Why this difference in Paper size (12x16 vs 11x14)?

[Ricus.stormfire]

I've noticed that in the US there's more (mostly?) 11x14 size paper than 12x16 (which mostly available in the UK/Europe & and here in SA, don't know about Australasia & Asia)

I saw that Freestyle sells 11x14. I've never seen 11x14 paper here...

Why this difference? Just curious :confused:

Ricus

 

[RobertV]

Well in Europe it is:

9x13 - 10x15 (small formats hardly used by DIY photographers anymore) 13x18 - 18x24 - (20x25) - 24x30 - 30x40 - (40x50) - 50x60cm.

Most popular: 13x18 - 24x30 and 30x40cm
Where 20x25 and 40x50cm is not always supported by all manufacturers.

 

[Ian Grant]

11"x14" was never a UK standard size, in plate sizes it was 10x8, 12x10, 15x12, and with papers its always been 10x8,21x10 then 16x12 & 20x16, I think the switch from 15x12 to 16x12 has to do with coming closer to Centimeter sizes.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

Different standards. Europe and the rest of the world are on a metric standard with a few holdovers from England. The US is on the English system and exists in its own world.

Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

It's simpler than that Steve, 11"x14" was a US only plate size, camera's were made to take them, but the UK went straight from 10"x8" & 12"x10" to 15"x12" the latter two formats far less common in the US. So it pre-dates metric, but in practice Inch sizes are now becoming prevalent in the EU for film sizes as 5x4 & 10x8 become the norm.

Ian

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I've muddled around trying to find the reason for some of the standard sizes. Many can be traced to standard sizes for windowpane glass and sheets of tin in the 1800's.

12x16 inches isn't a metric size. It's origins are probably those of a standard sheet of glass or tin in England as opposed to the US. It may also derive from a paper size, but it seems photographic paper sizes follow negative sizes as all early photography was contact printed.

Standard sizes are often bastards: the standard A4 'metric' sheet of paper is 210 mm wide but 11 2/3 inches long - reason being typewriters and computer printers print 6 lines/inch. To prevent apoplectic attacks among metrophiles A4 is specified as 210 x 297mm. Where else would someone come up with a standard size as 297 of anything?

 

[Ian Grant]

A4 B&W paper is a great size to use, not so common in the UK but available.

The A sizes (and in between B sizes) have one major advantage they remain proportional as they are folded or you go up in sizes, great when doing artwork, posters etc, I used to regularly get work printed A1 and occasionally A0.

This is where the Quarter plate, Half plate, Full (Whole) plate system doesn't work as well.

ian

 

[Marco B]

12x16 inches isn't a metric size. It's origins are probably those of a standard sheet of glass or tin in England as opposed to the US. It may also derive from a paper size, but it seems photographic paper sizes follow negative sizes as all early photography was contact printed.

This remark is most likely not true, photographic enlarging existed from the dawn of photography according to this document by William E. Leyshon:

PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE 19th CENTURY:
A Process Identification Guide

See page 75:
"It is unfortunate that many people, including some writers, have the misconception that photographic enlarging is an advanced technology that appeared late on the scene. Several writers were under the impression that in the early days of photography enlargements weren't possible, so if you wanted an 8x10 print you needed a negative of the same size.

Not so. Enlargers have existed from the beginnings of photography. Sir John Herschel described his in 1839; it even had a lens corrected for spherical aberration (!!!) :eek:

That same year Talbot patented an enlarger for his calotypes. Draper enlarged Daguerreotypes with a copy camera in Massachusetts during the winter of 1839-1840. By 1857 full-figure (!!!) portraits six feet tall were being made and Woodward's solar enlarger was in widespread use."

Other resources mention a 1843 date for the invention of the photographic enlarger as well:

this page, which mentions a photographic timeline (see the page for the full text):

"1820s-1830s

mid-1820s first experiments with early photographic techniques
1839 daguerreotype process is made public in France
1839 the first camera, the Giroux Daguerreotype, is made commercially available

1840s

1840s widespread use of the daguerreotype in Europe and United States
1840 paper negative invented by William Henry Fox Talbot
1843 advent of the photographic enlarger
1845 Matthew Brady opens portrait studio in New York City
1849 advent of the twin-lens camera and the development of the stereoscopic image
1849 first images of Egypt are published and give rise to travel photography"

And:
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
http://www.richardton-taylor.k12.nd.us/tech/evolution_of_photography.htm

Marco

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

photographic enlarging existed from the dawn of photography

And how common was it, as compared to contact printing?

But you are right - I should not have said " ... all early photography was contact printed ..." but "most early photography".

