British 5 x 4s and 10 x 8s????? Global village????
CONGREVE
provoked me) invariably speak of a a 5 x 4 negative or a 10 x 8 print,
when the 90% of the English-speaking world which doesn't live on that
island (and the entire metric-using world) invariably put the smaller
dimension first? Even Ilford acknowledges the fact: I'm looking at a box
of enlarging paper which says "11 x 14 inches; 27.9 x 35.6cm." Now if the
Continentals wanted to cheat just a little bit and refer to 28 x 36
enlarging paper that would make sense, but come on, guys, this 5 x 4 and
10 x 8 stuff is pre-tunnel vision. The EEC agreed that you can keep your
pints but it's time to curtsy one final time to Fox-Talbot, say "C'est le
Da-guerre," and join the world. The Swedes even managed, on one very
careful Sunday morning in 1966, I think it was, to start driving on the
same side of the road as the rest of humanity, and without any fatalities.
There are no 5 x 4 enlargers.
Alan Heldman
cong...@aol.com
John Fryatt
I have no idea why we say "5x4" instead of "4x5", but does it really
matter? Why is this an issue? What difference does it make?
Presumably you don't consider the Japanese, the Australians, and the
South Africans to be part of humanity then?
If we are all in a global village, why doesn't the USA give up using
gallons etc. and start using litres. I suspect that there are more
metric users than not , so why don't you join the majority?
I don't think a global village is meant to imply a homogenous human
race. That would be so boring!
Anyway, I think 5x4 sounds so much nicer. It's only a matter of time
before everyone else gets educated and satrts using that convention as
well!
(On a point of fact, there is no EEC. It is the EU.)
Regards, John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Fryatt Compuserve: 100013,710
London, UK Internet : j...@dircon.co.uk
david roughan
Gregory Pease
>Why do the British (including a recent contributor here, which is what
>provoked me) invariably speak of a a 5 x 4 negative or a 10 x 8 print,
[...provincial ranting deleted...]
>same side of the road as the rest of humanity, and without any fatalities.
>There are no 5 x 4 enlargers.
(Tongue firmly in cheek (but not in check!))
5x4 is horizontal, 4x5 is vertical.
--
| Gregory Pease | "...for such things are of the spirit, and it is
| "ShadowMancer" | in the darkness of their eyes that men get lost"
| g...@netcom.com | -Black Elk
| 510/234-2830 |
Wm. Congreve (Sr.)
>Touche (though the British still have their pints)!
>
>Sometimes it's embarrassing to be an American.
>
>John Sparks
**************
John, come on! Show the flag! The Brits not only still have a gallon,
they have a bleeding IMPERIAL gallon, just a teeny bit bigger than
ours, with all the John Bull-ism of EMPIRE behind it! The UK, however,
(i.e. Ukraine) is fully metric.
There is still no such thing as a 5 x 4 enlarger.
Alan
Gregory Pease
>cong...@aol.com (CONGREVE) wrote:
>>Why do the British (including a recent contributor here, which is what
>>provoked me) invariably speak of a a 5 x 4 negative or a 10 x 8 print,
[...]
>>There are no 5 x 4 enlargers.
>I have no idea why we say "5x4" instead of "4x5", but does it really
>matter? Why is this an issue? What difference does it make?
>If we are all in a global village, why doesn't the USA give up using
>gallons etc. and start using litres. I suspect that there are more
>metric users than not , so why don't you join the majority?
For the same reason that Americans insist on re-spelling perfectly
correctly spelled words. Hell, if the US ever adopted the metric system,
the government would have to figure out wheter to use "liters" or "litres,"
"meters" or "metres." It'd be a mess...
Jan-Peter Meyn
wrote:
> John Fryatt (j...@dircon.co.uk) wrote:
> >I have no idea why we say "5x4" instead of "4x5", but does it really
> >matter? Why is this an issue? What difference does it make?
>
> I always thought it made things more interesting. I rather like 5 4
> and double dark slides. But why do you say 20x24 instead of 24x20
> and is it 5x7 or 7x5? A DeVere would definately be a 54 enlarger!
>
> >If we are all in a global village, why doesn't the USA give up using
> >gallons etc. and start using litres. I suspect that there are more
> >metric users than not , so why don't you join the majority?
>
> Touche (though the British still have their pints)!
