Aspect ratios of printing papers

After having recently printed a ton of (mostly family snaps) on 8.5" x 11"

papers, I feel frustrated, angry, and let down. So many of my perfectly

composed snaps have to be either cropped to fit the aspect ratios of the

papers available, or I have to put up with uneven borders.

 

The choice we're given is either 4"x6" or 5"x7" for small prints, both of

which I often find too small to give any appreciation of details when needed,

or the next size up, which is 8.5" x 11". What's the purpose of making these

so-called letter sized inkjet papers other than a lame throwback to the legacy

of written documents? It feels like neither here nor there.

 

How about 6"x9", 8"x12", 10"x15", and 12"x18" papers that adhere to the 3:2

aspect ratio of the most widely used 35mm format?

 

Why force us to comply with half-assed "standards" of yore that no longer seem

compatible with practice?

Printers need something to hold during the printing process. Inkjets tend to require wider leading margins than other printers. The printing industry has evolved different standards than the traditional photographic industry. Times, they are a-changing ;-)

 

This should help in your search for a solution to uneven borders and non-standard sizes: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=860&A=details&Q=&sku=251598&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Get a printer that takes a roll feed. cut to desired ratio. they sell in the smaller 8" and up. Enjoy!

Start a campaign for a switch to A series sizes. A4 is not exactly 3:2, but it is very close, and

the same ratio applies for every size.

In the good old darkroom days, we still lived with paper cutters! I never bought 5x7 or 6x9 or

the smaller sizes. Used a lot of 8x10 with easels. I still use a paper cutter today on my digital

prints.

 

There are some printing software packages (like Portraits & Prints on the Mac) that let you

setup and do multiple different size prints on a large sheet - same pacture or multiple

images - like the old school picture sets.

"...Why force us to comply with half-assed "standards" of yore that no longer seem compatible with practice...".........wait until you go to mat and frame them..........it gets worse.

How about you getting a clue? Digital cameras come in 3:2, 4:3, 16:9 and square format.

 

Then let's look at digitized film: besides 35mm - 6x4.5, 6x6; 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17, 4x5, etc.

 

The entire photographic world doesn't revolve around your myopic needs for 3:2. Print on larger paper and cut it down to the size you need, use roll paper, whatever it takes - just quit whining about something so trivial.

Before I got a wide-carriage printer, I made 8x12 prints by cutting 13x19 "Super B" paper in half. It worked well, and I still do that. I also make 12x18 prints on uncut paper.

 

Until labs started offering 8x12 prints as a routine option, I often agonized over cropping my 35mm images to fit 8x10 or 11x14. But now you should have little difficulty either making full-frame prints or having a lab make them.

 

If you want frustrating incompatibility, try finding pre-cut mats for 3:2 prints. 8x12 mats that fit an 11x14 frame do exist, but few art supply or camera stores actually stock them. It's easy enough to get custom mats, but they're expensive.

<i>"How about you getting a clue?"</i><p>

Alright, here's a clue for you. Do a survey of how many people use 3:2 aspect ratio 35mm TODAY versus all the other formats you listed and then get back to me. Shouldn't the printer and paper manufacturers be listening to customers rather than the other way around?

<p>

As for matting and framing, I've already felt the frustration. I just ordered my first set of custom cut mats and frames (from sendaframe.com) to fit both 8.5"x11" and 13"x19" prints. It's a joke that they don't make these things available ready-to-order to fit the most popular sized print papers. I can understand people wanting different widths for their mats but there should at least be some standard sizes available.<p>

There is hope, though. Light Impressions has started shipping archival boxes for storage in these sizes. Funnily enough, they call them <a href="http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/servlet/OnlineShopping?DSP=50000&PCR=30000:180000:181000:181200:181230&IID=20416">Digital Portfolio boxes</a>.

actually, Nels....I think if you checked total unit sales of cameras........35mm's 3:2 is not the most popular camera sold. It's Point & Shoot digital and cell phones......which seem to be either 4:3 or 5:4....with possible option for 3:2. (at least of what I own). And the newest push in P&S, thanks to wide screen TVs, is 16:9.

 

When you take that into account........it's no wonder the paper manufacturers just do what they want to also...........camera manufactors certainly ain't setting any precedents in that area.........actually, they do just the opposite.

How many cell phone camera users print their images? And how big? P&S cam users typically print 4x6 and rarely bigger. I've heard more than a few people at most say "oops" and shrug off as if it's no big deal when they find someone's head or arm chopped off in a drug store print from their P&S camera.

 

The people who are most serious about their pictures and print quality, and who are the primary target market for the middle to high end printers are the ones who often want more choices.

 

Nothing wrong with manufacturers also making special papers for 16:9 aspect ratios. I think they'd sell just fine. In fact, I know I would be a customer myself if the format was available to print many of my LX2 pics.

 

What seems surprising to me is the disparity between the availability of great printing power to an average consumer today and the corresponding lack of choices in printing papers of different formats to go with the various popular camera aspect ratios. Too many people must be willing to put up with whatever they get. It seems I'd eventually have to cough up for a good print trimmer and also possibly start cutting my own mats - a ridiculous proposition when I am doing no cropping to my pictures.

Nels

 

I'm with you on this one, and in regards to the comment "How about you getting a clue?" I think that was very rude, and uncalled for.