Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,907   Posts: 1,555,900   Online: 1064
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: 7x5" paper

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    2

    7x5" paper

    Why is it 7x5 and not 7.5x5?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55
    huh?
    why not 5.5x7?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,520
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    8
    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. #4
    Mike Wilde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Misissauaga Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,939
    Images
    29

    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. #5
    johnnywalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,255
    Images
    78
    I cut 8X10 in half to make two 5X8 sheets.
    If I had been present at the creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better arrangement of the Universe.
    Alfonso the Wise, 1221-1284

  6. #6
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    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
    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...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,046
    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. #8
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    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.
    Gadget Gainer

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,089
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Heath View Post
    huh?
    why not 5.5x7?
    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. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by ajuk View Post
    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.
    considering the vagueness of the original question my answer is as valid as any other

    besides not all film is 3:2

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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