8.5x11 epson photographic paper versus 8x10 prints

[terry_lo]

Does anyone know the reasons why epson photographic paper comes

mainly in 8.5x11 instead of the more standard 8x10? I was at the

store looking at overmat boards, and I could only find those suitable

for 8x10. Any suggestions? Is the only solution to print an 8x10

image on 8.5x11 paper and trim? Any advice, solutions would be

appreciated, thanks!

[swenson]

The 8x10 borderless prints are a recent innovation. My guess is that printing to the edge causes clogging. So all prints had to be oversized. If your printer does not do 8x10 borderless than the only so solution is to print and trim.

[lwg]

Epson sells some papers in the 8x10 size. Print times are much faster if you don't use the borderless option, so trimming 8.5 x 11 after printing may still be more desireable. Plus the bottom 1/4 inch is sometimes smeared with the borderless option (on my 780).

[john_luke]

When desktop printers hit the scene, common output sizes were based on standard sizes of brochures/magazines in the graphic arts/printing industry. One page was 8.5x11, a doubletruck ( double page) was 11x17. Paper was manufactured to those specifications so graphic designers could make their comps and proofs at full size. Photographic print sizes, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, never correlated to those of the graphic design field. Those photo dimensions go way back to some ancient rule of proportion.

[mike_lepp1]

Another problem with using 8x10 paper for and 8x10 image is that epson's software resized the image. It makes it slightly larger to insure it gets to, and over the edge of the sheet. With the current technology borderless printing is a pain in the ass and crops your image. Thereby making it not worth the time.

 

Go to office depot/staples et. al. and buy a 15" inch Carl rotary cuter. These work great and are simple to use.

[ken_burns1]

If you are overmatting, the opening cut in the board will be 7.5x9.5. Just print the 8x10 photo at the 8x10 size on 8.5x11 paper and position it under the overmat appropriately. No print trimming will be necessary.

[andy_piper2]

Desktop printers were originally intended for Jane/Joe Consumer to print letters on. The standard ("letter") paper size was 8.5" x 11" (or A4 in some countries) because that had been the standard size for typing letters since at least as far back as 1920 or so.

 

Thus it was also the standard size Xerox and others used for photocopying machines - which morphed into the first laser-printers.

 

As John points out, many magazines have a similar page size, so the next step was the doubletruck (2-page spread) 11x17 for proofing magazine layouts.

 

Until us weirdos started trying to print photographs via desktop printers, nobody considered 8x10 or 11x14 as standards bearing any relationship to the function of computer printers. The market was information and word processing - and THAT standard was 8.5x11.

 

(Incidentally, Kodak made typing-paper-weight 8.5" x 11" silver-based photo paper for a couple of decades - specifically for people who needed to include photographs in their "standard" letter-sized typed reports. I used it a couple of times for illustrated research papers in college.)

[mark_thomas3]

US Letter is *not* the same size as A4..

 

A4 = 11.69" x 8.27"

US Letter = 11" x 8.5"

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't see what the fuss is all about. I mean, 8x10 is not the same proportion as 24x36, nor is it the same as 56x56, nor does it match 6x7, nor does it match 3x4, well, only if you shoot 4x5" sheet film, does the paper match the original size. In fact, I think A4 is perfect for printing 2:3 aspect ratio full frame images. Otherwise you need to crop a part of the original image area or the print. I can't imagine anyone making their own prints would be happy with frames that are premade to a specific aspect ratio. How would you frame your cropped panoramics? Frames can be made to any size, and you get to choose the materials. And buy a proper paper cutter.