Would it REALLY kill paper manufacturers ??

[SteveH]

....To make paper .25" larger than the actual dimension ? To make an 8x10 print, you need either 8.5x11 paper (which isn't common), or 11x14. If you want to make an 11x14 print, then you need 16x20, which is crazy. It would just be nice to have that extra .25" so that I can use standard precut matts.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Steve,

Eh?

Surely a more meaninful question would be, "Would it really kill matte manufacturers to make mattes 1/4 inch smaller than nominal' or even 'Would it really kill Steve to cut his own mattes?"

Also, what's wrong with 11x14 inch on 12x16 inch/30x40cm instead of 16x20 inch/40x50cm?

For that matter, why do you want to print 11x14? It doesn't match many actual film sizes. You seem to be falling into the trap of 'that's what's available in cheap pre-cut masks, so that's what I'll print', then setting the trap of 'I want to print this size so everyone else should have to as well'.

Certes, I'd be irritated as hell by a whole new series of paper sizes, all 1/4 inch too big.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[SteveH]

Roger,
Point taken . I've just been up until 4:30 for the last two days in the darkroom, and was looking for a break. The **LAST** thing I feel like doing at the moment is dragging my butt to philly to get matt, then cutting it.

-end rant-

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Steve,

Your point is equally well taken!

Cheers,

Roger (no 'd')

 

[Christopher Colley]

I have no problem with 8x10 as it is. I print 35mm to roughly 6inch by 9inch on an 8x10 sheet of paper. I cut up 30x42 mat board down to 13"x16" chunks (fun size eh?) and after the windows are cut I cant even see the fact my print isnt covering exactly 8x10.. (I enjoy cutting mat and mounting stuff!)

fun!

if there is anything I agree with here its wanting some bigger paper for making contact sheets of 36frames without squeeezing stuff so much..

 

[SteveH]

Roger (no 'd')

Ah, sorry. I'm tired

 

[SteveH]

if there is anything I agree with here its wanting some bigger paper for making contact sheets of 36frames without squeeezing stuff so much..

Won't 8.5x11 work for that ?

 

[Christopher Colley]

Won't 8.5x11 work for that ?

yep! but, goes to the point above about actually finding some 8.5x11 !

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Actually, most pre-cut matts have between 1/4 and 1/2 inch overlap - the windows for a "5x7" are somewhere in the neighborhood of 4x6 to 4 1/2 x 6 1/2. The other problem with paper sizes, at least here in the US, is that 12x16 is a very uncommon size- the only manufacturer I know of who sells that size in the US is Kentmere, and even then it is hard to find.

 

[Lee Shively]

Considering that I shoot three formats (35mm, 6x6 and 6x4.5) and I print each format generally to the format dimensions always on 11x14 paper, I had a local craft shop cut a bunch of 16x20 mats to fit those formats.

I don't mount prints and I seldom leave a print hanging on the wall very long, so I got standard mat board instead of the acid-free boards. They were cheap (well, not as expensive as the acid-free) and the photos look good hinged to the mat and framed. If you're dry-mounting the prints and want a more permanent arrangement, you could always have acid-free mats cut to your specified dimensions.

If I do print to an odd size, I'll cut my own mats but it's not a fun project to me since I always waste a few boards in the process.

 

[rbarker]

Yes, while it might be frustrating at times, the whole system: photo paper, mattes, and frames, are based on actual outside dimensions of the print, with an opening that is approximately 1/4" smaller. Those who desire an image area equal to the nominal dimensions either need to do borderless prints (i.e. with a vacuum easel, etc.) or use the next larger sized paper.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Steve,

No probs!

I think Lee's idea must be best: bulk-buy custom-cut mattes. I'll ask my local cutter about it. They probably won't understand, though: they're French, and 'supply and demand' is a slightly hazy concept in many French minds.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[pentaxuser]

A variation on this is: Why is paper produced in the 5x7 size when a 35mm needs 5 x 7.5 to have the full neg printed borderless. The alternative for a equal border of a quarter inch all round would be 5.5 x 7.5.

While an 8 x 10 sheet will produce two 5 x 8 inch prints this only gives a border on the 8 inch sides without cropping the neg. Again to fit with 35mm neg proportions you'd think that 8 x12 sheets would be standard.

A4 seems to be the best size to accomodate two 5.5 x 7.5 with borders all round but this size is much less common and much more expensive proportionally speaking for its extra size.

Having been on the Ilford tour and seen its cutting machines, I cannot think of why paper cannot be standardised on 5.5 x 7.5 sheets nor why stockists of A4 need to charge so much more than for 8 x 10.

I for one would certainly buy 5.5 x 7.5 sheets to get an even and reasonable size border.

If I recall things correctly there's a phtographer's( his name escapes me)website in which this is one of his bete noires.

pentaxuser

 

[Ole]

All paper sizes are based on historical plate sizes, just like film sizes. But while film has "shrunk" a few mm in each direction to fit in film adapters in plate holders, paper is still the full nominal size.

That's why the standard sizes are 5x7", 8x10" and 11x14" in UK and USA; and 13x18cm, 18x24cm, 24x30cm and 30x40cm in (much of) Europe.

There's a lot of equipment (trays, tanks, easels, frames, portfolio books, mattes etc) that is standardised along these same measurements. Making "off-size" papers would perhaps satisfy some, but it would p*ss off a lot of others.

I'm p*ssed off enough already that the manufacturers can't be trusted to make the 24x30cm papers the correct size - most of them mark it 24x30cm, but it's really 9.5x12". Which doesn't fit in standard frames, sleeves, tanks, or my camera.

 

[SteveH]

Well I got off my butt and cut some matt. I did stop by the local frame/matt shop, and the woman there was more than happy to cut me some matt to whatever size I like. For the prices she charges, I should have just went to her all of the time instead of spending $350 on my matt cutter . The other nice thing is that she has catalogues upon catalogues, and she receives shipments 2x a week.

 

[ann]

and, there is a whole framing industry based on these sizes that aren't to our liking

 

[tim atherton]

For that matter, why do you want to print 11x14? It doesn't match many actual film sizes.

hmmm - 11x14 for starters...

 

[Craig]

You could always buy roll paper and cut it to whatever length you needed to.

 

[pelerin]

<snip>

A4 seems to be the best size to accomodate two 5.5 x 7.5 with borders all round but this size is much less common and much more expensive proportionally speaking for its extra size.

Having been on the Ilford tour and seen its cutting machines, I cannot think of why paper cannot be standardised on 5.5 x 7.5 sheets nor why stockists of A4 need to charge so much more than for 8 x 10.

<snip>

pentaxuser

Hi,
The registration mechanism on most center masking easels is rendered useless by odd sized paper (the Salthill "5th blade" being a notable exception). Further, although 2:3 is in all probability currently the most common aspect ratio for photographs, images do exist in many other shapes. As to why 8.5x11 cost more on the shelf the answer is quite simple; the mfg and distributors charge more for it and the dealer's price on the shelf reflects those costs.
Celac.