Why is it 7x5 and not 7.5x5?
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.
silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
artwork often times sold for charity
PM me for details
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.
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
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Got it in one.
Originally Posted by jnanian
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Ray Heath
considering the vagueness of the original question my answer is as valid as any other
Originally Posted by ajuk
besides not all film is 3:2