P
Paul Furman
tomm42 said:
I print Epson inkets at 13x19 borderless & that's a pretty minor crop
for a 3:2 SLR image. And I can get standard frames & matts for them.
I print Epson inkets at 13x19 borderless & that's a pretty minor crop
for a 3:2 SLR image. And I can get standard frames & matts for them.
P
Paul Furman
Bill said:
You should capitalize 'The' in 'The Committee' !!!
tsk tsk tsk...
G
G.T.
Frank Arthur said:
Not only are you a troll but the difference between you and Rita is that you
appear to have many more psychological problems than he does.
Greg
A
Arthur Entlich
Obviously, this is very important to you, but the only answer you are
willing to accept is if the industry adapts to the solution you have in
mind ASAP.
This is not about world peace or the cure for cancer, but I understand
you wish to be able to print your images at 8" x 12" (exactly?? or with
some borders, or what??) Most people who mat their images need some
extra paper to place under the mat to keep it in place. Some people
like to use a white paper border around the image using a slightly
enlarged mat hole.
However, there are some somewhat reasonable answers to your dilemma. As
others have mentioned, you could use roll paper. You could print
smaller, making a 7.3 x 11 inch print, or a 6.66 x 10" print. You could
buy any of several larger sizes and cut them into two or two plus 8" x
12" prints... Such as: 12" x 18" (Xerox sells paper like this, and
others) making two 12" x 8" and leaving 2" left, or 13" x 19", make two
8" x 12", leaving one inch in one direction and 3" in the other.
Or, I just googled this:
Epson makes a 16" wide paper x 100 feet. Cut it down the middle and you
have 200 sheets of 8" x 12" with no waste. The cost is $104 US, or
about $.52 per sheet of 10 mil semimatte. Or, if you need Canvas, Epson
offers a 13" x 20' roll, that makes 26 - 13" x 9" canvases at $3.00
each, allow for a 1/2" border per side.
There may well be others. I think it is fine to lobby Epson and others
for this change, but it may take a while, and in the meantime you do
have alternatives until you get traction.
If you really want to get a rise, see about going to one of the petition
websites and then link people to it, and finally submit it to these
manufacturers.
Art
They also have a bunch of other roll inkjet paper.
http://www.vistek.ca/details/details.aspx?WebCode=215594&CategoryID=ProPhotoPrinterPaper
willing to accept is if the industry adapts to the solution you have in
mind ASAP.
This is not about world peace or the cure for cancer, but I understand
you wish to be able to print your images at 8" x 12" (exactly?? or with
some borders, or what??) Most people who mat their images need some
extra paper to place under the mat to keep it in place. Some people
like to use a white paper border around the image using a slightly
enlarged mat hole.
However, there are some somewhat reasonable answers to your dilemma. As
others have mentioned, you could use roll paper. You could print
smaller, making a 7.3 x 11 inch print, or a 6.66 x 10" print. You could
buy any of several larger sizes and cut them into two or two plus 8" x
12" prints... Such as: 12" x 18" (Xerox sells paper like this, and
others) making two 12" x 8" and leaving 2" left, or 13" x 19", make two
8" x 12", leaving one inch in one direction and 3" in the other.
Or, I just googled this:
Epson makes a 16" wide paper x 100 feet. Cut it down the middle and you
have 200 sheets of 8" x 12" with no waste. The cost is $104 US, or
about $.52 per sheet of 10 mil semimatte. Or, if you need Canvas, Epson
offers a 13" x 20' roll, that makes 26 - 13" x 9" canvases at $3.00
each, allow for a 1/2" border per side.
There may well be others. I think it is fine to lobby Epson and others
for this change, but it may take a while, and in the meantime you do
have alternatives until you get traction.
If you really want to get a rise, see about going to one of the petition
websites and then link people to it, and finally submit it to these
manufacturers.
Art
They also have a bunch of other roll inkjet paper.
http://www.vistek.ca/details/details.aspx?WebCode=215594&CategoryID=ProPhotoPrinterPaper
A
Arthur Entlich
Well, you are showing your age ;-)
There were 4" x 5" and 8" x 10" view cameras which made that size
negative (sheet film) and the paper could be contact printed, or
enlarged as such. This ratio was standard for many years for
professional photographers.
Many non-35mm roll films were square, including relatively recent
instamatic 126.
Here's a list of roll and sheet film formats throughout the ages, and
when they were popular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format
Art
There were 4" x 5" and 8" x 10" view cameras which made that size
negative (sheet film) and the paper could be contact printed, or
enlarged as such. This ratio was standard for many years for
professional photographers.
Many non-35mm roll films were square, including relatively recent
instamatic 126.
Here's a list of roll and sheet film formats throughout the ages, and
when they were popular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format
Art
A
Arthur Entlich
I think at this point, this discussion needs to be redirected to the
appropriate newsgroups. This is a photographic issue, not a printer
issue, so can we start placing these many tangents into the correct
newsgroups?
I am sending this one message to all three groups as a suggestion. From
this point onward I will direct as appropriately.
Art
appropriate newsgroups. This is a photographic issue, not a printer
issue, so can we start placing these many tangents into the correct
newsgroups?
I am sending this one message to all three groups as a suggestion. From
this point onward I will direct as appropriately.
Art
A
Arthur Entlich
I enjoyed your sardonic response, but you actually raise an interesting
point that is relevant to this discussion.
One principal usage of photography commercially is the portrait or head
shot, and for that, the old standard 8 x10 ratio is just about perfect.
Our heads pretty much fit into that format in a nice balanced manner.
That may, in part, explain the continued value of that format.
Art
Bill Funk wrote:
CUT
point that is relevant to this discussion.
One principal usage of photography commercially is the portrait or head
shot, and for that, the old standard 8 x10 ratio is just about perfect.
Our heads pretty much fit into that format in a nice balanced manner.
That may, in part, explain the continued value of that format.
Art
Bill Funk wrote:
CUT
F
Frank Arthur
Yes Arthur things take time. In the meantime I continue to print my 8 x 12'sArthur Entlich said:
using Epson
Premium Glossy Paper on 11 x 14 sheets and trim to size. The other
alternative for most
of my work is printing on 8 1/2 x 11 sheets whenever I can.
I continue to press Epson for 8 x12 because I believe they will market that
size if there are
enough people asking for it. Conversely if no one asks there is no chance of
offering that size.
B
Bill Funk
Well, my head isn't square.
But if you like 8x10, what's your problem?
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
Mormon Bishop Anthony Owens was put in jail
in Atlanta Friday after four women testified
he proposed to them. He's already served two
terms in prison for bigamy. Before they locked
him up, he was five points ahead of Rudy Giuliani
in New Hampshire.
A
ASAAR
If you can tolerate sheets that are just a tiny bit undersized,
Epson has A3 sheets (11.7" x 16.5") that can be trimmed to produce
two *nearly* 8" x 12" sheets. Each would be 8" x 11.7", or if you
want to keep the 3:2 aspect ratio, crop the images slightly to make
7.8" x 11.7" prints. Not glossy though, this is Epson's heavyweight
matte paper, which has a brightness of rating of 97%, vs. their
Premium Glossy's 92%.
W
Wolfgang Weisselberg
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Scratch your lens, put a stack of useless, dirty filters on, blow
dust on your sensor, develop a strong tatter and learn how to use
Photoshop or similar to your disadvantage. Overexpose your images.
Yank out the memory card while it's being accessed. Drop your
camera repeatedly. Use it as a hammer. Get children to smear
your lens with paint. Oversharpen everything. Use such a high
JPEG compression that everything looks likecolour-reduced cubism.
Misfocus everything. Keep the lens cap on the lens. Always center
your subjects. Actively seek busy, annoying backgrounds. Use a
lens with a really poor bokeh. Shoot portraits with your fisheye
touching the subject's nose.
Enough solutions to your "problem"?
You also have a newsreader that does unspeakable things to
the formatting of your post. I have reformatted the rest to
spare myself from eye cancer.
Your standards are *way* too low.
The idiot's law of duck hunting ("Just throw enough lead in the
air and eventually, you will hit _something_!") is your approach
to photography. You should learn to go for the deceicive moment,
not for machinegunning all the unimportant moments.
But I guess, you never will be able to understand that. So,
for you, here's a deceicive moment:
http://www.visindavefur.hi.is/myndir/kalda_stridid2_030304.jpg
Machinegunning wouldn't have worked (this scene was also recorded
on film (as in "moving pictures") --- which has about ZERO impact.
I doubt you can shoot more images/second than a movie camera.
You delude yourself. You are merely getting some marginally
acceptabe shots by accident.
Oh, poooor you. My heart is bleeding. I cry when I think of
you. I fear I won't be able to sleep for a month, thinking
of your insurmountable problems.
