Why 8x10?

gary in nj · Apr 19, 2017

This is a 35mm rant.

I never gave any thought to this in my youth, I just accepted it as a "standard". But why is 8x10 considered a standard print size. 8x12 would equate to the film aspect ratio. For that matter 5x7 should be 5x7-1/2 and 11x14 should be 11x16.5 (or maybe 9-1/3x14).

This never really bothered me until I started sending digital photos out for printing. I would spend considerable time getting the photo just the way I wanted it, order an 8x10 online, and then receive a photo that had an inch lopped off each size. I now order 8x12's from mpix.

Since I've rediscovered film, I find myself either deciding what part of my photo I will leave off the print or having a strange lopsided border. Sure, I could buy 11x14 paper and cut it down, but that's a waste. And I can't seem to get in the habit of framing my subjects knowing that I'm going to not print nearly 20% of the edges.

Why is it that we have "standard" print sizes that don't match the aspect ratio of our media?

nworth · Apr 19, 2017

Film sizes are arbitrary - and always have been. That said, there is a set based on 4X5 proportions (4X5, 8X10, etc), one based on 3X4 proportions (18X24, 45X60, 3-1/4X4-1/4, etc), and one based on 2X3 proportions (24X36, 60X90, etc), and a whole lot that make no sense at all (5X7, 11X14, etc.). Since 35mm is so popular, it is surprising that they didn't make paper is 2X3 proportions. But if they had, users of the other sizes would complain noisily.

Luckless · Apr 19, 2017

Only reason I've really heard so far has been 'tradition'. 8x10 is far more common in not only paper stock, but also framing supplies from what I've seen. 4x6" seems common enough over 4x5", but the market share seems to slip greatly in favour of 4x5 ratios once you step up into the larger sizes. The fact that we still aren't seeing 2x3 ratio on things like matted frames taking over from the 4x5 ratio would suggest that the market pressure is still strongly in favour of the squarer format... But not square format. Given that 6x6 medium format is my main usage this days I'm not overly impressed with the lack of ready off the shelf options for 6x6" and 8x8" printing and presentation supplies.

Of course there is the question of how much chicken and egg is going on for it. Is the market pressure for 8x10 kept high simply because 8x10 is the most readily available option around that size?

But personally I look at it as how much do you really waste in cutting your paper to your specifications? For the cost of the effort of slicing the paper down to the size and aspect ratio that you specifically want, you get sheets for your actual prints, plus a stack of test strips to work with. A 100 sheet box of paper gives me 100 sheets to work with while still giving me the supplies to 'dial in' things on the first few tests.

Jesper · Apr 19, 2017

Good thing you don't use panoramic cameras...
Joking aside, since I need some test strips there is never a problem with having to trim off some paper.
You could also buy a roll of paper and cut whatever size you want.

MattKing · Apr 19, 2017

It is because all those people who like to contact print 8x10 negatives have too much influence in the market!
By the way, 5x7 and 11x14 work really, really well with 6x4.5 and micro 4/3 originals.

Alan9940 · Apr 19, 2017

Perhaps that most frames are available in these standard sizes has some bearing on it, but...personally...in nearly 40 years of involvement with printing my own work--both in the wet darkroom and via the desktop--I've never followed the conventional "standards." I format the print however I see it. Well...ok...when I contact print 8x10 I guess I'm printing to a "standard." But, I if I want to crop the 8x10 I'll trim to whatever size.

Ian Grant · Apr 19, 2017

Because plate and paper sizes go back many years before 35mm film was introduced, they also differ(ed) slightly between Europe and the US.

Ian

Gerald C Koch · Apr 19, 2017

The way it was explained to me is that the size goes back to the early days of photography when glass plates were first used. No one made plates specifically for photography so photographers used what was available. At the time it was impractical to make and ship large panes of glass and 8X10 panes were commonly used for multi pane windows. The specific size carried over to commercial dry plates along with half-plate and quarter plate sizes,

For 35mm blame Oskar Barnack and his early Ur-Leica designed to use cine film. He doubled the size of the negative from what was used for motion pictures. Barnack was looking for a way to test cine film before light meters were common and emulsion manufacture was still a bit of a by guess and by gosh proposition.

There are quite a few books on the history of photography. They make great reads for those who still enjoy reading books, a vanishingly small proportion of our current society.

