D
M
Mark B.
Frank Arthur said:
Where have you been? 8x10 has been a standard long before digital was
around - at least as long as 35mm film which is also a 2:3 ratio!
Mark
R
Robert Peirce
Mark² said:
I print on 13x19 paper, trim it to 12x18 and mount it in frames I buy at
Michael's for next to nothing.
R
Robert Peirce
Robert Peirce said:
Oops!! That was actually 12x16. I just measured it. OTOH, 8x10, 11x14
and 16x20 have been photo standards forever. What's with 11x14?
I just crop my photos or trim the prints to get whatever size I want
that also is correct for the image. A lot of the time I am printing
8x10 on 8.5x11. I also print 12x15-18 on 13x19. 4x6 is good for
snap-shots even though the natural image is 4.5x6 under the 4:3 standard.
I suspect, no matter what you want to do, there will NOT be a properly
sized paper to do it in some size or another.
A
Al Dykes
Anyone got a recommendation for a decent, inexpensive , paper trimmer?
D
David Dyer-Bennet
Robert said:
And 5x7? And 3.5x5, which was the standard before 4x6 came along.
J
John Bean
13x19 is called "Super A3" here in the UK. "Real" A3 is
11.7x16.5 and is usually close enough to 12x16 for most
uses.
11.7x16.5 and is usually close enough to 12x16 for most
uses.
A
ASAAR
Looking through the new B&H catalog I see that Canon, HP, Epson,
Ilford, Inkpress and Moab sell 5x7 photo paper. Museo has several
unusual paper sizes (they include matching envelopes) - 4.5x5,
4.5x6, 5.5x7.5 and 3.8x9.1 for panoramas. Epson also has a
heavyweight 4.1x5.8 size photo paper that's printable on both sides,
used for postcards and invitations. HP has an odd 4x12 photo paper
that might delight photo stitchers for their landscape and
architectural shots.
See below for 3.5x5.In addition to their dedicated 4x6 printers, Hi-Touch has several
affordable 700 series dye-sub models that print three sizes, 4x6,
5x7 and 6x8. B&H sells these as well as the paper and YMCO ribbon
kits that they use.
There are also a number of much more expensive printers not
intended for home use in B&H's catalog. Prices are $1550 (Sony,
3.5x5, 4x6, 5x7), $2650 (Kodak, 4x6, 5x7, 6x8), $2996 (Kodak, 8x10,
8x12), $2750 (Fuji, 4x6, 5x7, 6x8, 6x9), $3995 (8x10, 8x12).
M
Mark²
Robert said:
That's my point, exactly.
3:2 ratio has been around for many decades and has been, by far, the most
popular format size of the masses, save for the point & shoot digitals.
35mm film and DSLRs use 3:2...and yet we have what you describe...anything
BUT a lot of 12x18, etc.
Where would you crop these photos?
(Mine):
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/landscapes
I don't want to...because I utilize the entire frame. Who wants to waste
pixels?
A lot of the time I am printing
Sure, but it's not just "some size or another." It's the most dominant film
size over the last 50 years, and it continues in DSLRs. It's just amazing
to me that frames are all over the place for the ratio...
Oh well... Despite my whining...clueless frame manufacturers continue...
A
ASAAR
Useful pixels shouldn't be wasted. On the other hand, anyone that
forces all possible pixels into a fixed frame size probably often
creates less than the best possible compositions. What if Canon
upgraded their 5D to a Super SixD, having a 20mp, 36mm x 36mm
sensor? Would you then, in order to avoid wasting pixels, make only
square prints? Or would you take advantage of the extra pixels,
using judicious cropping to not only produce better compositions,
but to compensate for less than perfect framing. Handheld shots
can't match the framing accuracy that a tripod allows.
Frame manufacturers have no monopoly on cluelessness.
D
dj_nme
Al Dykes wrote:
Not a bad idea (using 8.5x14in), then you could use the blank paper
around the 8x12 to mount it with and not cover any of the printed area
with the matt.
Not a bad idea (using 8.5x14in), then you could use the blank paper
around the 8x12 to mount it with and not cover any of the printed area
with the matt.
R
Ryadiia
Mark² said:
Frame manufactures are not as "clueless" as you paint them to be.
4/3 ratio (or close to it) is the dominant aspect ratio of photographs now
that digital cameras have outsold film cameras. By this I mean that in the
best years of 35mm film cameras, sales never reached the level compact
digital camera sales hit last year.
Frame manufacturers are simply making products they can sell. When you want
European sized frames I.E. A4, A3, A2 etc you either need to buy from a
European frame maker or modify your composure to allow trimming to the cheap
frames available in your area.
One of my business interests is in picture framing. I know it's in Oceania
but there would still be some relevance to the subject. About 35% of
customers require custom aspect ratio frames. less than 8% ask for frames
to be made to suit A4 or A3 paper sizes.
One solution my wife has for this is to use a larger (16'x20') frame for an
A4 print. She makes a 'matt' with more area at the bottom than the top.
Sometimes equal space, depending on the picture. This looks surprisingly
correct too and in the OP's case, would save the cost of custom framing. It
also has the side effect of separating the picture from the glass to prevent
adhesion and subsequent premature decay of the photo.
Douglas
A
Arthur Entlich
Why should we be the ones to change? For better or for worse, we
Although I appreciate the sentiment, just logically, if there is to be a
leader in waste, or overuse of a resource, it is almost always the US,
so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the US used more paper
than the rest of the world combined. They seems to do very well in their
resource abuse of most other things, so why not paper products ;-)
If a tree falls in any forest globally, where are the products from it
likely destined to? The US...
Art
Although I appreciate the sentiment, just logically, if there is to be a
leader in waste, or overuse of a resource, it is almost always the US,
so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the US used more paper
than the rest of the world combined. They seems to do very well in their
resource abuse of most other things, so why not paper products ;-)
If a tree falls in any forest globally, where are the products from it
likely destined to? The US...
Art
A
Arthur Entlich
Just how much opium is left in those poppy seeds?
No wonder you're in heaven ;-) Why not just eat the rolls and forget
the hot dogs?
Art
No wonder you're in heaven ;-) Why not just eat the rolls and forget
the hot dogs?
Art
A
Arthur Entlich
Legal is 8.5 x 14"... I figure that lawyers need an extra 27% space to
write the same thing we "normal" people would write, and that's if they
print fairly small ;-)
Art
write the same thing we "normal" people would write, and that's if they
print fairly small ;-)
Art
D
DBLEXPOSURE
Arthur Entlich said:
Screw off with you anti-US sentiments.
A
Arthur Entlich
I'm with you. I print to the size that the image looks best at, to me.
Very often that is not a standard size, because my world doesn't
quaintly fit into a specific rectangular format ratio. I no longer
worry about frame sizes, and like yourself, I customize mats as
required. Sometimes a square best represents the composition, sometimes
a skinny horizontal or vertical rectangular shape works best. I'm keen
to panoramic compositions of late, probably because of the stitching
programs my digital camera has, which allows me to produce a higher res
wide narrow image.
What does drive me a bit crazy are all those wide screen televisions
being displayed in showrooms, where you'd THINK they'd want to show
image sources that were highest quality, but instead they show grainy,
low res sources, and worse still, they stretch or crush the image so it
fills the whole screen regardless of the correct original aspect
ration... what's that about? Doesn't anyone notice that everyone is 30%
wider that they should be, or looks 8 feet tall and anorexic?
I don't get it. How does that motivate me to buy a new TV?
Art
Very often that is not a standard size, because my world doesn't
quaintly fit into a specific rectangular format ratio. I no longer
worry about frame sizes, and like yourself, I customize mats as
required. Sometimes a square best represents the composition, sometimes
a skinny horizontal or vertical rectangular shape works best. I'm keen
to panoramic compositions of late, probably because of the stitching
programs my digital camera has, which allows me to produce a higher res
wide narrow image.
What does drive me a bit crazy are all those wide screen televisions
being displayed in showrooms, where you'd THINK they'd want to show
image sources that were highest quality, but instead they show grainy,
low res sources, and worse still, they stretch or crush the image so it
fills the whole screen regardless of the correct original aspect
ration... what's that about? Doesn't anyone notice that everyone is 30%
wider that they should be, or looks 8 feet tall and anorexic?
I don't get it. How does that motivate me to buy a new TV?
Art
D
DBLEXPOSURE
Arthur Entlich said:
Roger that! The trouble is most of the people that work at Wal-mart etc no
jack about what programming to feed their expensive TV's. The other thing
that give me a laugh is the people who stare into those artifact-ridden
screens in awe and say, "Wow that looks awesome".
BTW, I have a Leica that shoot 16X9, anyone know where I can find some paper
to fit?
I am going to have to say again before the 3X4 crowd jumps all over me,
Whatever works for you is fine W/me. Photography is a form of expression
and if you want to express yourself via a 3X4 frame then I wish you well in
your seach for paper that needs no trim.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
J
John McWilliams
DBLEXPOSURE said:
I've been reading top posting Arthur's posts for some time and have seen
no pattern of anti-U.S. statements, actually, maybe not even a hint.
I've lived in California for 25 years, and have a good idea what goes on
in the rest of the country. He's right: The U.S. is the leader in per
capita waste.
A
Arthur Entlich
My commercially sold stuff, which I don't consider my best or most
personal artistic statements are usually produced to current market
standards to keep things simple and cheap. My "fine art" work is done
to MY format standards, which may mean custom frames and mats, although
not always.
I have always thought that all sensors, film, monitors and viewers
should be square, with the understanding that it's square for highest
adaptability, not because every image must be square to "use up all the
pixels". For instance, what is happening with being able to view images
on monitors and televisions? Who decided that our point of view is
always horizontal, in fact, becoming more so with HD and wide screen
television. Yes, I know we have two eyes and they create a more
horizontal visual field than a vertical one, but we are not always
wishing to replicate our field of view when capturing an image. Yet if I
wish to present images on most electronic viewing screens, the
horizontals are going to have 3 or 4 times larger surface area available
to show them than the vertical versions, and that gets worse with the
wider and wider screens.
Most slide projection screens are/were square. It is movie screen that
are/were wider than higher.
Art
personal artistic statements are usually produced to current market
standards to keep things simple and cheap. My "fine art" work is done
to MY format standards, which may mean custom frames and mats, although
not always.
I have always thought that all sensors, film, monitors and viewers
should be square, with the understanding that it's square for highest
adaptability, not because every image must be square to "use up all the
pixels". For instance, what is happening with being able to view images
on monitors and televisions? Who decided that our point of view is
always horizontal, in fact, becoming more so with HD and wide screen
television. Yes, I know we have two eyes and they create a more
horizontal visual field than a vertical one, but we are not always
wishing to replicate our field of view when capturing an image. Yet if I
wish to present images on most electronic viewing screens, the
horizontals are going to have 3 or 4 times larger surface area available
to show them than the vertical versions, and that gets worse with the
wider and wider screens.
Most slide projection screens are/were square. It is movie screen that
are/were wider than higher.
Art