NOT.
Learn to use your printing gear, or go have your shots printed
by a professional. Even better: have them use real photographic
paper and wet development. It ain't that hard. Learn to buy
the correct size of "Photo Paper", if you print yourself, or
learn to operate a paper cutting machine.
Crop because of lens/camera limitations? Which world do you
live in? Have you my permission to talk for me? Or from anyone
else to talk for them?
Have you ever heard of a thing called 'slides' and using a
'projector' to show them? Now, show me where people cropped there!
Who is this we you are spluttering about? You just never
learned how to compose properly, that's all.
What im camera cropping are you talking about?
Say, what have you been smoking, and have you anything left over?
I really would like to know what weed or chemical can produce
that kind of loss of reality!
Or perhaps, you are just a run-of-the-mill troll.
-Wolfgang
Frank Arthur said:
Scratch your lens, put a stack of useless, dirty filters on, blow
dust on your sensor, develop a strong tatter and learn how to use
Photoshop or similar to your disadvantage. Overexpose your images.
Yank out the memory card while it's being accessed. Drop your
camera repeatedly. Use it as a hammer. Get children to smear
your lens with paint. Oversharpen everything. Use such a high
JPEG compression that everything looks likecolour-reduced cubism.
Misfocus everything. Keep the lens cap on the lens. Always center
your subjects. Actively seek busy, annoying backgrounds. Use a
lens with a really poor bokeh. Shoot portraits with your fisheye
touching the subject's nose.
Enough solutions to your "problem"?
You also have a newsreader that does unspeakable things to
the formatting of your post. I have reformatted the rest to
spare myself from eye cancer.
Your standards are *way* too low.
The idiot's law of duck hunting ("Just throw enough lead in the
air and eventually, you will hit _something_!") is your approach
to photography. You should learn to go for the deceicive moment,
not for machinegunning all the unimportant moments.
But I guess, you never will be able to understand that. So,
for you, here's a deceicive moment:
http://www.visindavefur.hi.is/myndir/kalda_stridid2_030304.jpg
Machinegunning wouldn't have worked (this scene was also recorded
on film (as in "moving pictures") --- which has about ZERO impact.
I doubt you can shoot more images/second than a movie camera.
You delude yourself. You are merely getting some marginally
acceptabe shots by accident.
Oh, poooor you. My heart is bleeding. I cry when I think of
you. I fear I won't be able to sleep for a month, thinking
of your insurmountable problems.
NOT.
Learn to use your printing gear, or go have your shots printed
by a professional. Even better: have them use real photographic
paper and wet development. It ain't that hard. Learn to buy
the correct size of "Photo Paper", if you print yourself, or
learn to operate a paper cutting machine.
Crop because of lens/camera limitations? Which world do you
live in? Have you my permission to talk for me? Or from anyone
else to talk for them?
Have you ever heard of a thing called 'slides' and using a
'projector' to show them? Now, show me where people cropped there!
Who is this we you are spluttering about? You just never
learned how to compose properly, that's all.
What im camera cropping are you talking about?
Say, what have you been smoking, and have you anything left over?
I really would like to know what weed or chemical can produce
that kind of loss of reality!
Or perhaps, you are just a run-of-the-mill troll.
-Wolfgang
A
Arthur Entlich
I think you are mixing up Frank Arthur's postings with mine. He is the
person who has been expressing a need for the 8"x12", and similar ratio,
paper.
Art
PS: I never stated or implied your head was square... more rectangular,
actually...
person who has been expressing a need for the 8"x12", and similar ratio,
paper.
Art
PS: I never stated or implied your head was square... more rectangular,
actually...
B
Bill Funk
Sorry about that.
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
Hillary Clinton said Monday the U.S. government
should pay for pre-school for all four-year-old
kids in America. It's not fair. After making it
all the way across the Mojave Desert, shouldn't
they be allowed to relax and enjoy their childhood
for a year?
D
darkroommike
Four separate threads started by you on essentially the same
issue--8x12 paper is rather trollish--why not give it a
rest? I, frankly, don't want to look for 8x12 albums,
frames, etc. Much of my work (digital and conventional)is
printed full frame with wide margins on the next larger
standard paper size.
darkroommike
issue--8x12 paper is rather trollish--why not give it a
rest? I, frankly, don't want to look for 8x12 albums,
frames, etc. Much of my work (digital and conventional)is
printed full frame with wide margins on the next larger
standard paper size.
darkroommike