7x5" paper

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by ajuk, Jan 30, 2007.

  1. ajuk

    ajuk Member

    Messages:
    1,108
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Why is it 7x5 and not 7.5x5?
     
  2. Ray Heath

    Ray Heath Restricted Access

    Messages:
    1,020
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Location:
    Eastern, Aus
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    huh?
    why not 5.5x7?
     
  3. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser

    Messages:
    19,311
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    ajuk

    the film holder-sizes 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 are (glass/dry) plate sizes.
    film sheaths that were put into film holders make film a bit smaller,
    but if you put paper in a film holder it doesn't fit ...

    i am guessing here, but maybe it became a standard size
    when 5x7 plates were being used , so they could be contact printed with ease.

    john
     
  4. Mike Wilde

    Mike Wilde Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Location:
    Misissauaga
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Also a cut down thing -

    I believe that from a materials packaging perspective it makes sense -

    run a 16" line, and cut it 20" long. Users can cut to 8x10, or 4x5 with no loss of usable product.

    run an 11" line, and cut it 14" long. Users like me cut to 5x7 with 2 1" strips for test strips for each 4 5x7 you generate. I also cut it 7x10, since this fits the proportions of 35mm images much better for me, and goes into a nicely balanced matte with a 11x14 frame outer dimension.
     
  5. johnnywalker

    johnnywalker Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,257
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2002
    Location:
    British Colu
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I cut 8X10 in half to make two 5X8 sheets.
     
  6. Ole

    Ole Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,284
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Bergen, Norw
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Got it in one.

    That's why the metric paper sizes are 10x15, 13x18, 18x24, 24x40, 30x40 and so on, while the "inch" sizes are (what's the smallest one again? I've never used it, and it isn't sold here) 5x7", 8x10", 11x14" and so on.

    It just happens that I've got an old plate camera for each of those metric plate sizes...
     
  7. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,924
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    In asking this question I take it that you are referring to why a 35mm neg which is 1.5 times as long as it is high isn't replicated in paper size. It's a good question in my opinion.

    There may be historical reasons for this as stated above but given we now have and have had for a very long time 35mm negs with the 1:1.5 proportions, it's a mystery to me why manufacturers haven't changed.

    It was a question I intended to ask Simon Galley of Ilford during our factory visit but never got round to. As far as I could see setting the cutters to another size such as 5 x 7.5 wouldn't be a problem.

    Of course for square format you could argue for square paper which in fact Agfa did.

    Yes there are other formats such as 6 x4.5 and 6x7 and maybe making paper to fit all the formats might be expensive but as the bulk of paper goes to minilabs for 5x7 prints, you'd think that full frame paper would be a good move and profitable.

    In addition to the suggestions already made, you could consider A4 paper. Unlike 8x10 which fails to give you 2 prints at even 5 x7.5 without sacrificing a border on the 5 inch side, A4 will get you much closer to the 1 x 1.5 proportions with a border.

    Unfortunately A4 paper is considerably more expensive than 8 x 10 from my research of paper suppliers in the U.K i.e. more expensive than you'd think compared to the extra paper involved.

    pentaxuser
     
  8. gainer

    gainer Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,726
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    The story goes that the original 35 mm still frame was the standard movie frame and is now twice the size. Some cameras have used 24 x 30 or 32, and of course 18 x 24.
     
  9. ajuk

    ajuk Member

    Messages:
    1,108
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm
    because thats not a 3:2 ratio, film is 3:2, until recently I thought 7x5 actually meant 7.5x5, I just thought people were to lazy to write it properly.
     
  10. Ray Heath

    Ray Heath Restricted Access

    Messages:
    1,020
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Location:
    Eastern, Aus
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    considering the vagueness of the original question my answer is as valid as any other

    besides not all film is 3:2
     
  11. Steve Roberts

    Steve Roberts Member

    Messages:
    1,118
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Location:
    Near Tavisto
    Shooter:
    35mm

    Some time back in the 1980s, the standard 10" x 8" enlargement available from high street stores became 10" x 7". Although I jumped on the dreaded metrication, a friend who worked in such a shop at the time told me that this suited the processing labs very well because the aspect ratio being closer to 2:3 meant that they didn't have to "lose" part of the "cussy's" image off the ends of a 10" x 8", with the subsequent whinges and returns.

    "Cussys" were standard customers who came in, said what they wanted (nothing too difficult), paid the money and went on their way. Other names (usually beginning with "B") were applied to those who made my pal and his colleagues dig through the shelf for the film with the longest expiry date or spent half the day fiddling with Nikons before buying a secondhand Zenit!

    Steve
     
  12. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,924
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    ajuk. As you will have seen from the various replies, this is not an item that exercises a lot of folk, unlike you and me. I just find it strange that as 5 x 7.5 gives a print that cover the whole neg then no-one has tried to market such a size of paper. Yes I understand the argument that 35mm isn't the only format but most mini-labs process and print 35mm negs.

    However I have to conclude that if you and I are the extent of customer demand for 5x7.5 paper then we are a very small market and unlikely to be taken much notice of.

    C'est la vie

    pentaxuser
     
  13. Alex Bishop-Thorpe

    Alex Bishop-Thorpe Member

    Messages:
    1,455
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Location:
    Adelaide, So
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I came to realise a while ago that photography is just incredibly quirky.
    But you can always cut your own to size though, my guess is the demand just wasn't there. People are willing to compromise a little if it means less messing around.
     
  14. DWThomas

    DWThomas Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,698
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Location:
    SE Pennsylva
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Some of this is probably fallout from "standards" that developed independently at different times and places. I remember being thrilled back in the late 1970s (?) when some local processors began offering 8 x 12 color prints in additon to 8 x 10 -- at last, 35 mm frames uncropped!

    On a trip to Italy in 2002, my wife took many shots with her APS camera in the mode that typically winds up as 4 x 7 prints. I thought they were pretty cool until I started trying to find albums they would fit in. Pages for 4 x 6 were everywhere, but 4 x 7 was quite rare, though I finally did come up with some.

    DaveT