Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,736   Posts: 1,670,418   Online: 744
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    John Austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern Forest Region, Western Australia
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    521
    Blog Entries
    3
    SMHA - "35mm with its 3:2 ratio is probably the most popular format of all time. So why have paper manufacturers not make paper to the same ratio?" Popularity is not a measure of goodness or rightness, look at the results democracy has given us over the years

    35mm still format grew from two standard 35mm MP frames (in still photography called 1/2 frame or single frame) - The 35mm standard is 18x24mm which is 3:4 which is still not 5x4 ratio of paper - Oh the joys of confusion

    In reality, the only negative sizes that matter to me, and I am right about everything, are 10x8" and 5x4" and the paper fits them perfectly, so there is no problem

    John

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    607
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    The "Golden Ratio" (aka as the Golden Mean) is actually approximately 1:1.618 ..., not 1.5:1.

    Paper sizes are imbued with a lot of history, and vary with location - e.g. 12x16 is common in the UK.
    Thank you both for correcting me. The bad part is I knew that and forgot. However, it is close enough that my point on aesthetic reasons still basically stands.

    I know that inkjet paper manufactures are now making 8 x 12 paper. But photographic paper has mostly stuck to 8 x 10. This leaves me wondering what size paper did Cartier-Bresson have photos printed on, as he preferred full 35mm frame.

    Speaking of aspect ratios, I recently did a 2' x 3' painting in class and it looked odd which is ironic. Maybe this has something to do with the print ratio preference. I know that many painters used canvases that were not 3:2.
    Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014

    Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa

    http://darkroom317.deviantart.com/

  3. #13
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,139
    Images
    51
    Because paper manufacturers acknowledge that in reality, the only film size worth printing is 4x5 or 8x10 haaaaaaaa.

    But I've been wondering (since you brought up carte de visite) 11x14 and 8x10 are not so bad... You can quarter an 11x14 and get four 5x7's out with a couple test strips... and you can halve an 8x10 to a couple of 5x7's and get a couple test strips. So maybe 5x7 is the ideal size?

  4. #14
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,139
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    ...In reality, the only negative sizes that matter to me, and I am right about everything, are 10x8" and 5x4" and the paper fits them perfectly, so there is no problem

    John
    I was reading too fast and didn't realize you made the same point

  5. #15
    Jerevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sweden/Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,918
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    So maybe 5x7 is the ideal size?
    Yes, it is. At least as a film size. But 5x7 paper negatives are nice too.
    “Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu

  6. #16
    andrew.roos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    566
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    35mm with its 3:2 ratio is probably the most popular format of all time. So why have paper manufacturers not make paper to the same ratio?
    My local supplier offers Ilford MG in 140 x 89, which has an aspect ratio of 1.57. I think that traditionally the demand for large prints was from professional photographers who mostly shot medium- or large format, which have aspect ratios closer to 1.25 (5:4). I see the "golden mean" as a red herring since while it has an interesting mathematical property, I see no evidence that it is aesthetically superior to 5:4 or any other similar aspect ratio.

    One sensible aspect ratio that is not used much in photography is 1.41:1 (square root of 2), which has the advantantage that if you cut it in half with a cut midway through the long side then the two resulting sheets have the same aspect ratio as the original. This is used for the European A paper standard (A3, A4 etc). It always annoys me that if I cut a sheet of 8 x 10 in half, I end up with two 8x5s and cannot use the same crop as I would on an 8x10. Of course since 8x5 has an aspect ratio of 1.6 this may be the solution to your problem - simply buy 5:4 aspect ratio papers twice as large as you require, and cut them in half to get two sheets with an aspect ratio of 1.6.

  7. #17
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,971
    Images
    29
    Ilford make an A4 B&W paper in 100 sheet boxes, cat No. 1770478

    This is virtually a direct proportional enlargement at a smidge over 8 times enlargement both ways, 8.75 times enlargement one way and 8.25 times enlargement the other way. Very nice prints from this size with 135 film.

    6x7 and 645 negs work virtually perfectly on 8x10" paper as well, as does the aforementioned 4"x5" sheet film, although with 4"x5" film, the actual image size on the negative, is generally 95mm by 120mm.

    Mick.

  8. #18
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,139
    Images
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerevan View Post
    Yes, it is. At least as a film size. But 5x7 paper negatives are nice too.
    Have to think you are right! I'd have to contact print, but that's not a problem since it's the perfect print size already.

    My wife nixed the idea when I saw a 5x7 Graflex SLR on a popular swap stuff site...

    (p.s. I really use 11x14 paper for everything. How else can you tell what you really have on the negative?)

  9. #19
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,309
    On the Ilford photo site there is a list of the stocked producst which includes paper sizes that they make, whith many sizes only sold in some parts of the world.

    http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/..._PAL_MAR09.pdf

    if you see a size you would really like, you can probaly get it form a dealer in one of the areas it is sold, or in some cases your local distributor can be persuaded to get you a case or three on their next order.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Cardigan, West Wales
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    90
    Regional availability of desirable paper sizes is frustrating as I find 11x14to be a very convenient size to print most formats on with a fair to generous border: I don't feel cheated printing 6x6 to 10" square, 5x4 and 6x7 to @ 12x10 (or smaller), and 35mm to 12x8 (or smaller). The more common 'mid' size in the UK appears to be 9.5inx12in which I find less satisfactory, whilst 12x16 is often too large.
    Regards, Mark Walker

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin