Why Ilford printing paper has not the 3/2 ratio in dimensions like of a 35mm film

[Sirius Glass]

For starters the title has the ratio inverted. It should be 2:3.

 

[bluechromis]

If the threads in Photrio are any indication, most photographers crop, so having papers which match the aspect ratios of films may not be any better than having the historic paper sizes we have now.

I agree that this is part of it. If you look at the work of acclaimed 35 mm photographers, some liked to use the full width of the 35 mm negative. But a lot, such a portraitists, were happy to crop off some of the width to fit typical paper sizes. I don't think it makes sense to say they were all forced to do that to synch the paper size. These were perfectionists that would go to great lengths to make a print exactly right. Many were fine with 8 x 10 and if they had had wider paper available wouldn't have used it. Even in the digital world where there may be more flexibility of ratios, many prefer an image that is not as wide as 24/36. Given the mixed messages about photographers preferences, paper manufacturers probably didn't see a great need to make special wide paper for 35 mm.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Before the one-hour processors standardized on 4"x6" prints to match the 2:3 negative size when you sent in 35mm film, the processors would use a weird size where they would automatically crop out part of the picture. I don;t know how they figured the crop arrangement. In any case, the paper was something like 2 3/4" x 5" (that's a guess, maybe someone remembers the actual size.)

 

[foc]

In the 1980/90s when wedding albums usually had 10x8 inch prints as standard, I fitted a grid focus screen into my OM4ti. So when photographing a wedding group I could make sure the person on either side of the group was inside the 5:4 ratio for the 10x8 print.

When I changed to a Canon EOS1, I used the left and right focus sensor guides in the viewfinder as a reference.

No one was ever cut out of the group photos again.

 

[MattKing]

Before the one-hour processors standardized on 4"x6" prints to match the 2:3 negative size when you sent in 35mm film, the processors would use a weird size where they would automatically crop out part of the picture. I don;t know how they figured the crop arrangement. In any case, the paper was something like 2 3/4" x 5" (that's a guess, maybe someone remembers the actual size.)

3.5" x 5" was the standard before 4"x6", and traditionally those had 1/4" borders, meaning that the image size was 3" x 4.5" - a perfect 2:3 aspect ratio.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

3.5" x 5" was the standard before 4"x6", and traditionally those had 1/4" borders, meaning that the image size was 3" x 4.5" - a perfect 2:3 aspect ratio.

No wonder mine were cropped. I asked for full size with no border which I recall was an option.

 

[GregY]

For starters the title has the ratio inverted. It should be 2:3.

Steve, As has been pointed out to me, if you're in the UK the ratios are reversed from the way we do it in N America.... so film sizes. 10x8... 5x4...

 

[Pieter12]

Steve, As has been pointed out to me, if you're in the UK the ratios are reversed from the way we do it in N America.... so film sizes. 10x8... 5x4...

Those are dimensions, not ratios. But the standard in the US (and I believe the UK) is to put the dimensions in the format of Width x Height, although most in the US don't always do that. And since in photography, we shoot both horizontally and vertically, it doesn't really matter much. I hate the terms "portrait" and "landscape" they're kind of like the silly icons on low-end amateur cameras for automated modes.

 

[GregY]

Those are dimensions, not ratios. But the standard in the US (and I believe the UK) is to put the dimensions in the format of Width x Height, although most in the US don't always do that. And since in photography, we shoot both horizontally and vertically, it doesn't really matter much. I hate the terms "portrait" and "landscape" they're kind of like the silly icons on low-end amateur cameras for automated modes.

Thanks Pieter. I'd suggest it's a fine line. As for your point on "portrait & landscape".....aren't you reading in your personal bias?

 

[Vaughn]

For starters the title has the ratio inverted. It should be 2:3.

No...sorry.

For wide people it is width then height. For tall people it is height then width.

Also, I prefer just 'hort' and 'vert'.

 

[GregY]

To simplify things lets all just shoot square....

 

[Pieter12]

Thanks Pieter. I'd suggest it's a fine line. As for your point on "portrait & landscape".....aren't you reading in your personal bias?

Not really. A ratio is scalable, dimensions are fixed. And, while it is my personal bias about "portrait" and "landscape," portraits can be horizontal and landscapes can be vertical. So the terminology is biased as far as I am concerned.

 

[BMbikerider]

Paper sizes have evolved from the master sheet sizes that paper mills produce. Ilford doesn’t make paper, they just coat and cut it down from what they get from the mill. Sizes usually become standards because that is what can be economically cut from those master sheets or rolls with the least or no waste.

