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

$12.66

A
$12.66

  • 5
  • 3
  • 88
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 0
  • 0
  • 127
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 1
  • 2
  • 110
img746.jpg

img746.jpg

  • 6
  • 0
  • 100
No Hall

No Hall

  • 1
  • 3
  • 109

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,795
Messages
2,781,004
Members
99,707
Latest member
lakeside
Recent bookmarks
0

alexmacphee

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
310
Location
Surrey, UK
Format
Multi Format
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.
This is the great and often overlooked practical advantage of Imperial measure. I've lost count of the number of times I've come across a recipe that's called for 910gm flour, 55gm sugar, or whatever, recipe amounts that are clearly taken from Imperial values and just converted. The great thing about pounds being sixteen ounces is that you can repeatedly halve them and still have nice integer numbers to deal with, right down to an ounce being sixteen drams. Ideal for recipes because so often you need to halve things or double them up. Sure, the scheme breaks down a little when you get to fourteen pounds in a stone and so on, but on the whole, the practical value is higher of manipulating twos and threes instead of hundreds.

Base 10's only saving grace is that it suits people who can only count on their fingers.
Metric makes it easy to calculate very large and very small numbers, that's the primary advantage. There's an old rule of thumb about using the 'right' unit for approximation purposes and rounding. So when you talk about a length of 'about 15 inches', you can expect the value to be in the range 14.5 to 15.5. You wouldn't give the distance to the Moon in inches, since this would have an implied accuracy of +/- 0.5 in. A recipe calling for 910gm implies an accuracy of +/- 0.5gm (though in practice nobody would would bother with that level of precision). I quite often see recipes with dry ingredients listed in grams, and liquid ingredients in fluid ounces or parts of a pint. (Fortunately, not developer recipes.)
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,906
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
All this discussion about imperial vs metric is really (12x12):wink:
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,079
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
12x16 prints look good on a 20x24 mat:smile:
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,649
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
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:

PrintSizeXCor.jpg


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 ...

I didn't understand the chart until Ian explained it.

It seems that the old one-stop-per-paper-size rule only approximately works for 35mm negatives.

Thanks for clarifying this.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom