David Hughes
David Hughes
I often wonder why people buy full frame cameras and expensive lenses and then print - they say - on 10" x 8" paper.
Full frame is 3:2 aspect ratio and that means 12" x 8" and so you are cropping a lot off to get on to 10x8. And wasting a good lens as the money goes on getting the edges right and they are being discarded.
Or do you print the whole frame and do it 10" by 6.67" and trim off the bottom of the print?
FWIW, I print 3:2 on A4 paper and that means about !!.7" by about 7.8" which is near enough. The only alternative I can see is buying 13" x 19" paper and cutting it down to 12x8; meaning more waste...
Regards, David
Full frame is 3:2 aspect ratio and that means 12" x 8" and so you are cropping a lot off to get on to 10x8. And wasting a good lens as the money goes on getting the edges right and they are being discarded.
Or do you print the whole frame and do it 10" by 6.67" and trim off the bottom of the print?
FWIW, I print 3:2 on A4 paper and that means about !!.7" by about 7.8" which is near enough. The only alternative I can see is buying 13" x 19" paper and cutting it down to 12x8; meaning more waste...
Regards, David
KenR
Well-known
Waste? What waste?
Waste? What waste?
When I print from my 6x6 camera, I generally trim 11x14 paper to 11x11 and use the “waste” for test strips.
Waste? What waste?
When I print from my 6x6 camera, I generally trim 11x14 paper to 11x11 and use the “waste” for test strips.
Horatio
Masked photographer
It's the same aspect ratio as 35mm, so anyone wet printing on 8x10 paper faces the same dilemma: what to crop, or how much border to print. 8x10 paper is scaled for 4x5 and 8x10 negatives, correct?
retinax
Well-known
That's like saying "why walk through the park when you have a car and could be driving". A sort of sunk cost fallacy perhaps. Let your vision, and not the paper NOR the camera, determine the aspect ratio. Sure, having paper in different aspect ratios available would be nice. However as someone has mentioned, us darkroom printers need test strips anyway.
Btw, a 2:3 image looks good on a shorter format paper when printed with wider margins. There's a point where the margins on all sides are the same width, but wider margins on top and bottom, or bottom only, can look good as well.
I always printed 6x9” or smaller on 8x10” paper. I hate borderless prints. No matter what size paper I use I print the full ratio and the full photo with a border.
philslizzy
Member
When I was a wedding photographer I used 35mm and 6x6. My photos were framed and taken with the end result in mind taking into account actual lab print size, print crop and page overlay size/format.
These days I use a mix of formats in film and digital. I prefer my digital camera in 2x3 mode, if it's not full frame, to mimic 35mm. I can always crop down.
I don't print any particular size. I crop each photo as it seems fit and make overlays to match.
Traditional paper and negative sizes have always been at odds, I don't ever remember printing paper being the same format as 35mm with perhaps the exception of 'enprint' size.
These days I use a mix of formats in film and digital. I prefer my digital camera in 2x3 mode, if it's not full frame, to mimic 35mm. I can always crop down.
I don't print any particular size. I crop each photo as it seems fit and make overlays to match.
Traditional paper and negative sizes have always been at odds, I don't ever remember printing paper being the same format as 35mm with perhaps the exception of 'enprint' size.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
My choice of aspect ratio is entirely determined by me, not the paper or camera manufacturer.
The 8x10 or 4/5 aspect ratio has always been my favorite. I do seek some consistency as my photos are normally viewed as a series, not individually. That is why all my photos are horizontal. I want to avoid having 22 horizontals and 2 verticals displayed together. I have done a series presented totally as square. No matter what ratio I use, it is kept in mind while photographing, not a later decision.
It has never bothered me in the least that I lose a bit of a 35mm image to make it 8x10. Nor trimming a 6x6 neg to that. That goes back to my wet darkroom days.
The 8x10 or 4/5 aspect ratio has always been my favorite. I do seek some consistency as my photos are normally viewed as a series, not individually. That is why all my photos are horizontal. I want to avoid having 22 horizontals and 2 verticals displayed together. I have done a series presented totally as square. No matter what ratio I use, it is kept in mind while photographing, not a later decision.
It has never bothered me in the least that I lose a bit of a 35mm image to make it 8x10. Nor trimming a 6x6 neg to that. That goes back to my wet darkroom days.
zuiko85
Mentor
I like 35mm half frame. On 8x10 paper you can print 6x8 for a 1 inch border on all sides. Magnification is just over 8X, about maximum for typical viewing distance for 8x10 print.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Thanks everyone; it's been very interesting reading your replies.
I meant to come back yesterday but the day before full lockdown was a day of chaos...
Regards, David
I meant to come back yesterday but the day before full lockdown was a day of chaos...
Regards, David
View Range
Well-known
This issue is not just for 8x10. Wouldn't it be great if the camera, paper, mat and frame industries got together and standardized on sizes? To me the frame sets the paper size and the mat sets the image size printed on the paper. I could go to custom frames, but custom frames add to expense and time.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I print on 8x10 inch paper because it's an available paper size to buy. Or 8.5x11 inch because that's available for my inkjet printer.
