Why 8x10?

[Rick A]

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.

Why do you need precut mats? If you don't have basic mat cutting supplies, order the sizes from an art supply that does custom cutting, they aren't that much more than standard sizes. Frame Destination will cut whatever you want.

 

[removed account4]

gary in nj

here are 2 websites with historic/19th century paper sizes
https://sizes.com/materials/paper19eng.htm ( english )
https://sizes.com/materials/paper19US.htm ( usa )

here's one that has daguerreotype plate sizes
http://cwfp.biz/platesizes.php

the english system ( talbotype / calotype+salt print ) used writing paper
the french system ( daguerreotypes ) were bound to the sizes the manufacturers made for them

it was a "standard" that stuck even into wet plate+ambrotypes but from what i can remember there
were some ambrotypists and tintypists who used the english system so their plates might not have been
the whole plate sizes.
when dry plates came out so did pre-coated papers, since these things were mass produced they
used what was available to them. ( based on the english system based on the paper sizes )

with regards to cutting your own mats i've been using an alto ez mat cutter for 30 years
Dead Link Removed
it looks like they are closing shop, maybe you can get a deal on a closeout ?

good luck !
john

 

[Arcturus]

This is why I don't really shoot 35mm or 6x9. Not only just trimming, matting, and frame sizes, but it would also mean different trays and easels. I don't find 3:2 all that appealing either. It's good for scenes with strong horizontal elements, but I don't think it's good as a general purpose aspect ratio. I also don't think it fits well when hung on a wall. Depending on how they're hung they can lead to a disproportionally horizontal display. I actually don't know why digital cameras stayed with this format. I'd have assumed they'd have made the sensors all square and let the user crop to whatever aspect they want.

 

[tomfrh]

I actually don't know why digital cameras stayed with this format

Presumably just following in the footsteps of 35mm. I use canon EOS 35mm film and also have a digital body. It's the same system.

I agree it's generally a bit too long.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This is why I don't really shoot 35mm or 6x9. Not only just trimming, matting, and frame sizes, but it would also mean different trays and easels. I don't find 3:2 all that appealing either. It's good for scenes with strong horizontal elements, but I don't think it's good as a general purpose aspect ratio. I also don't think it fits well when hung on a wall. Depending on how they're hung they can lead to a disproportionally horizontal display. I actually don't know why digital cameras stayed with this format. I'd have assumed they'd have made the sensors all square and let the user crop to whatever aspect they want.

Presumably just following in the footsteps of 35mm. I use canon EOS 35mm film and also have a digital body. It's the same system.

I agree it's generally a bit too long.

Part of the reason I use the Hasselblad which has a square frame [6x6] and 4"x5" is because the 35mm frame if a bit too long.

 

[M Carter]

Sheesh, I always end up cropping images, even tiny amounts... "aw, didn't notice that blade of grass in the pinhole shot foreground". I rarely matte or frame anything right to the film format size. And I like that, there's composing while shooting, and then there's printing and re-interpreting, and often a bit of cropping makes the composition stronger. I couldn't imagine constraining output to some set proportion or paper size. My final proportions are what the image itself seems to want to be. Mattes are cheap.

 

[mshchem]

I rarely print standard sizes, but I use standard sizes of paper. I cut my own mats. I do like to occasionally use my Dad's old airequipt 4 in 1 easel. Makes perfect 1/4 inch borders. If I am just giving small snaps to friends and family, I like to have nice borders. Either I use the old Airequipt or Saunders Sing-L-Size easels.
Mike

 

[Arklatexian]

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

+1

 

[Arklatexian]

Sheesh, I always end up cropping images, even tiny amounts... "aw, didn't notice that blade of grass in the pinhole shot foreground". I rarely matte or frame anything right to the film format size. And I like that, there's composing while shooting, and then there's printing and re-interpreting, and often a bit of cropping makes the composition stronger. I couldn't imagine constraining output to some set proportion or paper size. My final proportions are what the image itself seems to want to be. Mattes are cheap.

+1

 

[RichardJack]

8x10" prints happened many years ago when people shot 4x5 & 8x10" film, it was a perfect fit. It was also a great size for magazines and model and actor portfolio shots. 8x12" is the correct size for 35mm but until the later part of the 20th century 35mm wasn't taken seriously and not considered a pro format.

 

[removed account4]

8x10" prints happened many years ago when people shot 4x5 & 8x10" film, it was a perfect fit. It was also a great size for magazines and model and actor portfolio shots. 8x12" is the correct size for 35mm but until the later part of the 20th century 35mm wasn't taken seriously and not considered a pro format.

IDK dwayne michaels, HCB, eugene smith and oodles of others ( artists, professionals and
others / photojournalists &c ) did a huge amounts of their work using 35mm. suggesting that
people weren't taken seriously and the format was considered a pro format is kind of out-there.
one could move that thinking to 2017 and suggest that everyone who is a serious photographer
a professional &c uses high end digital cameras ( which they do ) and anyone using 4x5 or 8x10 these
days only does so because they can get the gear at yard sale prices, and they are from the
school of thought that suggests the bigger the negative = the better photographer ... and
shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[voceumana]

The 2x3 format was available as a standard cut paper size (at least from Kodak) at one time, it was 2-1/2 x 3-1/2 allowing for 1/4 inch borders on all sides.

The desire of photographer's to use different ratios is a good reason for having a 4-blade easel.

 

[RichardJack]

Granted there were professionals who used 35mm. Most of those beautiful images in National Geographic were from 35mm Chromes and 35mm was the format of choice for photojournalists and sports photographers. Most of these photographers where never making any prints larger than 11x14". For the other photographic industries 35mm was too small of a negative and a minimum of 6x6 was preferred. 35mm was perfect for 8x10's and that was the most common size enlarging paper found in camera stores. I liked printing 35mm in 5x7 because it was a closer fit to the proportions of the negative. I don't recall if I ever saw 8x12" enlarging paper, we did use 8 1/2x11" paper at work though and printed 8x10 with a white border. I miss the Kodak papers, it's what I grew up with and can't seem to fall in love with anything else.

 

[faberryman]

I often print 35mm negatives 6x9 on 8x10 paper, then mat them 11x14 (even 2.5" borders) in a standard 11x14 frame. If you also print larger, you can buy 11x14 paper, cut in in half, and the resulting 7x11 sheets accept 6x9 images as well. Or 16x20, which cuts down to four 8x10s. Very little waste. I have an inexpensive Logan Compact mat cutter, one of the best investments I've made. It pays for itself after cutting just a few mats.

 

[DREW WILEY]

All American-made film-stretchers had 8" wide jaws because they were made from recycled bear traps. But you could only stretch old nitrate film base to 10" or it would snap. But with modern film base from Rubbermaid, you can stretch it to 8x20 !