Even small negatives were regularly contacted, paper was available for 127 size negatives (~4x4cm) until the early 60's. Along with drugstore envelopes that had a box that you ticked: [] Enlargements - a luxury as they cost 2x as much. My family photos up to that time are ~90+% contact prints from, usually, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 negatives, with a good smattering of 2 1/4 square along with many 127. My mother's copies of her sisters wedding (c 1936) were 35mm contact prints. Enlargements in early family photos are invariably framed, in presentation folders or carefully filed in special envelopes. 120/620 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 was the standard amateur size because it yielded reasonable sized contact prints.

It wasn't until the early 1900's, and the common usage of bright tungsten-filament electric lamps, that developing out paper became common. Until then developing out paper was considered to unreliable - you didn't know when you had exposed it enough - especially as the sun was the usual light source for enlargers and clouds and haze altered exposure times.

That there are exceptions to every statement is a given. And that a technology existed doesn't mean it was in common usage.

 

[Marco B]

The point of paper sizes following negative sizes is that large negatives were, as a rule, contact printed. Even small negatives were regularly contacted, paper was available for 127 size negatives (~4x4cm) until the early 60's. Along with drugstore envelopes that had a box that you ticked: [] Enlargements - a luxury as they cost 2x as much. Family photos up to that time are ~90+% contact prints from, usually, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 negatives, with a good smattering of 2 1/4 square along with many 127. My mother's copies of her sisters wedding (c 1936) were 35mm contact prints.

Nicholas, I am not disputing the logical sense of paper sizes following glass or paper negative sizes in the early days of photography. It seems reasonable to assume they came into being that way.

I merely rejected your own overly rigid and incorrect statement:

...as all early photography was contact printed

which may give readers of this thread the false impression photographic enlarging did not exist in the dawn of photography.

And how common was it, as compared to contact printing?
...
That there are exceptions to every statement is a given. And that a technology existed doesn't mean it was in common usage.

Well, since a number of the main players / inventors (Hershel, Talbot) seem to have experimented with it, it may have been far more common than we actually think... although clearly, contact printing was the "major" business, I am not disputing that all.

But many of these "life-size" probably "advertisement" style photos, will simply not have survived due to them becoming obsolete at the end of the ad campaign or whatever they were made for... It is the small photos kept in books etc. that had the best chance of survival...

Another indication it may have been more common than we think is the statement by Leyshon on Woodwards solar enlarger:

"By 1857 full-figure portraits six feet tall were being made and Woodward's solar enlarger was in widespread use."

"Widespread use"... might be an idea to lookup that Woodward solar enlarger in historic documents

Marco

 

[Marco B]

"Widespread use"... might be an idea to lookup that Woodward solar enlarger in historic documents

Marco

Wow, did just that...:

http://brightbytes.com/woodward.html

Some statements:

"In 1857 Woodward patented the first widely successful photographic enlarging camera. He continued to make improvements to his solar camera in a series of patent renewals in the 1860s and 1870s. He became internationally recognized for his invention and in 1876 he was given an award at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition.
....
These cameras were usually mounted on a studio roof and were designed to turn to follow the sun. They were large, heavy devices that used condensers to focus the light from the sun and a copying lens that projected a small negative onto a large sheet of sensitized photographic paper or canvas. The solar camera came in two sizes, half plate with nine inch condenser, and quarter plate with a five inch condenser. Woodward as a portrait painter was interested in making enlarged copies of photographs on canvas to paint over. Using this camera he could print life-sized portraits (18"X22") from a half plate negative in about forty-five minutes.
....
Baltimore photographer David Bachrach claims to have made over two-thousand photo portraits using the solar camera during this period."

And in the George Eastman House webpages:
http://notesonphotographs.eastmanhouse.org/index.php?title=Solar_Enlarger

"This device was very expensive. Solar enlarging was rarely done in the 19th century except by the largest urban studios or by specialty enlarging houses."

And:
http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_e/0_early_photography_-_enlargers.htm

"A quick reading through a catalog from E & HT Anthony, during the 1860s, shows several enlargers, including especially the Solar (Enlarging) Camera, which itself is largely based on a design from WHF Talbot in the 1840's.

In the mid-1850s, Gustave Le Gray made a number of his large (30x40cm and 40x50cm) collodion views of Seascapes and of downtown Paris as enlargements from much smaller plates.

In 1854, Woodward's Solar Camera was invented and patented.

In 1858, Shives invented and patented an enlarger which used direct and condenser lenses in lieu of sunlight."

