You guys are absolutely correct. In my silly and tiredness I wrote 16x20. I caught myself half an hour later staring at it and edited the post to 16x10 which is the correct size. But that tells you I am very good at math right?

How I did it was rather silly too, as I do not have an easel bigger than 8x10, nor paper. Can't afford those come on . The negative I chose was rather dense, and my lens only opens up to f3.5 (if i used the red filter under the lens and put the paper there I wouldn't be able to see the edges) so it ended up rather tedious.

First I use a big piece of foam board and sit it on the base, with the safe light on I put 2 pieces of 8x10 paper on there, line them up pretty good, and use a pencil to draw four corners and couple lines on the board. after that I put the paper back in the box. Turn the enlarger on, and adjust the projection to the outline that i've made on the foam board (well I put something heavy on the board so it wouldn't move much either). And then I would turn the enlarger off again and line the papers back up to where I've marked with tape at the back. And then I stop down the lens quite a bit to make sure it will be ok even though if the paper is not perfectly flat. Print.

- I found out that 16x10 I is pretty close to a full frame 135, which is a plus.
- I originally thinking mounting 2 photos and put them next to each other, But right now I imagine they won't look too bad inside a single photo frame either.

Like I said I might make an 16x10 easel, since it actually worked out well, I don't have the money but I have the tools!

Cheers.