Ian Grant · Apr 19, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
The way it was explained to me is that the size goes back to the early days of photography when glass plates were first used. No one made plates specifically for photography so photographers used what was available. At the time it was impractical to make and ship large panes of glass and 8X10 panes were commonly used for multi pane windows. The specific size carried over to commercial dry plates along with half-plate and quarter plate sizes.

Whole plate (full plate) 8½x6½ was the common size for multi-pane windows, 10x8 was a more logical step up in size for photography followed by 12x10, 15x12, then 20x16 in the UK, 14x11 in the US instead of 12x10 & 15x12.

Ian

Martin Rickards · Apr 19, 2017

Some might prefer approx 8 1/4" x 10 3/4", especially those using digital printers.

Skai King · Apr 19, 2017

This is why we have paper cutters.

gary in nj · Apr 19, 2017

Yeah, after I burn through my new 100 sheet box of 8x10 I think I'm gonna start getting 11x14. Adorama has a VG Resin in pearl that I might try - $50 for 50 sheets.

Old-N-Feeble · Apr 19, 2017

^^^ An 11x14 sheet cut in half (7x11) is nearly perfect 2:3 ratio for 135 format... almost no waste. The same is true for 16x20 cut in half (10x16).

spijker · Apr 19, 2017

gary in nj said:
Why is it that we have "standard" print sizes that don't match the aspect ratio of our media?

Essentially it's an unwillingness to change/adapt/modernize/standardize from the photo industry. It's the "we've always done it like that, why change" attitude instead of a "how can we improve" attitude. I think it's pretty ridiculous that the size of a print in 2017 has to be the same as a glass plate of 100 years ago. I would have been so nice and efficient if the photo industry had switched to a standard aspect ratio of 1:√2 ≈ 1:1.41 and the ISO 126 (a.k.a DIN) paper sizes A5, A4, A3, A2 etc, see http://www.papersizes.org/a-paper-sizes.htm. The stationary paper industry did it mid 20th century (60-ish years ago) and A4 is now the world wide standard business paper size except for conservative North America that keeps hanging on to the clumsy imperial units and formats. Anyway, it didn't happen then and it likely won't happen in the future. So we're stuck all kinds of incompatible formats.

At least for digital prints, there has been some adaptation to the 2:3 ratio. I can order 4x6 inch, 8x12 inch and 12x18 inch prints. With film, I shoot 645 (3:4 ratio) and that prints reasonably well on 8x10 inch and 11x14 inch paper with slightly larger (5 mm) side margins than the top/bottom margins. But with 35mm film and a 2:3 ratio, you'd waste more paper or crop your negative. If you don't like that, you could mail order A4 paper from Europe or cut a 16 x 20 inch sheet into 3 sheets of 8 x 12 inch and cut the remaining 8 x 8 inch piece into test strips.

miha · Apr 19, 2017

8'x10' was never a standard in Europe for some reason, unlike 18x24cm.

jvo · Apr 19, 2017

simple - like the hard disk on your computer, your brain is also divided in fixed segments size to easily save data. so for the picture to be "remembered" it must fit in that 8x10 brain segment size, the extra 2" (8x12) is forgettable!

Rick A · Apr 19, 2017

If the OP's gripe is because of cropping 35 mm to 8x10, buy 11x14 paper and slice it to 7x11. Works well for 6x4.5 and 6x9 cm negatives.

Sal Santamaura · Apr 19, 2017

MattKing said:
It is because all those people who like to contact print 8x10 negatives have too much influence in the market!...

I can never have too much influence in this market.

gary in nj · Apr 19, 2017

Rick A said:
If the OP's gripe is because of cropping 35 mm to 8x10, buy 11x14 paper and slice it to 7x11. Works well for 6x4.5 and 6x9 cm negatives.

Good luck finding precut mats for a 7x11, or a an 11x15 frame. I have found and use precut 8x12 mats and 12x16 frames, so I'm gonna stick with that size.

Vaughn · Apr 19, 2017

A 7"x7" print on 8x10 paper (10x10 on 11x14, etc) always looked nice to me -- worth the 'waste'. Plenty of paper to grab during processing, including toning.

