In the past I have printed photos in what ever dimensions best fit the image. What I have eneded up is no two photos of the same dimensions. I feel (though I am not sure this is correct) that one should try to print photos in standard dimensions (8x10, 9.5x12 etc). First is this a valuable goal? What are the considerations? Second, I have found that when I try to meet standard sizes that when the image I want meets the width dimensions of the easel (say 8") the lenght of the image continues far outside the length of the easel (10") THus I end up with images that are (8"x13.25") Is there anyway to correct for this so the image I want can lie inside a standard dimension ratio or is the mistake permanent based on the way I framed the photo with my camera?

Thanks for anyone advise, input or musings JP

-- Jordan Plawner (Jordan.Plawner@Intel.com), April 07, 2002

Answers

If you print for your own edification, print any proportions and sizes you like. Standard printing-paper and mounting-board sizes apparently are based on view-camera film sizes, while roll film sizes seem to have evolved according to their own rationale, which apparently had nothing to do with printing-paper sizes. Only lately have some cameras taken into account that many prints are made on 8x10 paper and proportioned their negatives accordingly . And of course 8x10 is a standard for various things, such as theatrical head shots, news pictures, publicity shots, etc. If you print for others, you need to produce what they want -- often an 8x10.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols1@mindspring.com), April 07, 2002.

It would appear you have two issues. One, 35mm film never fits an 8 X10 paper size. This size film came along well after paper sizes had been determined based on Large format negatives that can be placed on a 8 X10 paper. Recently Ilford began making 8 1/2 X 11 size paper that a lot of people use for proofing negatives that have been placed in selvees 6X6. A suggestion I make to my students is to print according to subject matter . Mount all work on the same size boards, as this presents a nice uniform feel and overall look. They have been very happy with the results ( 16 X20 prints are an exception.) Anything up to 11X14 looks great on 14 X18 or 16 X20 board. Of course, like anything else in our photo world, one gets 10 absolute opinons from 5 different sources. Review advice figure out what suits your working methods and your vision for you work. Have fun, go for broke.

-- Ann Clancy (clancya@attbi.com), April 07, 2002.

I second Ann's advice to mount your various sized prints on boards of a standard dimension. Also you might try printing your full frame 35mm on a larger paper size, perhaps a 5.5X8 inch on 8X10 paper or 6X9 inch image on 8.5X11 paper.

-- Henry Ambrose (henry@henryambrose.com), April 07, 2002.

IMO a 6" X 9" (35 mm. full frame) horizontal image looks very nice on 8" X !0" paper with 1/2" borders on the top and sides and a 1 1/2" border on the bottom.

-- Robert Marvin (marvbej@earthlink.net), April 07, 2002.

If you print full frame, you are subject to the limitations of the dimensions of your negative. 35mm will print a 1:1.5 ratio. Therefore, standard print sizes for full frame will be 4x6, 8x12, 12x18, etc. Just take the smallest side and add 1/2 of that measurement to get the longer side. If you want to print on standard b&w paper sizes, you have to custom cut or project a smaller image on the paper to get full frame. A very common practice, and one that can look "artistic," is to file out a 35mm negative carrier and print full frame on a larger paper size so that a rough black border can be seen.

6x7cm printed full frame will almost exactly print 8x10 or 16x20. Because of its relative size to an 8x10 print, 6x7cm is often called an ideal format. 11x14 with 6x7cm takes a little cropping.

6x6cm, is obviously square. Not much rocket science required to figure this one out. Crop or cut is about the only choice.

-- Jim Rock (jameswrock@aol.com), April 07, 2002.

Jordan, I find it helpful to print my photos, not to 'standard dimensions', but to the same size on my standard paper, which is 11x14. There are two reasons for this. One, when I cut mats, they will all have the same size window, and when I shoot slides of my prints, I don't have to mess around with my copying set-up too much. Of course, I make exceptions. If the image 'demands' a different size, I print it that way.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), April 08, 2002.

FWIW, printing paper is available in international A4 size, and this is much closer to the 35mm frame ratio. You'll waste less paper buying it in A4 size.
Alternatively, 16" x 12" paper can be cut in half to give two sheets of 8" x 12"; again, much less wasteful when printing full-frame from 35mm.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), April 12, 2002.

Pete, who sells 12x16 paper? I have never seen it available (just looked up the various fiber paper sizes on B&H and it wasn't an option). Thanks for the info.

-- Jim Rock (jameswrock@aol.com), April 12, 2002.

Ah! I think that 16 x 12 might be a size peculiar to the UK and European market. We don't often come across 11 x 14 over here, but that appears to be a common size in the US.
I'm dismayed to see that the range of sizes of fibre-based paper seems to have been greatly cut recently too.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), April 18, 2002.

That explains it. I should have noticed the uk in you e-mail address. We drive on the right side of the road to get our 11x14 paper. I guess it's required that we drive on the left if we want 12x16.

-- Jim Rock (jameswrock@aol.com), April 19, 2002.