>
> Sometimes it's embarrassing to be an American.
>
> John Sparks
The story I heard about the official british opinion about units is, that
up to now there is no unified european passport design because Great
Britain wanted it 1.2mm (half of a tenth of an inch ???) smaller than the
metric europeans, especially the french, who own the "Urmeter", which is
THE meter. Just to let you know, the europian 13x18cm paper size is still
5x7 inches, which is 12.7x17.8 cm. That observation really p.m.o. the
first time, when I used my metric easel back in germany.
I think the reason why America stick to pounds and quarts is simply,
any "metric" person thinks, that a quart is something like a liter, but it
is less (946ml), so that person does not mind to pay the liter price, and
the american saleman just smiles... .
Don't take it to serious,
Jan-Peter
John Sparks
Paul A. Brown
>
> Why do the British (including a recent contributor here, which is what
> provoked me) invariably speak of a a 5 x 4 negative or a 10 x 8 print,
> island (and the entire metric-using world) invariably put the smaller
> dimension first? Even Ilford acknowledges the fact: I'm looking at a
box
> of enlarging paper which says "11 x 14 inches; 27.9 x 35.6cm." Now if
the
> Continentals wanted to cheat just a little bit and refer to 28 x 36
> enlarging paper that would make sense, but come on, guys, this 5 x 4 and
> 10 x 8 stuff is pre-tunnel vision. The EEC agreed that you can keep
your
> pints but it's time to curtsy one final time to Fox-Talbot, say "C'est
le
> Da-guerre," and join the world. The Swedes even managed, on one very
> careful Sunday morning in 1966, I think it was, to start driving on the
fatalities.
>
> cong...@aol.com
There were two or one good points in what you say but it's not infallible.
Try this hymn;
All creatures small and great,
The good Lord made them all, .......
Of course perhaps we hold our cameras differently in the UK.... you know,
at right angles. You really should try our vertical landscapes and
horizontal portraits - thery're all the rage at exhibitions.
Still, I don't have the same problems now I have bought a 1/4 and 2 inch
Mamiyaflex except that I've started describing the negatives by their
diagonal - it makes so much sense when looking for the correct lenses for
it.
The Japanese, Australians and some African countries (I think) still drive
on the left. We Brits, being a pragmatic and compromising race, have
decided to bring in change of side driving progressively to allow people
to adjust.
For the first week, only heavy commercial vehicles will have to use the
other side and if it proves a success, the domestic and light commercial
vehicles will follow sometime later.
Keep death off the roads - use the pavements (sidewalks).
Paul.
--
------------------------------
| Paul A. Brown. |
| e-mail contact |
| pa...@pabrown.demon.co.uk |
------------------------------
Michael Gudzinowicz
> >Touche (though the British still have their pints)!
> >
> >Sometimes it's embarrassing to be an American.
> >
> >John Sparks
>
> John, come on! Show the flag! The Brits not only still have a
> gallon, they have a bleeding IMPERIAL gallon, just a teeny bit
> bigger than ours, with all the John Bull-ism of EMPIRE behind
> it! The UK, however, (i.e. Ukraine) is fully metric.
>
> There is still no such thing as a 5 x 4 enlarger.
5x4 enlarger, the Durst Laborator 54 Automat,
^^
which handled 35 mm to 5x4. (The model number wasn't changed
for different markets.)
Doesn't 54 sound a lot more impressive than 45?
I guess the Italians wanted to distinguish it from the little
guys.
(Posted from CA to avoid embarassing the US.)
John Fryatt
>>Touche (though the British still have their pints)!
>>
>>Sometimes it's embarrassing to be an American.
>>
>>John Sparks
>**************
>John, come on! Show the flag!
Why? What purpose is served by petty nationalism? I thought you were
the one who mentioned 'global village'.
>The Brits not only still have a gallon, they have a bleeding IMPERIAL gallon, just a teeny bit bigger than
>ours, with all the John Bull-ism of EMPIRE behind it! The UK, however, (i.e. Ukraine) is fully metric.
'Imperial' is just a word. It is not in common usage. Most British
people give no more thought to the old empire than they do to taking a
holiday on Mars! In any case, I would have thought the USA was more of
an 'imperial' country than the UK these days.
>There is still no such thing as a 5 x 4 enlarger.
Who cares? This whole subject is a load of b*ll*cks!
Richard Webber
: >Touche (though the British still have their pints)!
: >
: >Sometimes it's embarrassing to be an American.
: >
: >John Sparks
: **************
: John, come on! Show the flag! The Brits not only still have a gallon,
: they have a bleeding IMPERIAL gallon, just a teeny bit bigger than
: ours, with all the John Bull-ism of EMPIRE behind it! The UK, however,
: (i.e. Ukraine) is fully metric.
I'll have you know that the imperial gallon is a FULL 25% bigger than
the rather puny US version. Britain sells petrol by the litre and
butter by the gram. Maps are metric as are engineering drawings.
Hell, I have a ruler from England that DOESN'T EVEN HAVE INCHES ON IT.
Good grief, I can't believe the cheek of it - all this stick when the
US is still dispensing a liquid they call gas (even though it's clearly
a liquid) in cubic furlongs.
: There is still no such thing as a 5 x 4 enlarger.
There most certainly IS - when you're printing portrait rather than
landscape...
Richard
David Stark
>
>>There are no 5 x 4 enlargers.
>>
>> Alan Heldman
>>cong...@aol.com
>
>
>
>
Is 5 x 4 inches or centimetres (centimeters?)?
david
John Fryatt
>John Fryatt (j...@dircon.co.uk) wrote:
>>If we are all in a global village, why doesn't the USA give up using
>>gallons etc. and start using litres. I suspect that there are more
>>metric users than not , so why don't you join the majority?
>Touche (though the British still have their pints)!
My comment was meant to be ironic. I know we (the UK) still have
pints, and there are probably a lot of people here who think we should
still be using rods and poles, and hundredweights, and gills, ... etc.
And that's without getting into money. Maybe we should go back to
pounds, shillings, and pence, and drop this decimal system like the
Americans use? <g>.
People are perverse and often think standards are ok as long as the
standards adopted are THEIR standards.
This whole thing leads to a lot of ridiculous discussions, as witness
all the EU 'jokes' about European standardisation. A recent edict from
the Brussels bureaucrats concerned the degree of curvature acceptable
in a banana!!
My first post was meant to say how pointless and silly the original
poster's message was. I think we all know that 5x4 and 4x5 are, in
fact, the same thing.
Paul A. Brown
Fryatt) writes:
> 'Imperial' is just a word. It is not in common usage. Most British
> people give no more thought to the old empire than they do to taking a
> holiday on Mars! In any case, I would have thought the USA was more of
> an 'imperial' country than the UK these days.
Now you mention it, I wouldn't mind a holiday on Mars to get away from all
this.
How many leagues away is it? When I was a child all the red bits on the
map were British Empire (perhaps it was bloodstains) so I assume my
British Passport is O.K. on the red planet!
Jan-Peter Meyn
Fryatt) wrote:
[...] A recent edict from
> the Brussels bureaucrats concerned the degree of curvature acceptable
> in a banana!!
>
> My first post was meant to say how pointless and silly the original
> poster's message was. I think we all know that 5x4 and 4x5 are, in
> fact, the same thing.
>
>
> Regards, John
Fortunatly, noone understood your meassage and this posting group turned
out to be quite funny. Thank you.
Jan-Peter
p.s.: What IS the maximum curvature of a EG banana, then?
Bob Ingraham
In a previous article, j...@dircon.co.uk (John Fryatt) says:
>cong...@aol.com (CONGREVE) wrote:
>
>>Why do the British (including a recent contributor here, which is what
>>provoked me) invariably speak of a a 5 x 4 negative or a 10 x 8 print,
>>when the 90% of the English-speaking world which doesn't live on that
>>island (and the entire metric-using world) invariably put the smaller
>>dimension first?
>
Then John Fryatt wrote:
>I have no idea why we say "5x4" instead of "4x5", but
does it really matter? Why is this an issue? What difference does it make?
>
>Presumably you don't consider the Japanese, the Australians, and the
>South Africans to be part of humanity then?
>
>If we are all in a global village, why doesn't the USA give up using
>gallons etc. and start using litres. I suspect that there are more
>metric users than not , so why don't you join the majority?
>I don't think a global village is meant to imply a homogenous human
>race. That would be so boring!
>
>Anyway, I think 5x4 sounds so much nicer. It's only a matter of time
>before everyone else gets educated and satrts using that convention as
>well!