When I was printing on Portriga Rapid in Dektol 1:3, I would introduce the 16x20 paper into the developer face-down, aggitate, then flip the paper over and continue aggitation. I would get 'fingerprints' where I grabbed the paper. For a short period of time the paper became pressure sensitive early in development -- having the extra border was nice to have.

removed account4 · Apr 19, 2017

hi gary

not really sure what is so bad about trimming a sheet of paper to have a print on it
(using the trimmings for test strips). maybe it is the unavailability of pre cut mats /pre made
cheap frames for whatever size that ends up being your final outside dimension?
one solution is to buy a mat cutter and some mat board
and cut your own mats, and buy a bunch of unassembled frames that you assemble as needed. there
are a lot of places that will sell sheets of matboard and unassembled frames at a discount.
maybe don't frame your work at all but present them in hand made portfolio books or portfolio boxes
(portfoliobox.com makes them both). the books take sheets of paper, you can
put matted prints in a box, or hand make your own books + boxes, which isn't very hard at all.
at least it seem not too hard...

Sirius Glass · Apr 19, 2017

Photographic sized in the US started from full plate, half plate, ... . US paper sizes have their own irrational bases and sizes. 35mm was take from 35mm movie film which is what is now know as single frame and half frame, however 24mm X 24mm, 24mm X 28mm, 24mm X 32mm and 24mm X 36mm were all tried before 24mm X 36mm was chosen as the standard. Of course ratio of 24x36 does not fit on 4"x5", 5"x7", 8"x10", 8.5"x 11" nor 16"x20". I personally find 24x26 is generally too long and I prefer square or 4"x5" negatives. Heck I even prefer 6"x7" over 35mm, but I do not shoot that size.

Ian Grant · Apr 20, 2017

spijker said:
Essentially it's an unwillingness to change/adapt/modernize/standardize from the photo industry. It's the "we've always done it like that, why change" attitude instead of a "how can we improve" attitude. I think it's pretty ridiculous that the size of a print in 2017 has to be the same as a glass plate of 100 years ago. I would have been so nice and efficient if the photo industry had switched to a standard aspect ratio of 1:√2 ≈ 1:1.41 and the ISO 126 (a.k.a DIN) paper sizes A5, A4, A3, A2 etc, see http://www.papersizes.org/a-paper-sizes.htm. The stationary paper industry did it mid 20th century (60-ish years ago) and A4 is now the world wide standard business paper size except for conservative North America that keeps hanging on to the clumsy imperial units and formats. Anyway, it didn't happen then and it likely won't happen in the future. So we're stuck all kinds of incompatible formats.

At least for digital prints, there has been some adaptation to the 2:3 ratio. I can order 4x6 inch, 8x12 inch and 12x18 inch prints. With film, I shoot 645 (3:4 ratio) and that prints reasonably well on 8x10 inch and 11x14 inch paper with slightly larger (5 mm) side margins than the top/bottom margins. But with 35mm film and a 2:3 ratio, you'd waste more paper or crop your negative. If you don't like that, you could mail order A4 paper from Europe or cut a 16 x 20 inch sheet into 3 sheets of 8 x 12 inch and cut the remaining 8 x 8 inch piece into test strips.

It's not an unwillingness to change, it's just historic reality and sizes that the majority of darkroom workers like, Ilford do sell A4 21cm x 29.7cm B&W papers, I've bought some in the past. We could be asking why no square paper for all those shooting 6x6 negatives, it has been offered but just didn't sell.

The paper sizes are largely down to what the local distributors/dealers think they can sell rather than what's actually available from the manufacturers. If you want A4 paper locally rather than importing it see if the local dealer can order it for you.

Ian

Gargan · Apr 26, 2017

Is 8X10 only popular in the US?

I live in Iceland and the common frames sizes are:
13x18cm (5"x7")
18x24cm (7x9.5")
21x30cm (lettersize 11.3"x13.7") only RC paper from Ilford in this size, not fiber
30x40cm (12"x16")
40x50cm (16"x20")
50x70cm (20"x28")
60x90cm (24"x36")

NJH · Apr 26, 2017

As Vaughn says 7x7 is nice and of course one can print 35mm to 6x9 if keeping the proportions are that important. I do both from my 10x8 paper and have found frames/overmats here in the UK for them.

Why 8x10?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency