Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,047   Posts: 1,560,997   Online: 1133
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
  1. #11
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,657
    Images
    60
    I think the paper manufacturers would be wise to consider going with the (digital) flow and start making 8½ x 11 much more common in North America.

    Matt

  2. #12
    jeroldharter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,958
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    12x16 is a far more practical size...

    Ian
    What size mats do you use for this when framing?

    Assuming an 11x15 image size and open borders of ~3/8 all around, that is starting to get tight on a 16x20 mat board. If you go up to 20x24 matboard, you greatly increase the cost of framing. For that reason, I like 11x14 paper (with a 10x13 image) on 16x20 matboard which is much more economical for framing.
    Jerold Harter MD

  3. #13
    jeroldharter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,958
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by PeteZ8 View Post
    ...
    I too am driven nuts by the lack of 35mm ratio compatable papers here in the US. All of our papers here seem to be stuck on the 4:5 ratio of traditional large format cameras. Even worse; finding properly sized frames. As if 35mm does not stretch enlargements enough, the need to shoot loose and crop in the darkroom just makes it worse. And it is a tremendous waste of money cutting up all that paper!

    Indeed 12x16 would be a very usefull size.
    The paper need not match the proportions of the negative. Just use borders which help protect the integrity of the image anyway, i.e. no problems with emulsion chipping or handling issues.

    Also, I think 12x16 is pretty big for 35 mm film. Isn't that at least a 10x enlargement? That is extreme for a standard print size. Even 11x14 is pushing a limit for quality 35mm prints.
    Jerold Harter MD

  4. #14
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    I think the paper manufacturers would be wise to consider going with the (digital) flow and start making 8½ x 11 much more common in North America.

    Matt
    Why? If your going to change paper sizes, then consider sizes that closer match the image sizes, and actually make sense. 8½ x 11 is no more helpful for 35mm then 8x10 is, consider that most
    image sizes and print sizes don't match properly. Digital uses 8½ x 11 because ink printers designed for printing text use plain paper that comes in that size. The problem with 8½ x 11 is that frames not intended for text documents don't come in that size. It also doesn't scale.

    I think the real issue is that 35mm images should have been 24mm x 30mm, having the same size ratio as a 4x5 large format camera. They would then fit a 4x5, 8x10, 16x20 print perfectly.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  5. #15
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,657
    Images
    60
    Paul:

    More and more, I see the inexpensive photo frames coming in 8½x11 rather than 8x10. As an example, every photo frame at IKEA is sized for 8½x11.

    In addition, so much of the paper storage and filing resources in North America are oriented toward 8½x11 rather than smaller sizes.

    8½x11 is great for Contact Sheets, and as it is at least slightly more rectangular than 8x10, it is closer to being appropriate for 35mm.

    Matt

  6. #16
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,844
    Images
    29
    About the best size for 35mm enlargements is A4 which is what all office printers are designed for.

    Basically it is the world standard for sheet paper, except it appears, for the north American countries. A4 is 210mm by 297mm.

    I have had quite a few boxes of Ilford A4 paper over the years, but found I could get better pricing on 8x10" and 12x16" in this country.

    A4 by the way, enlarges 35mm film full frame at a tad over an 8x enlargement, with just a small bit of cropping on the long side of the film.

    Nanette, I have seen some interesting papers at the Melbourne store of Vanbar being sold in 11x14" sizes, usually though in 25 sheet cardboard envelopes.

    Mick.

  7. #17
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,657
    Images
    60
    Mick:

    Unfortunately, A4 is too long to be usable in North American offices - it doesn't fit in our binders, it doesn't fit in our file folders and it doesn't fit in many of our file cabinets.

    Otherwise, I would agree with you totally

    Matt

  8. #18
    ozphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,134
    Images
    1
    Hi Mick.
    Thanks for the Vanbar tip - I'll check their website out!

  9. #19
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,442
    Images
    214
    I prefer printing on 12x16, over 11x14. For a few years, I was having 12x16 Ilford MG IV matte fiber custom cut by a supplier in NY. They ordered full rolls, from Ilford, and cut the rolls down for schools. I was getting 12x16's for about 53 cents a sheet. 16x20's were 89 a sheet, and 20x24's were about 1.33 a sheet. They used a formula (HxWx#sheets/144 x whatever their rate was), so I actually ordered some square paper, at a lower price, for my Rolleiflex work. After awhile the price went up a bit- to .80, 1.33, and 1.99 for the respective sizes. Still, way under half the price from anywhere else.
    A few years ago, they called me to say they probably wouldn't be doing it anymore, due to lesser school demand. I ended up buying almost all they had left. A few hundred sheets each in 12x16, 16x20, and 20x24. I wish they were still doing it...

    You can get 12x16 paper (MG IV matte, at least) from the Ilford Store. They sell 5 50 sheet boxes for about $455.00. I've dealt with them, and the service was good.

  10. #20
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    As others have alluded to, and much like the imperial system of measurements, 11x14 is somewhat of a dumb size. 12x16 is far more usable and it's annoying that it hasn't taken over here.

    Also, I think 12x16 is pretty big for 35 mm film. Isn't that at least a 10x enlargement? That is extreme for a standard print size. Even 11x14 is pushing a limit for quality 35mm prints.
    Viewing distance, viewing distance, viewing distance.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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