And a potentially interesting APUG thread:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Also interesting:

http://www.all-art.org/history658_photography2-2.html

Which states that:

"Meanwhile, the professional portrait painter, aware of the public appetite for exactitude, found the photograph a convenient crutch, not just for copying the features but actually for painting upon. Projection from glass positives to canvas was possible as early as 1853; shortly afterward, several versions of solar projection enlargers—including one patented in 1857 by David Woodward, a professor of fine arts in Baltimore—simplified enlargement onto sensitized paper and canvas. When partially developed, the image could be completely covered with paint—as X-rays have disclosed was the case in the life-size painted portrait of Lincoln (pi. no. 58) by Alexander Francois. This practice, common in the last half of the 19th century, was not considered reprehensible because in die view of many painters the role of photography was to be the artist's helpmate in creative handwork. Although such photographic "underpainting'' was rarely acknowledged, the desire for verisimilitude on the part of painter and public and the hope for artistic status on the part of the photographer resulted in a hybrid form of portraiture—part photochemical and part handwork. "

I have never heard of this before...

Marco

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Different standards. Europe and the rest of the world are on a metric standard with a few holdovers from England. The US is on the English system and exists in its own world.

Steve

Judging from the paper boxes I have collected (Kodak, Ilford, Agfa), there are no metric paper sizes. Even the Agfa 13x18 cm is really 12,7 x 17,8 cm and therefore a simple 5x7". All other sizes have round numbers in inches and odd metric values. Looks like a secret metrification effort by the Europeans.

Take a look at your boxes and tell us if you find something different, please.

Also, I was told that the benefit of the common paper sizes is that they require exactly 2 stops of exposure modification going from one size to the next (4x5, 8x10, 16x20). The in-between sizes (5x7, 11x14) require exactly 1 stop alteration. This is assuming reciprocity, of course.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Also, I was told that the benefit of the common paper sizes is that they require exactly 2 stops of exposure modification going from one size to the next (4x5, 8x10, 16x20). The in-between sizes (5x7, 11x14) require exactly 1 stop alteration. This is assuming reciprocity, of course.

That makes sense. 4x5 to 8x10 is four times the surface area therefore

four times the time or [2 stops]
the square root of 4 is 2 hence 2 stops.​

Steve

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes, but I find the 1-stop difference from 8x10 to 11x14 and again to 16x20 even more amazing.

 

[nworth]

11X14 became a standard paper size mostly form habit, I think. It works well with almost all negatives, but doesn't correspond to any of them except 11X14, which was never common. It has been a standard presentation size for at least a hundred years. When people used bigger negatives more, they often allowed room in the composition for cropping, and the small differences in proportion between, say, 4X5 and 11X14 never were an issue. Lately, people have been more concerned about filling the frame, although they can usually still print good 11X14s without problems. I've only seen 12X16 recently in the US. It works out exactly for 3X4 ratio negatives, such as 645. It also gives nice even boarders in a 16X20 frame. I use it a lot for digital printing, but I have yet to use it in the darkroom. People may be a bit too hung up about negative format and cropping. While you definitely do not want to waste negative space, not all subjects correspond to 3X4 or 4X5 or 3X2 proportions. It makes sense to print in whatever proportions show the subject best, and that may mean wasting some paper. Unfortunately, I am as conventional as everyone else, and I usually compose for the viewfinder and print pretty much full frame. I really should learn how to see the print in the viewfinder, regardless of shape.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Well in Australia, we have had some interesting sizes outside normal world standards.

In Melbourne we had Kodak, Agfa and Ilford, all manufacturing and semi manufacturing product. All by the way, now gone.

During the late seventies Australia, along with quite a few other countries decided to go metric, which I believe was a world wide push.

The biggest local manufacturer by far, was Kodak. Now Kodak had the ear of local and federal governments for a couple of reasons, but the main reason was that they were an extremely big exporter of photographic materials. We are talking multi millions of dollars a year, it was seriously big business.

The Australian government came up with some interesting laws, which were designed to help the country become metric. Basically they banned importation of scales, weights, measures and machinery, unless it was completely metric.

There were a couple of notable exceptions; automobile speedometers were to have kilometres and miles, with kilometres being the larger and obvious scale one would read. The reasoning was that changing all speed signs around the country was going to take about 5 years in outback Australia. Some friends took a picture about 2 weeks ago of a road sign still in use in a very remote part of the country, with all distances still in miles, so five years has stretched a bit.

Automobile manufacturers were allowed to change the head of the bolt or nut to a metric size, but retain the original thread. This ruling was incredibly difficult, one had to be a magician to work out just what kind of thread was on the nut or bolt. Nuts and bolts have been a failure in this country with nuts and bolt supply shops in some instances selling either metric or imperial, a few sell both and some sell hybrids. The higher up the quality chain you go, the more metrification there is.

Kodak Australasia, started to metricate their paper product, no person I have spoken to really knew why they started to go down this route, but they did.

All of a sudden instead of 12x16” colour negative paper, we had 400mm by 500mm paper, 8x10” paper was changed to 200mm by 250mm. They then changed the B&W paper, the first size I saw that was changed was 8x10” to 200mm by 250mm.

This particular change in B&W paper size was a real problem. All of a sudden people doing contact sheets of their 35mm films found that in some instances the paper didn’t, or couldn’t be held in the contact frame without falling out.

