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

[silvercloud2323]

Hi,

Why most Ilford printing paper has not the 3/2 ratio in dimensions like of a 35mm film ( 24mm x 36mm)

Except the paper 10 mm x 15 mm.

thank you

 

[L Gebhardt]

If you want even borders you can’t have paper the same aspect ratio as the image. Unless the borders are 0 of course.

 

[xkaes]

There are dozens of film formats -- even in 35mm alone (24x36mm, 24x24mm, 17x24mm, 18x24mm, 24x32mm, 24x34mm,........). Take 120 film -- 6x6, 6x4.5, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17...................... How about large format????????? How about Minox 8x11mm or disc 8.2x10.6mm?

They can't make paper that fits every format.

That's what scissors are for!!!

 

[cmacd123]

ilford makes their paper with traditional sizes, like 5X7, 8X10, 11x14,16X20 (inch) for the North american market, and traditional European sizes for the EURO market. I suspect that in both cases some of the "standard" sizes were established long before 35mm "Full Frame" (2 Movie frames worth of film) - Mind you the movie frame established by Edison's lab was (18X24mm) or 3 to 4 also does not match all that well.

you may find that the Eur sizes or the North American sizes suit you better.

 

[ic-racer]

The discrepancy between many of the common film formats and paper dimensions leads many to seek a 4-bladed easel as the solution.

 

[samcomet]

while not really addressing the OP's original question and following on from cmacd123's reply, the old tall tale of Edison asking Eastman to make film for his camera/projection equipment goes something along the lines of Eastman asking, "how big did he want the film?" And Edison holding up his thumb and forefinger in reply, saying, "about this size."

 

[Bill Burk]

Get used to wide borders.

 

[cmacd123]

while not really addressing the OP's original question and following on from cmacd123's reply, the old tall tale of Edison asking Eastman to make film for his camera/projection equipment goes something along the lines of Eastman asking, "how big did he want the film?" And Edison holding up his thumb and forefinger in reply, saying, "about this size."

One version I had heard was that Eastman had purchased a French made slitting device intended for Cigarette papers which yeilded 70mm wide strips. either Edison or Eastman then slit the resulting film in half giving 35mm. most of the other dimensions were then set just to get the thing to work. Presumably that also resulted in te 1 foot a second (16FPS) standard that was roughly followed until the sound era required 24 FPS to get suficient speed to record sound.

anyway, yes, the standard paper sizes are totally unconnected to any negative formats except by accident.

For exampe, 5X7 inch is a common size as is 11X14. scale up 5 x7 by doubling each dimesnion and you get 10 by 14. quarter 11X14 and you get 5.5 by 7

 

[Vaughn]

I found the best thing about 16x20 paper was that I could print a 15" square image on it and have plenty of 'extra' paper top and bottom to handle the sheet with ease. Especially if it was good sheet.

 

[snusmumriken]

Why most Ilford printing paper has not the 3/2 ratio in dimensions like of a 35mm film ( 24mm x 36mm)

5:4 proportions allow easy contact printing or enlarging from glass plates or sheet film. I don't know where those proportions and actual sizes originally came from. If they weren't completely arbitrary, they may have been based on some pre-existing standard in the glass or paper industries. Photographic glass plates were defined as a 8.5" x 6.5" 'whole plate', which could be progressively halved into 'half plate' or 'quarter plate' sizes. Whether those standards already existed in the manufacture of blemish-free sheet glass, I don't know. Anyone else know?

There was a paper standard in Britain that almost matches photo paper sizes (but not glass plates). Paper standards were based on halving, quartering, etc an uncut sheet (starting with 'foolscap', 'post' or 'copy': each had different dimensions). The 'copy' series was:
copy (uncut sheet) 20" x 16"
copy folio (i.e. folded) 16" x 10"
copy quarto 10" x 8"
copy octavo 8" x 5"

For photographers using formats other than 5:4, these conventions are obviously a relic. All the same, as others have already said, having a broad margin makes handling much easier. Having any kind of margin to trim off is beneficial in terms of flattening the print, or alternatively allowing some overlap with an over-mount board. There is also said to be an advantage in removing contaminants, which are allegedly concentrated in the edges - but don't ask me for evidence!

Despite the availability of other formats, I buy the 5:4 paper sizes for enlarging 35mm. My image area on 16"x12" ends up 15"x10", so I am 'wasting' about 22% of the paper area. If the paper had 3:2 proportions, i.e. 16" x 10.7", I would still 'waste' 12% of the paper on the 0.5" margins dictated by my enlarging easel. Considering the advantages of having margins, either option seems trivial compared with the whole sheets of paper I waste by messing up!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Why not use the excess for test strips?

When enlarging 4x5 negatives I made 5x7(ish) test prints on 8x10 paper. The image fits horizontally on a vertical piece of paper with a 1/2" border all the way around, which left about a 4x8 piece to be cut off for one massive test strip, or could be cut in half for two test strips.

 

[faberryman]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

silvercloud2323, way back in the mists of time when Photrio was APUG and the world hadn't turned "lax and sour" I am sure I recall this very same question being asked This thread is still young and contributions continue but there was quite a lot said in that former thread. You may want to do a search

I asked the question of Simon Galley, former executive of Ilford, at the 2006 or 2008 tour of Ilford in the form of why not make a 5 x 7.5 inch size to match the 35mm negative and his reply covered briefly the history of paper sizes. More importantly as I recall, was his "bottom-line" that there was no real demand for such a size

pentaxuser

 

[xkaes]

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.

Probably like most of us, I started out by trying to fill the paper -- no matter what the paper size was. Besides, that was what size picture frames came in.

Talk about a mental BOX!!!

It didn't take me long to realize that I decide what format and size is best for my photo. It might be 8x8" or 20x100".

So it doesn't make any difference what size paper comes in -- I'm going to cut it, one way or another.

 

[MattKing]

Owning and using a mat cutter is one way that I deal with the mismatch between frame sizes and film aspect ratios.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

They should make papers with black bars on each side.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[Ian Grant]

The OP needs to check Ilford's website, There is 10x15cm (4"x6"), and A4 21x29.7 is close as well to the 2:3 format.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

The standard paper size was never intended to consider darkroom use. Either shoot square or modify the 24mm X 36mm format to join the real world.

 

[Vaughn]

...

So it doesn't make any difference what size paper comes in -- I'm going to cut it, one way or another.

And some people use to buy paper in rolls...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some people just can't cut it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sirius - or breed together you're square and 35mm formats, and you do end up with a standard paper proportion like 8x10 or 16X20 etc. Just one more reason you should buy my patented Film Stretcher.

 

[Pieter12]

You don't need to fill the sheet. Just print the ratio you want on whatever size you want. Cut the paper if you want to. Consider the border size: you should probably leave the bottom border wider than the rest, just make it look balanced and pleasing to the eye. If the prints end up matted, the mat window can match your image proportions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

With either large size prints or mass-printed small ones, sizing in relation to overall expense can be significant. The less paper you waste, the better. One more reason why large widths, as well as high-volume applications, involve mainly rolls rather than pre-sized cut sheets.

 

[cliveh]

Hi,

Why most Ilford printing paper has not the 3/2 ratio in dimensions like of a 35mm film ( 24mm x 36mm)

Except the paper 10 mm x 15 mm.

thank you

I have also asked this question in the past. 35mm is the most common film format on the planet and paper manufacturers have never bothered sell paper in this aspect ratio. Marketing people are not photographers.