marc_rochkind Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 The standard print sizes, in the US anyway, are the ubiquitous 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14. Those are the sizes photofinishers offer, the sizes in which you can buy albums, and the sizes of mattes in stock frames. (Yes... I know we're not bound by these sizes -- we can cut a matte anyway we want -- but the standard sizes are the most practical ones for most people. Prices shoot up if you deviate from a stock print size or a stock matte.) <p> These sizes make no sense at all! The ratios are 1.5:1, 1.4:1, 1.25:1, and 1.27:1. If you want to fill the print, as I'm sure most people do, you end up cropping one way for 4x6 and another way for 8x10. <p> If everyone would just change 4x6 to 4x5 and forget about 5x7 (which is nearly forgotten about already, so it's no loss), then we have 1.25:1, 1.25:1, and 1.27:1 (which is close enough). Somehow I don't think that will happen anytime soon. <p> Alas, my camera (a Nikon D70) shoots in 4x6. I think my 35mm N70 film camera did, too. (Somehow I don't think digital 4x5 cameras are going to take over.) If framing in the camera means anything, then 4x6 actually makes more sense than 8x10, so there goes my unification proposal. Maybe 8x10 should be replaced by 8x12, which some photofinishers offer as a stock size already? <p> Thoughts anyone? Did the sizes EVER make sense? In Europe, where they have the wonderful A3, A4, A5 paper sizes, do they also use the silly 4x6, etc., sizes? Surely they don't use inches, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 This used to bother me, but eventually I discovered <a href=http://www.scissorsonline.com/store/cart.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=so&Product_Code=312&Category_Code=house">this miraculous new invention</a> that solved the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonysvision Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 The 4x5 size likely evolved from 8x10 paper, which in turn likely was designed for prints from the 4x5 Speed Graphic used for photography for publication in the '40's, '50's, and perhaps later. But I've not forgotten 5x7. It was also the favorite format of W. Eugene Smith, who pioneered in the use of 35 mm cameras in photojournalism, and even in that fast-moving world made his own carefully crafted prints, referred to by his editors as "little jewels". A perfectionist, it is said he went berserk when editors cropped from the 5x7 format. It also seems to fit my DSLR images, to which I crop them out of habit carried over from darkroom days using 35mm, and print them on 8-1/2 by 11 paper, where they are immersed wityhin a clean white margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildwoodgallery Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 No I don't think stardard size prints make sense. Standard size would be better at 8 x 12, 11 x 16, 12 x 18. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_glass1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Wonderful invention...the scissors. Those nifty paper cutters work great too! Those damn English and Americans are such backward people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Which A3, A4, and A5 standard do you use? There also the JIS sizes; the engineering and architect's differnet A, B, C , D and E sizes; or does one use a double Elephant size in imperial or american; or stretched for Naval drawings? There are many many hundreds of standard paper sizes. You might as well make a crusade to define a standard song for teens, a standard shoe for women, a standard lure for fisherman, a standard shell for rifles; a standard inkjet cartridge; a standard beer or coffee. Tonight I printed up a mess of 16x24" prints for some attorneys; and some 19.5x39" for another. Yet another wants 36x42" prints. We sell one customer 17x24" paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 <i>Prices shoot up if you deviate from a stock print size or a stock matte.</i><P> This is a real annoyance if I'm having prints made from film, but for digital, it's simply not an issue. After I've cropped a photo to whatever format suits that image, I run an action that resizes it to fit the paper size (at the appropriate resolution) and adds a very narrow black border surrounded by a white border that fills the rest of the page. (And my standard "proof" size is 6" x 8"; there's a nearby discount store that makes good prints of this size for the equivalent of about 40 cents US.) Creating the needed actions in PS took less time than you spent starting this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert x Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Marc - you think you got it hard. I use a 6x6 camera..... Oh woe is me. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Robert; some courthouses thinks square, and use 32x32" and 36x36" papers. I special order these cut sheet sizes for them at odd times. <BR><BR>To All; Many paper sizes have ancient roots, such as 8.5x11 which is several centuries old. In practice many of us printers only stock so many papers for our inhouse printers; and just use the nearest larger roll size. The trash cans get filled with paper waste with trimming. Each customers believes their standard is the correct one, even if there are hundreds of opinions. Our RIP stations for larger roll fed printers allow one to "nest" all these oddball "standard" print sizes sometimes to reduce waste. The cost of dismounting a 36 or 54" roll and doing calibration free. Often one justs has to make do with more waste when doing rush jobs. On a busy day with alot of oddball sizes; 1/2 of the paper might not be printed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert x Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Kelly that all sounds very plausible but we know that it is just a story you feed us to cover up the global printer conspiracy plot for world domination. Bob. ;o] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennisprice Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Some interesting references on "standard" paper sizes: http://home.inter.net/eds/paper/index.html http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_clark Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 4x6 mattes in 5x7, 5x7 mattes in 8x10. And 8x10 is 2x from a 4x5 negative. THat's why they are the way they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I would like to know...who mattes a 4x6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_watson1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Study history. That's where the answer lies. Standard US print sizes were created long before the advent of roll film. Most of them are contact printing sizes from the glass plate era. The resulting print sizes hang on "because we've always done it that way." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_nelson1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 <U>If everyone would just change 4x6 to 4x5 </U><P> Why 4x5? My 20D is 3504 X 2336 pixels which is approximately 1:1.5 aspect ratio so 4x6 makes more sense. <P> Anyway, as others have pointed out, all the "standard" print sizes have their roots in various, different, standard negative sizes.<P> I recently bought a decent matte cutter and I intend to learn to use it over the next few weeks so I'll no longer be at the mercy of expensive and time-consuming custom framing shops.<P> <I>if I'm having prints made from film, but for digital, it's simply not an issue. After I've cropped a photo to whatever format suits that image, I run an action that resizes it to fit the paper size (at the appropriate resolution) and adds a very narrow black border surrounded by a white border that fills the rest of the page. (And my standard "proof" size is 6" x 8"; there's a nearby discount store that makes good prints of this size for the equivalent of about 40 cents US.) Creating the needed actions in PS took less time than you spent starting this thread.</I><P> But a black (or white) border inside the matte looks dorky. Your idea may work if you are just tacking your photo to a wall, but it doesn't work if you want to frame it. Your "solution" doesn't address the fact that if you want a print bigger than 4x6 there is no commonly available "standard" size matte. 8x12 is <B>sometimes</B> available but a few weeks ago when I needed one I went to Ritz, two dedicated framing stores, and a Michael's in my area and <B>NONE</B> of them sold an 8x12 matte. (that's when I decided to buy the matte cutter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babette_ross Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 LOL, love the scissor link. I generally print snap shots at 4x6 (to easily fit in albums) but just got a fuji f11 (for situations where my 20D is unwieldy) and the f11 only does 3:2 aspect ratio with the "normal" level of compresssion vs the "fine" level.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Emre: I did. I printed some B&W photos of my brother that I like very much. I put them in an 8x10 frame with the photo in the top half (bottom of mat is 1/2 of the space). One of them is here on my desk at work and I gave the other to my sister-in-law. People comment on it regularly when they visit my office. If you choose your subject (no tiny details) and keep the color pattern simple or use B&W, matting and framing a 4x6 for more intimate viewing situations such as a desk, bedide or smaller room works nicely. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_harding Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I have a good quality matte cutter. I also buy frame pieces in one inch increments. This gives me the flexibility to crop my photo to any size and matte it to any size frame. So, I let the photo content dictate the size of the print...not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Talk about taking matters into your own hands... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now