Ilford Australia thought this was a brilliant opportunity, and, in a marketing coup, they informed schools that they were continuing to supply 4x6”, 5x7” and 8x10” paper to ensure compatibility with all existing darkroom equipment and at the same time telling these same schools that they could purchase B&W paper in an A4 size, which for enlargements of the standard 35mm negative, is virtually identical in format.

This B&W paper size meant that Ilford and the schools were seen to be following government standards by going metric, and at the same time utilising existing equipment and thereby negating any requirement to purchase new equipment.

I’m not too sure how long Kodak persevered with these metric sizes, but it seemed to me to be over within a short time, maybe a year, which was probably how long it took stock to depart shelves in shops.

Mick.

 

[alexmacphee]

Standard sizes are often bastards: the standard A4 'metric' sheet of paper is 210 mm wide but 11 2/3 inches long - reason being typewriters and computer printers print 6 lines/inch. To prevent apoplectic attacks among metrophiles A4 is specified as 210 x 297mm. Where else would someone come up with a standard size as 297 of anything?

The reason for A4 being 297 long has nothing to do with lines per inch on a printer or typewriter. It's 297mm long because it can't be anything else.

'A' series paper sizes are defined such that an A0 sheet has an area of 1 square metre who sides are in the ratio of (the square root of 2) : 1 [i.e. 1.414...]. This is because this is the only ratio where cutting the paper along the long side gives two pieces whose sides are also in the ratio sqrt(2):1. When you cut A0 on the long side, you get two sheets of A1 with exactly the same aspect ratio as A0. Cut the A1 in the same way, and you get two sheets of A2, also with the same aspect ratio as A0, A1, and so on down to A4 and beyond. That's why A4 is 210 x 297.

There is no other aspect ratio you can do this with, as a quick experiment with 10x8 etc will show.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... It makes sense to print in whatever proportions show the subject best, and that may mean wasting some paper. ...

Exactly!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The US will go metric eventually, but they'll do it inch by inch.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... There is no other aspect ratio you can do this with, as a quick experiment with 10x8 etc will show.

Alex

You are correct, but I must say, I never understood the significance of this so repeatedly stated benefit. To a photographer the width-to-hight ratio is extremely important for image composition. And to me, its optimum changes from image to image. Unfortunately, it is always influenced by what I see in the viewfinder. Nevertheless, I refuse to be forced to the ratio boundaries of any paper standard, but the A-size ratio is particularly bad for my 6x6 compositions.

I always print full frame and then trim to optimize image composition. I don't think I have two prints of the same size, but I manage to mount them all into only two different frame sizes. To me that is the best combination of creative flexibility and exhibition consistency.

 

[alexmacphee]

You are correct, but I must say, I never understood the significance of this so repeatedly stated benefit. To a photographer the width-to-hight ratio is extremely important for image composition.

I have just the same view. Metric standard paper size schemes offer virtually no advantage to photographers. The benefit is really in the world of publishing, as it greatly simplifies the production of books and brochures and leaflets ; just think of photoreducing A4 originals to make A5 booklets using cut or folded paper stocks with no wastage, as a simple example. None of this has any relevance to the creation of single images which, as you point out, have intrinsic properties which are dependent on the composition and the creative intent.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The reason for A4 being 297 long ... sides are in the ratio of (the square root of 2) : 1 [i.e. 1.414...].

Thanks for the correction -- because 11 2/3" is 296.3mm and not 297. It's A4 computer print-out paper [the old sort with the holes on the sides] that's the bastard size of 210mm x 11 2/3 inches.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The US will go metric eventually

Ha!

The English system is based on multiples of 2 and 3, which include 12 and 16: dozens of eggs, 16ths of an inch ... A very useful system from a practical viewpoint.

Base 10's only saving grace is that it suits people who can only count on their fingers. Since everyone is educated in this base they tend to think it is 'natural' and 'logical'. Nothing further from the truth. Ever seen a computer who's native number system is 10? There was one, designed in Cleveland Ohio (where else) - the Bailey 855 with a 25 bit word length: 4 decimal digits and a sign bit. It even addressed memory in decimal.

And then there's us - trying to figure out where the ratio 11:14 ever came from.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The old thread in the enlarging forum concludes the correct formula for exposure compensation when changing print size relates to the change in the magnification. The amount of exposure change required depends on the size of the negative.

The formula is ((M + 1)/(m + 1)) ^ 2, where M is the new magnification and m is the old.

When computing this for various negative and print sizes:

It seems the old "one stop per paper size" adage isn't very accurate. Although 0.5 stop may not seem like that great an error, it is an entire print Zone in tone. Certainly nobody will argue that a 14 second print looks quite different from a 10 second print ...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Try the same with going from 8x10 to 11x14.