>
>(On a point of fact, there is no EEC. It is the EU.)
>
I'm with John on this one. I deal with a company in Vancouver which
sells display folders in 4X5, 5X7, and 8X10, or, if you want landscape
orientation, in 5X4, 7X5, and 10X8. I've learned to cope with that.
A speaker at a recent meeting of the Professional Photographers
Assocation of B.C. suggested marketing our prints as 10X8s, 14X11s,
20X16s, etc. The idea is the buyer will be more impressed with the size
if the long dimension is given first. I don't know about that, but I
don't have a lot of trouble understanding just what a 20X16 is. It's a
print that worth more than a 14X11!
Canada is a country which called a halt to metrification about halfway
through the process, so we who are old enough to have learned the
imperial system and took the trouble to learn the metric system have two
convenient ways to measure our world. I print 11 X14s (or 14X11s) in my
darkroom, shoot 35mm films, choose lenses with focal lengths given in
millimetres, measure chemicals in milliliteres (or ounces if it's
convenient), drive 10 km to town, purchase backdrops that are measured in
feet, freeze to death on a day when it's -35 Celsius, bake when it gets
to 90 degrees Fahrenheit. My American friends and relatives (I am a
happily transplanted American, by the way) are handicapped by their
ignorance of metric measurements and by their stubborn refusal to
acknowledge a superior system of measurement.
Bob Ingraham
Prince George, B.C., where it's -2 Celsius right now, and there are about
two feet of snow on the ground! Now I'm going into my darkroom to print
some 10 X 8s and 11X14s.
--
M.D. McGavin
>From: g...@netcom.com (Gregory Pease)
>Subject: Re: British 5 x 4s and 10 x 8s????? Global village????
>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 19:23:08 GMT
>cong...@aol.com (CONGREVE) writes:
>>Why do the British (including a recent contributor here, which is what
>>provoked me) invariably speak of a a 5 x 4 negative or a 10 x 8 print,
>[...provincial ranting deleted...]
>>same side of the road as the rest of humanity, and without any fatalities.
>>There are no 5 x 4 enlargers.
>(Tongue firmly in cheek (but not in check!))
>5x4 is horizontal, 4x5 is vertical.
>--
>| Gregory Pease | "...for such things are of the spirit, and it is
>| "ShadowMancer" | in the darkness of their eyes that men get lost"
>| g...@netcom.com | -Black Elk
>| 510/234-2830 |
I think in the long distant past the British system was to give the Length
BEFORE the Height.This was not just done for Film sizes but tables windows
etc.I remember 35 years ago at being surprised that the BREADTH came
before the LENGTH when the length somehow seemed more important.Is the
US use consistent? Breadth always before width?.It is just a convention to
designate which is the height or length in both the British and US system.
John Fryatt
>In article: <4aub9r$6...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk> j...@dircon.co.uk (John
>Fryatt) writes:
>> 'Imperial' is just a word. It is not in common usage. Most British
>> people give no more thought to the old empire than they do to taking a
>> holiday on Mars! In any case, I would have thought the USA was more of
>> an 'imperial' country than the UK these days.
>Now you mention it, I wouldn't mind a holiday on Mars to get away from all
>this.
>How many leagues away is it? When I was a child all the red bits on the
>map were British Empire (perhaps it was bloodstains) so I assume my
>British Passport is O.K. on the red planet!
I just read something about Cecil Rhodes in the paper. He wasn't
averse to spilling a drop or three of blood, so you may be right. ;-)
Gregory Pease
>In article <glpDJn...@netcom.com> g...@netcom.com (Gregory Pease) writes:
>>From: g...@netcom.com (Gregory Pease)
>>Subject: Re: British 5 x 4s and 10 x 8s????? Global village????
>>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 19:23:08 GMT
>>cong...@aol.com (CONGREVE) writes:
>>>Why do the British (including a recent contributor here, which is what
>>>provoked me) invariably speak of a a 5 x 4 negative or a 10 x 8 print,
>>[...provincial ranting deleted...]
>>>same side of the road as the rest of humanity, and without any fatalities.
>>>There are no 5 x 4 enlargers.
>>(Tongue firmly in cheek (but not in check!))
>>5x4 is horizontal, 4x5 is vertical.
> I think in the long distant past the British system was to give the Length
>BEFORE the Height.This was not just done for Film sizes but tables windows
>etc.I remember 35 years ago at being surprised that the BREADTH came
>before the LENGTH when the length somehow seemed more important.Is the
>US use consistent? Breadth always before width?.It is just a convention to
>designate which is the height or length in both the British and US system.
x always comes before y. For a horizontal orientation, the way nearly
all cameras (grok the nearly in that clause before enumerating all the
bloody exceptions) are set up in their "normal" picture taking mode, the
"long" dimension is the x dimension, and should therefore come first,
just as a matter of respect for mathematics, if nothing else...
I'll soon be shooting 6x6 exclusively (or 6x6, for those on the other
side of the debate) just to avoid this silly distinction. But, since I
frame my square prints in oblong frames, I guess I can't get away from
it completely...
Well be, and fun have. Life really too short is.
Gregory
Helge Nareid
Wm. Congreve (Sr.) <cong...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>There is still no such thing as a 5 x 4 enlarger.
>
nowadays it is marketed under another name (I forget which), but
being made in Britain, it is very definitely a 5x4 enlarger!
--
Helge Nareid - Nordmann i utlendighet
Optical Engineering Lab., RIKEN, Wako, Saitama 351-01, Japan
E-mail: nar...@optsun.riken.go.jp
WWW: http://optsun.riken.go.jp/nareid/home.html
Guillermo Penate
Boy!!! I love the square format!!! :-)
G.Penate
David Roberts
I.e. 11.75 x 8.25 inches - perfect for the 35mm format.
David
John Fryatt
>How do you lot manage without A4 sized printing paper?
>I.e. 11.75 x 8.25 inches - perfect for the 35mm format.
I've often wondered why A4 paper is not more commonly used.
Aaaargghh! I just realised, you said 11.75 x 8.25!
You _must_ say 8.25 x 11.75 or people will get upset. ;-)
san...@suzy.torolab.ibm.com
: David Roberts <oss...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote:
: >How do you lot manage without A4 sized printing paper?
: >I.e. 11.75 x 8.25 inches - perfect for the 35mm format.
That's not perfect for 35mm format! 24x36mm is a 2:3 ratio or .667.
8.25 x 11.75 inches is 0.702 (Hey that's why the small number comes first,
to keep the ratio less than 1).
Or did you have some other definition of "perfect"?
(I thought there was a set of paper sizes that followed the golden ratio
1 : sqrt(2)/2 + 1 so that you could cut a sheet in half and keep the
same proportions).
Sandor.
Steve Sloan
> 1 : sqrt(2)/2 + 1 so that you could cut a sheet in half and keep the
> same proportions).
I come pretty darn close cutting 11X14 in half to 11x7-Pretty close indeed.
Steve Sloan
Wm. Congreve (Sr.)
<oss...@bangor.ac.uk> writes:
>
>How do you lot manage without A4 sized printing paper?
>I.e. 11.75 x 8.25 inches - perfect for the 35mm format.
>
To David Roberts in the UK and the group: As the starter of this
thread back a couple of weeks ago, which I did purely out of boredom
and for some harmless (?) teasing, I've enjoyed most of it (except a
note from one or two folks who seem have no sense of whimsy at all),
but you, David, have now elevated us to a new and higher level, and
you're absolutely right: It would be interesting to know where the 4 x
5 and 8 x 10 proportions ever got started (it's not a classic "artist
paper" size---e.g. Arches watercolor paper, from a company founded in
1492, or so they say, sells in 9 x 12, among other sizes). The 4:5
ratio is simply terrible in terms of classical proportions, such as
Greek "Golden ratio" and whatnot, which many think still has a great
deal of validity. On the practical level, you can't quite get a 36
exposure roll of 35mm negatives proofed on 8 x 10,in the usual plastic
sleeve things, and that's a MAJOR pain.
I think that in very well-stocked photo supply places here (US) and by
special order you CAN get a slightly longer-rectangle paper of about
that size, but as a practical matter it's hardly available. Don't know
if it's precisely "A4" or not. The roll-feed color labs wisely offer 8
x 12s from 35mm, which makes an awful lot of sense. Anyone know if 8"
wide high grade black and white paper is available in rolls, which we
might buy in non-industrial quantities?