What format proportions I print a photograph to, with any camera, depends on what I want out of the photograph—just because my camera has a 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, or 1:1 format ratio doesn't mean that's the format proportion I think suits a particular photograph best. I crop whatever I am shooting to whatever format I think suits the photograph, and then I print it on whatever paper I can get and that fits in my printer to whatever size I feel the photograph ought to be on paper.
Being constrained to only use the full native format of whatever camera I'm shooting with, and then being constrained again to only print to the full native format of whatever paper I can obtain, seems an unnecessary and silly set of arbitrary constraints to have to burden yourself with.
G
What format proportions I print a photograph to, with any camera, depends on what I want out of the photograph—just because my camera has a 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, or 1:1 format ratio doesn't mean that's the format proportion I think suits a particular photograph best. I crop whatever I am shooting to whatever format I think suits the photograph, and then I print it on whatever paper I can get and that fits in my printer to whatever size I feel the photograph ought to be on paper.
Being constrained to only use the full native format of whatever camera I'm shooting with, and then being constrained again to only print to the full native format of whatever paper I can obtain, seems an unnecessary and silly set of arbitrary constraints to have to burden yourself with.
G
retinax
Well-known
How about custom mats in standard frames? Custom mats are cheap, check ebay. IMHO it can look good as long as the mat and frame are rather large compared to the picture window.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I hope no one thought I was suggesting this.
I was/have been surprised to see 10x8 mentioned over and over again but seldom see 12x8 mentioned; yet the latest and best suggest (due to all those pixels) 12x8 would be used. There are a lot of Leica camera and lens users on this forum, I have noticed.
FWIW, I often find what isn't mentioned more interesting and wonder why, then I ask.
And I have been shooting slide film mainly for 55 to 60 years; even in my Olympus µ-II P&S. I hope that makes a point about framing and aspect ratios...
Regards, David
Last edited:
Dralowid
Michael
I thought the point of 10 x 8 was fantastic contact prints.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Count the pixels and you'll see why ;-)
Seriously, a while ago I wondered how long it took for 6x4 to appear after the Leica was launched. Even the London specialists in 1939 weren't showing it or anything in 3:2 aspect ratio. Ignoring the small (quarter plate and below) bromide papers you could get 10x8, 12x10 and 15x12. Those were from Agfa, Ilford and Kodak; so Agfa made 35mm film and they or the specialists ignored the paper to film match...
And looking in a 1912 catalogue from the best of them all, the largest bromide paper was whole plate but contact papers went up to 12x10.
Regards, David
Dralowid
Michael
In some ways I'm surprised they didn't stick with traditional paper sizes, Foolscap Ocatvo, Double Elephant etc etc!
Would have been a lot more fun but then I suppose available film sizes rather than paper sizes dictated all formats
Would have been a lot more fun but then I suppose available film sizes rather than paper sizes dictated all formats
David Hughes
David Hughes
Yes, and looking at the early film sizes why 70mm from Kodak and then a few decades later on 60mm although Rollei and Voigtlaender, being German, might have settled that.
Most of the early catalogues I looked at were selling quarter, half and whole plate and 5x4 contact papers. Then a lot of odd sizes crept in by the 30's. I was printing B&W from very early cameras ages ago for display and looking at contact papers wondered how they did it without a lot of trimming afterwards with scissors...
Regards, David
Most of the early catalogues I looked at were selling quarter, half and whole plate and 5x4 contact papers. Then a lot of odd sizes crept in by the 30's. I was printing B&W from very early cameras ages ago for display and looking at contact papers wondered how they did it without a lot of trimming afterwards with scissors...
Regards, David
benlees
Well-known
I used to use the cheapo RC paper from Silverprint that was 12x9.5 inch size. Not much more money than the 10x8, but as a 6x4.5 enthusiast was much more satisfying. Also worked quite well for 35mm.
leicapixie
Well-known
When I printed in wet darkroom, using 8x10 paper, mainly printed 6x9"
I liked the wide white borders and with Leitz easel could have black margins!
I seldom, almost never cropped! I think cropping is sloppy observance.
It's my opinion and it works great with the Kodachrome I shot at the time!
Digital has given one 8x12 size, a wonderful gain in size!
I no longer make huge prints as there is no place to mount and view.
I barely tolerate square images (but adore Michael Kenna) and find 4x5"; 8x10" sort of stodgy and squarish.
This is me, you all do whatever makes you happy!
Happy printing!
I liked the wide white borders and with Leitz easel could have black margins!
I seldom, almost never cropped! I think cropping is sloppy observance.
It's my opinion and it works great with the Kodachrome I shot at the time!
Digital has given one 8x12 size, a wonderful gain in size!
I no longer make huge prints as there is no place to mount and view.
I barely tolerate square images (but adore Michael Kenna) and find 4x5"; 8x10" sort of stodgy and squarish.
This is me, you all do whatever makes you happy!
Happy printing!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
When you work with transparencies and do not print, you are constrained to the native format unless you like to mask your slides before showing them. I don't understand the point of discussing paper sizes if you are a transparency maker.
8x12 paper would be ideal for printing standard 35mm full format, but you can't get 8x12 paper in cut sheet sizing, only in roll paper. You can either get 8x10 or 9.5x12 in cut sheet sizing. So you either crop or waste paper.
I stopped shooting slides in 1985 or so because I found that for my purposes it was a waste of time and money. Negative films were simply a much better value proposition, with more latitude and more flexibility in rendering to a final image.
G