Your Preferred Print Size for 35mm for Display?

[2F/2F]

...unless the whole of the 3:2 image is printed inside an 8"x10" sheet with an odd-shaped border!

This is exactly what is done...and then the border is trimmed away after tacking on a piece of dry mount tissue, or the border overmatted up to the image edges. It is known as a 6x9 print (or 6-1/2 by 9-3/4 if you stretch it to the max), and it is how I was taught to print as a beginner.

I can't believe how many people let paper sizes dictate their print dimensions/ratios. Lots of people routinely crop away large parts of their 35mm image, "destroying" their original composition just so it fits a common size of enlarging paper for no good reason. Its nuts! If you are working for someone who requires a print of a certain aspect ratio, so be it. You know that when shooting, so you can compose for it. It makes perfect sense in that case...but if you are shooting "fine art", this makes no sense whatsoever to me.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I print either on 8x10 or 11x14 paper from all formats, and if the negative is rectangular I make the image with a 1" border on both papers, which gives me the same aspect ratio on both types (3:4, which I really like whatever 2F/2F says). So 6x8" or 9x12". It makes the image easy to mount and over-mat without having to dry-mount it (I'm trying to religiously simplify my approach and I really don't need to own a dry-mount press).
Then I use 16x20 ArtCare frames with UV glass for everything and cut my own over-mats to fit. Sometimes, if the image is large enough I can re-cut the included over-mat to size.

 

[Steve Smith]

If it looks good cropped to fit a piece of 8" x 10" paper then that's how I print it. Otherwise I will print it full frame onto 8" x 10" as Mr 2F/2F suggests.




Steve.

 

[Kvistgaard]

Usually 20x25 cm paper, with an app. 2 cm white border on all sides. 13x18 to an increasing extent, have begun to like the smaller prints (curiously coinciding with my step up in negative size, apols for straying from the OP).

Paper price plays a role, I would like to print bigger, but have to consider the incremental cost of stepping up in size. Being an amateur, I have no way of passing on the cost.

 

[Ken N]

Personally, I really like two-inch borders on an 11x14 print. So, for a 35mm neg, that's about 7x10.

 

[Tina Kino]

18x24 cm when I want to scan the paper and put it on web.
20x30 cm and 27x40 cm for putting them on wall.

I don't really get why there's so little 20x30cm (or A4 sized) paper around.. surely people would appreciate sheets in 2:3 ratio in that range?

 

[Arthurwg]

11x14

 

[Tina Kino]

@Arthurwg 11x14" is 27.9x35.6cm - so that's not a 2:3 ratio (as your 35mm negative is), but rather 2:2.5

 

[MattKing]

@Arthurwg 11x14" is 27.9x35.6cm - so that's not a 2:3 ratio (as your 35mm negative is), but rather 2:2.5

Correct, but if you use 1/4" borders, the ratio goes to 2:2.57

 

[GregY]

I typically will print full frame 35mm on 11x14" paper. Any bigger print size i prefer to use medium or large format.

 

[koraks]

I don't really get why there's so little 20x30cm (or A4 sized) paper around.. surely people would appreciate sheets in 2:3 ratio in that range?

Aspect ratios and paper annoyance.

Hello. I’m annoyed and maybe it’s due to work stress but maybe not. I like 4:3, I like the classic photo ratios. I don’t understand why photo paper for inkjets comes in A4 and A3 etc. this leaves me either cropping - something I refuse to do under any circumstance - or with uneven borders. Or...

www.photrio.com

Gripe: The Misery of 3:2 35mm Aspect Ratio

12"x18" + 2" border: 16x22 not 16x20 21"x14" + 1.5" border = 24x17" not 24x20 9x6"+ 0.5" border = 10x7 not 10x8 12x8 + 1" border = 14x10 not 14x11 12x8 + 4" border = 20x16 okay that's a size but 2/3rd of it is matte I'm just perpetually surprised that given 35mm-aspect's centrality in image...

www.photrio.com

 

[Don_ih]

I like reading the original posts in the older threads and seeing how many people are gone. At least @Mick Fagan is still here.

I don't print bigger than 11x14, usually - rarely print that big. For putting on the wall, I generally crop to fill 8x10. I don't put photos on the wall that would suffer from being cropped that way - and these photos are all family photos (but most of the "on-the-wall photos are from 4x5). All other photos, I print to 8x10 without cropping.

 

[tcolgate]

For printing for myself to stick on a wall I go with 8x10 (this goes for half frame too). It's a nice size to see from a bit of a distance, even with my rubbish eyes. If I'm printing to give to other people I'll usually do an 8x10 and sometimes an 5x7 too. If the print is a "surprise gift", it might be something they like, but don't want to stick on a wall, a framed 8x10 is a bit big to free stand on a shelf, 5x7 is a bit more sensible (basically, might photos might not be worth /that/ much of their wall space).

 

[Rick A]

I used to print 35mm full frame on 11x14 cut to 7x11. I've since purchased paper by the roll and cut 8x12 for them. It works great for 6x9 negatives too. I own a mat cutter and custom cut for mounting prints.

 

[Tina Kino]

Aspect ratios and paper annoyance.

Hello. I’m annoyed and maybe it’s due to work stress but maybe not. I like 4:3, I like the classic photo ratios. I don’t understand why photo paper for inkjets comes in A4 and A3 etc. this leaves me either cropping - something I refuse to do under any circumstance - or with uneven borders. Or...

www.photrio.com

Gripe: The Misery of 3:2 35mm Aspect Ratio

12"x18" + 2" border: 16x22 not 16x20 21"x14" + 1.5" border = 24x17" not 24x20 9x6"+ 0.5" border = 10x7 not 10x8 12x8 + 1" border = 14x10 not 14x11 12x8 + 4" border = 20x16 okay that's a size but 2/3rd of it is matte I'm just perpetually surprised that given 35mm-aspect's centrality in image...

www.photrio.com

Thank you for the links.
I'm aware this topic has been covered already, and (quoting you from the second thread you linked to) -

It's one of those 'why' questions that just won't produce a satisfying answer!

For what it's worth though - I'm not in the US, but in Germany - where ISO 216 with it's (almost) 2:3 aspect ratio is standard - as it is in the UK - so while there are of course all the long-established sizes in photographic paper, it makes you wonder why there's so (very) little in 2:3 from Ilford, for example.

Also it would be fantastic if there was more paper in that ratio - so you could print pretty much as you composed in the finder of your 35mm camera, and without cropping or dealing with uneven borders later, which I'd argue is a big deal - especially with a small negative like that, but also just in general.

 

[Pieter12]

Photo paper sizes are most likely dependent on the equipment used by photo paper coaters. And I doubt any new equipment is being manufactured, so those sizes aren't going to change. If you look at what is available in inkjet papers (not rolls), you will see they correspond more to press printing paper sizes rather than photo paper sizes.

 

[GregY]

@Arthurwg 11x14" is 27.9x35.6cm - so that's not a 2:3 ratio (as your 35mm negative is), but rather 2:2.5

I print the full negative....not the proportions of the paper.

 

[Rayt]

When I actively printed in the darkroom I preferred full frame on 8x10 fiber paper. I prefer the richer tones I got from smaller prints. I printed 11x14 as well but they were for the wall and intended to be viewed from distance. When I printed inkjet from an Epson R2400 I printed as large as I could from the scans of the same negatives. I was busy with kids and day job so never progressed with inkjet printing skill. Now I let a pro do it.