.

 

[tezzasmall]

OP: One of the cheapest and easiest ways to mount a print is to mat it in a frame - but that can initially be expensive, having to buy the board, a mount cutter and rule and a self healing mat etc etc. But even now, when I'm NOT on a budget, I still quite often cut a mat out of 'bendy' (usually) white card avvailable from many shops (about 300gsm?), rather than the much heavier mounting board. It's very easily cut with a sharp knife and definitely easier to cut than mount board!

Once in a frame, even a print that is mounted with a mat cut from white paper can look good and make your print look more 'professional'. Get used to doing it like this and build up to a 'proper' mount cutter etc both when you're ready and have saved up enough to buy it all.

Terry S

 

[removed account4]

Do you change your feet so you can wear the only shoe size some cheap store sells? I'd look around for a better store.

Cheep is good, velcro'ed feet is good too. I wear only archival Museum Gear™ shoes.

The OP however wants to stick to the given aspect ratio of 1/1.5 and composes the image for that.,
He inquires on how to deal with the frames then, which typically are not 1/1.5.

Hi AgX -
The OP asked what we do .. and I told him, I crop or print full frame, cut my own mats or have it plak mounted. Matboard isn't too expensive, frames can be purchsed inexpensively ( 2nd hand or new ) and after one cuts his or her first mat it pays for itself. Even if someone buys a used dry mount press to [archivally] dry mount his or her prints onto matboard, it pays for itself after the 2nd time. I recently had a 16x20 print dry mounted on a sheet of 20x24 matboard for an event and I was astounded at how much the frame shop charged me. I could have bought a dry mount press + matboard and done it myself for less.

as usual i said YMMV because different strokes for different folks
John