I am not so sure on the term master sheets. In the past Ilford, Kodak and Agfa used to make a 10x12 sheet size, now it is 9.5 x12.
Then there used to be a 12x15 sheet but that was changed sometime in the 60s-70s to 12 x 16. Then there is 10x8 that is very closely the same proportion as a 6x7 negative and 5x7 sheet film.

In UK we can get what we call 'A4' which is the same size as letter paper of copying paper, (approximately 8..25 x 11.25 inches) and that is very close to the same proportions as a 35mm neg.

 

[GregY]

Not really. A ratio is scalable, dimensions are fixed. And, while it is my personal bias about "portrait" and "landscape," portraits can be horizontal and landscapes can be vertical. So the terminology is biased as far as I am concerned.

Good points P12

 

[BMbikerider]

To simplify things lets all just shoot square....

Well why not, the Royal Air Force during 1938/45 war used to print their photo reconnaissance square pictures on square sheets of waterproof paper. (Awful stuff) I think it was about 12" or 15" square.

 

[GregY]

Well why not, the Royal Air Force during 1938/45 war used to print their photo reconnaissance square pictures on square sheets of waterproof paper. (Awful stuff) I think it was about 12" or 15" square.

Honestly, I'm more interested in the photo and the print quality than to wonder why photo paper manufacturers don't match film aspect ratios....
Do I envy those who have the inclination to ponder such philosophical questions?.......

 

[Pieter12]

I am not so sure on the term master sheets. In the past Ilford, Kodak and Agfa used to make a 10x12 sheet size, now it is 9.5 x12.
Then there used to be a 12x15 sheet but that was changed sometime in the 60s-70s to 12 x 16. Then there is 10x8 that is very closely the same proportion as a 6x7 negative and 5x7 sheet film.

In UK we can get what we call 'A4' which is the same size as letter paper of copying paper, (approximately 8..25 x 11.25 inches) and that is very close to the same proportions as a 35mm neg.

The UK uses metric sizes, the US of course can't fathom the metrics system and uses its own standards. But master sheet refers to the size a paper mill delivers paper to customers. Those sheets can then be cut down to suit the customer's needs, but the less waste, the better. In the US, the most common master sheet size is 25"x38", the metric equivalent would be A0, 841mm x 1189mm or A1, 594mm x 841mm. Of course, paper can also be delivered in rolls, usually about 36" wide. Now these specs are for printing paper, it is possible that there are mills that produce paper in different master sheet sizes for photographic coating.

 

[Sirius Glass]

To simplify things lets all just shoot square....

Now there is a man [person] who understands!

 

[Sirius Glass]

The UK uses metric sizes, the US of course can't fathom the metrics system and uses its own standards. But master sheet refers to the size a paper mill delivers paper to customers. Those sheets can then be cut down to suit the customer's needs, but the less waste, the better. In the US, the most common master sheet size is 25"x38", the metric equivalent would be A0, 841mm x 1189mm or A1, 594mm x 841mm. Of course, paper can also be delivered in rolls, usually about 36" wide. Now these specs are for printing paper, it is possible that there are mills that produce paper in different master sheet sizes for photographic coating.

Not only is the metric system beyond the mental reach of people in the US, they call flat head screw drivers and Phillips screw drivers "minus screw drivers" and "plus screw drivers" respectively.

 

[xkaes]

I've lived all over the US and never heard that one. BUTTTTT, California is another story.

 

[Vaughn]

I've lived all over the US and never heard that one. BUTTTTT, California is another story.

Same here. Even then, Gary Larson made a joke of people learning to use screw drivers -- and he blew the drawing of the screw head that the teacher was showing the class. It may have been on purpose to show an idiot instructor..or there might be a screw head out there like that -- never seen one.

 

[Eric Rose]

Because only losers shoot 35mm. It's made for 4x5 or 8x10 negatives. People who shoot 5x7 are also losers.

Just joking!! No flameing please!

 

[snusmumriken]

I’ve been proud that I knew the difference between Philips and Pozidrive cross-heads, but the other day I learned in a thread here that Japanese Philips screw heads are different.

 

[Moose22]

I've lived all over the US and never heard that one. BUTTTTT, California is another story.

Nobody here says that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Same here. Even then, Gary Larson made a joke of people learning to use screw drivers -- and he blew the drawing of the screw head that the teacher was showing the class. It may have been on purpose to show an idiot instructor..or there might be a screw head out there like that -- never seen one.

I cannot see the media that you posted.