8x10 versus 8x12 prints

If you are bent on 8x10 composition, then find a way to mark or mask your viewfinder accordingly, or mentally allow for it.Many, if not most shooters allow for a little space around their subjects to allow for various print formats.

If you know in advance your final image will be 8x10, then you should allow room for cropping. But if you getting 8x12's done and are happy with them, no reason to change.

Hi Bill, I always request full frame 8x10 prints which are 10 inches long but about 6.5 or so inches wide instead of cropped 8x10s. I like the look of the slightly longer print. These should fit in a standard frame with a custom mat. You could think about the necessary crop in camera but you miss out on the better looking (IMO) full frame format.

I'm interested which others prefer.

I like pics with 2:3 ratio. 4x6, 8x12, etc.

Sounds like an experience very similar to my own. I have always tried to make full-frame exposures in the view finder. After all, the 34X36mm slide or negative is pretty small, so why not try and use all of it? I learned the answer to this question a few years ago when I responded to suggestions that I print some of my covered bridge photos for sale at a local craft shop.

As you have discovered, if you are printing a full-frame 35mm negative for an 8X10 framed photo, the result most often is a 6.5" X 10" print. Precut inexpensive mats do not exist in this size. I had to pay a shop $6.00 per mat, which ruined my chances for a reasonable profit.

If I remember correctly, I considered making 8X12" prints to get away from this problem. The trouble was I would have had to spend a great deal more for larger photo paper, paper waste due to trimming would have been greater, and 8X12" mats didn't exist, either. Not that it made a difference, but I was able to locate a few economical 8X12" frames at discount stores.

The only way I know to get beyond this aspect ratio problem is to invest the time acquiring framing/matting skills (and equipment).

Sorry I wasn't much help-hopefully others can offer you some effective advice. I'm interested in reading it myself.

The Greeks thought that a rectangle with the ratio of the lengths of the sides equal to the Golden Ratio ( (1+sqrt(5))/2) = 1.618...) was the most aesthetically pleasing. They built the Parthenon and other buildings using this ratio. According to this reasoning, an 8x10 print should really be (rounding off) 8 x 12.9 or 6.2 x 10. An 8 x12 is therefore reasonably close to this ideal! I have made a few B&W prints by cutting 11 x 14 in. paper in half resulting in two 7 x 14 in. prints which have approximately the Golden Ratio of side lengths. Unfortunately, this forces me to cut my own mats, which never look as good as the pre-cut ones. Although my prints with this ratio look great, for example, for horizontal landscapes, I think that the best ratio is subject related. A vertical close-up portrait of a persons face would look peculiar printed this way (as it would printed 8 x 12).

Ahh, I seem to be running at one typo per submission. I meant, of course, 24X36mm in my post above.

Dear William,

I am saying this tongue in cheek, so, please bear with my gripe:

Simply do it like the newspaper do their ads nowadays: fatten the 2:3 aspect ratio to 4:5 for 8 by 10 inch prints in photoshop. Your insects will look fatter in one principal direction, and you will be able to use the cheaper 8 by 10 premade frames. Who knows what those pesky insects look like, anyway.

Even a pic of Schwarzy's was stretched in our local newspaper, giving him a tall stretched head and a gazelle type look on our front page. What a disgrace ... to journalism ...

One irritating fact is that photo paper is not available in 8x12 sizes either (B&W, I mean). You can get color enlargements for cheap in that size; I assume they use roll paper and just cut it longer.

I buy 10 x14 matts with an 8x12 opening at Light Impressions - I don't care to crop my 35 mm images.

Thanks everybody, for your replies. It makes me feel better about myself knowing there are others out there that like the full frame 8x12 look. And I'll try to find the Light Impressions Co. that sell mats for 8x12s. Thanks again, Bill

Unfortunately, I have many images that can't afford to be cropped. Most of them were taken with a 50mm lens and I couldn't get any more in the frame (when your subject is at infinity, moving back doesn't help) My solution is to make my own frames/mats (I want to do this anyway for some odd size prints) Anyway, the original decision about how to compose the shot depends on the subject/scene. If 35mm format wasn't so small, I'd shoot everything wider view and crop later, but then you might as well be using APS film (even smaller) I disagree about making the image fit the frame (the term is aspect ratio... try another search for this) Some subjects (like Half Dome) need to be "accurate" and look odd when "stretched". You need to make the choice when you take the shot. One small benefit to 8 by 10 is that many lenses tend to "vignette" towards the edges (get darker), so cropping a bit off each side (longest dimension) helps get rid of the most noticable part (towards the corners) I'm glad you brought this up because even though I know better, it's hard to break the habit of composing full frame... now i'll have to practice what I preach (thanks for reminding me)

I found an interesting solution to the aurora pic I posted... the dark area at the bottom... by adding more black to the bottom (increasing the vertical dimension) I get the aspect ratio I want (2:3) and it actually makes the image work better (I did this before, but don't have the file anymore... the one I posted was original shot) Anyway, there are other shots I took with a wide angle lens (28mm) that can't be cropped... usually horizontal compositions, but in this case, a vertical. I hate to lose any of it... top or bottom, so I'm stuck with 8 by 12 for this one.

Here's one that could easily be cropped... in fact it looks better with some off the top and bottom. After looking through my images, I see many that can't be cropped... too late now (hindsight is 20/20)

Just because consumer framing materials are historically rooted in a set of 4x5 aspect ratio sizes does not mean one always needs to adjust to that to save a few bucks. Why waste all that 35mm image data for such. Buy custom mats and frames. Welcome to 35mm.

Considering that 35mm is the most popular film format on the planet, I'm continually amazed at how difficult it is to find frames and mats for 8x12 prints. Standard "snapshot" prints have long been 4x6 (or the similar 3.5x5), and there are all kinds of frames to accommodate them. But art supply dealers aren't willing to stock frames and mats to accommodate full-frame enlargements. That's probably because for many years commercial labs offered enlargements only in cropped 8x10 or 11x14 sizes.

I probably compose 80% of my pictures using the full 1:1.5 frame, with the remaining 20% cropped because it makes the composition stronger. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using the full 35mm frame. The insistence on 8x10 or 11x14 dimensions for frames and pre-cut mats has more to do with history and marketing than with aesthetics.

It is possible but definitely not easy to find mats pre-cut to 8x12. When I see them at a photo store or an art supply store, I buy up as many as they've got. It's also possible (and somewhat easier) to make 8x12 prints on a narrow-carriage photo printer. Since photo-quality paper doesn't seem to come in 8.5x14 "legal" size, I buy 13x19 Epson Heavyweight Matte. I cut that down to 8.5x13, define this as a custom size, and make 8x12 prints.

When I shot film I would usually print in full 2:3 ratio size (i.e. 10x15 or scale as needed), then cut a matte to crop as needed. My solution here was to buy a Logan matte cutter (about a hundred bucks), which allows you an additional creative step.

Now that I shoot with digi (and absolutely love it, by the way!), the frame ratio is still 2:3; and now I have the option of doing all sorts of cropping with greater ease. But, I still use my matte cutter when preparing for presentation.

Okay, so here is what I'm trying to get at: Sometimes you can produce a great composition with the full frame. Sometimes you just can't. For example, sometimes a square composition would just be more powerful than a 2:3 ratio. I guess the better photographers (compared to an amateur like me), have a greater talent for making an interesting or powerful composition regardless of the frame ratio. So until that skill develops, don't be afraid to crop as needed and use your own matte cutter to help.

Glenn. why dont you cut those 11X14's the other way, 7X11, this is much closer to the 1.6 than your 7X14 which is actually 2.0!

I'm kind of curious, as an amateur (particularly relative to this august group), why one would, on one hand, spend thousands of dollars on lenses that yield superb resolution to the edges/corners, and on the other expect to crop anywhere from 10-25+ percent of the created image. Maybe it's my eye as a glasses-wearing, macrophotographer wannabe with consumer cameras that don't yield much better than 92-95 percent of the image in the viewfinder, but I sure feel the need to fill the frame and hate to lose carefully achieved resolution to cropping and compensatory enlargement. How do others feel?

And, by the way, the intent with the "golden ratio" was to achieve it, not close to it. A ratio of 1.7 is not nearly as "perfect" to the eye as 1.6. You can create tension by departing from the ratio which may be good or bad depending upon your intent (but don't do it unintentionally!).

This has been a great subject, Bill. Many seem to be wrestling with the aspect ratio issue. Even those with DSLRs have to address the problem. Why the 1:1.5 aspect ratio is not common today in frames and mats larger than 4X6" is a mystery to me. This "should" have happened about 10 years ago-I think we are looking a some sort of marketing flaw. If so, it's one that should be exploited.

Lets get together, form a company with a new-age name, and contract all the labor out to someplace where it is sufficiently cheap that we can become wealthy-or at least afford to upgrade our camera systems. I suggest China.

I think it's a mistery to everyone why there aren't more 3:2 frames available. I went to several frame shops and many didn't have a single 8X12 frame and others only had a few. I never found pre-cut 8X12 mats. The best place for me to find 8X12 frame is actually the photo shop.

As far as composition, I always do it with full-frame in mind but if I find a 8X10 ratio composition while editing, I'll jump on it, only because I'll have more framing option.

Light Impressions carries matts that are precut to fit 8x12 and 12x18. Myself, I fit my printing sizes to the format of the film I shoot (35mm and 5x7, which are both similar), instead of cropping because the format of the film does satisfy me better. Cutters are meant to be applied to paper, not to film.

We've recieved two references to Light Impressions for 8X12 mats but I haven't been able to find them on the internet. A little help in this regard would be appreciated. Also, thanks again for all the contributing answers. Bill Edwards

I've been using framesbymail.com to get custom frames (nice price). You might want to take a look.

mattcutter.com offers very inexpensive pre cut bulk mats (25+) cut to your specs. you can also order pre cut 8x12 openings on 12x16 boards in qqualities of 10 for around $22.00. i've oreder bulk 8x12 on 11x14 and got them almost $1.00 a piece. some of the best customer service ever. go on there and order a kit. ($7 or $8) it'll have all the mat samples avail. + instructions for orders. once you have that kits ordering is simple.

I just found this on a Google search. Interesting points. I have the same quandry at times and not sure.

I shot a lot of my daughters' dance teams with a Canon 40D, which has of course, a 2:3 35mm format sensor. Some parents want 8 x 10. I say, 8 x 12. Here's my thoughts.

8 x 10 is great for portraits. The ratio matches subject ratio in most portraits. I think people just get stuck on this for tradition or habit's sake. They just want a big print and I don't think most people would know you handed them an 8 x12 if they asked for 8 x 10.

8 x 12 for me is great for dance. It give me more width for the group shots in landscape orientation, since typically the team or groups of the team tend to be spread out.

For individual shots, 8 x 12 seems perfect for portrait orientation. I get the whole subject in, head to toe.

Since most photos are viewed now online and most computer screens are wide-screen format, I crop many dance pictures in a 16:9 format. I get much less dead space top and bottom.

Finally, why be stuck these days on a 2:3 or 4:5 ratio format? I get Sports Illustrated to study the action / sports photos every week. I'd bet about every image is cropped free-form to whatever looks best for the subject matter.

I know... when you are selling prints, you don't want to spend all day cropping them, so you are stuck with standard print sizes for those who buy prints.

This post is over five years old. In the newer age of 16:9, online galleries and photographers just charging for their time and/or selling the digital images, any new thoughts on this?