I very often print 135 negatives on cut-in-half sheets of 11 x 14,
which makes for much less cropping of image and comes out VERY close to
the "golden ratio"; or if I'm feeling flush, I make a full frame print
on a full sheet of 11 x 14 with handsome wide borders.
On another photo group I gently (?) suggested that Kodak is a
poorly-run company, not responsive to its customers needs (which the
business press and Kodak's economic performance, rapid turnover of its
top management, and its frantic efforts to keep out Fuji competition
from the US by whining to the government for help all tend to confirm)
but the Rochester establishment (posting from places such as the
Engineering Dept. of Rochester Univ.) flamed me down so badly that I
finally suggested autocopulation.
The "Golden Section" rectangular ratio of (to be over-precise) 1 to
1.618 goes back to the Egyptian pyramids and the Greek temples, and
(almost enough to make a religious believer of me) is repeatedly found
in the forms of nature. (There's a considerable literature on all
this). Five by Seven comes to a ratio of 1:4, which is not too far
off from the classical ratio. 35mm is 1:1.5, which is even closer, and
many photographers have said that they find its "more rectangular"
proportions easier to deal with than 4 x 5 or 8 x 10. The UK's A4, as
David reports its dimensions, comes to 1: 1.42, which is even a tiny
bit closer to "Golden ratio" than 5 x 7 is.
At the very least we surely can agree that the BS about 6 x 7 cm being
"ideal proportion" simply because it just about fits a wrong and
arbitrary photo paper size is nonsense. I do a lot of work with a 6 x
12 cm roll back on a 4 x 5 camera and find that it feels awfully
"right" in many landscapes. It may be relevant that we have two eyes,
spaced horizontally, and have a much wider field of vision horizontally
than vertically.
Just for the hell of it I just flipped through a book of Leonardo's
paintings, and (rounding off to the nearest inch) here are a few of
them:
Baptism of Christ---almost square
Lady with Ermine ----16 x 22 (vertical)
Madonna of the Rocks--- about 3.5Ft. by 6 1/4Ft. (vertical)
Portrait of a Woman ---14 x 20
Last Supper --14 x 30 Ft. (horizontal)
Holy Family Scene 3 x 6 1/2 ft (vertical)
Mona Lisa 20 x 30 (vertical)
(I then flipped through a book of more modern art, and won't bore you
with details, but I get the impression that more of it is horizontal;
and I get the distinct impression that almost without exception it is
not worked to "standard" sizes or standard ratios).
Maybe we're all just lazy, and like those easels which give us
automatic borders, and those pre-cut window matts, and those
Neilson-type frames which come in the standard ratio sizes?
Well, as long as we keep all this in proportion as
the holidays approach.
Merry Christmas
Alan Heldman
John Fryatt
14/11 = 1.273 11/7 = 1.571
These two ratios are not that close.
The original poster is thinking of the A sizes of paper, A5, A4, A3,
etc. A3 cut in half gives A4, which gives A5 when again cut in half
and so on.
The ratio of the 2 sides is 1 : 1.414 (square root of 2)
There are also B and C series but I'm not sure what the proportions of
these are. They are not used nearly so much as the A series.
The A series (and B & C ?) are in common use in Europe. I'm not sure
about other parts of the world.
Jan-Peter Meyn
san...@suzy.torolab.ibm.com () wrote:
> John Fryatt (j...@dircon.co.uk) wrote:
> : David Roberts <oss...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> : >How do you lot manage without A4 sized printing paper?
> : >I.e. 11.75 x 8.25 inches - perfect for the 35mm format.
>
> That's not perfect for 35mm format! 24x36mm is a 2:3 ratio or .667.
> 8.25 x 11.75 inches is 0.702 (Hey that's why the small number comes first,
> to keep the ratio less than 1).
>
> Or did you have some other definition of "perfect"?
>
> (I thought there was a set of paper sizes that followed the golden ratio
> 1 : sqrt(2)/2 + 1 so that you could cut a sheet in half and keep the
> same proportions).
>
> Sandor.
At least DIN paper comes closer to the 35mm ratio than any other photo
paper format you can buy. Any DIN paper has a ration sqrt(2)/1 to make the
constant-proportion-deviding possible. DIN A4 is 297mm x 210mm, and all
other can be calculated from that. Changing from one to another changes
the area by a factor of 2. Very useful.
You can get envelopes C4 and B4, which are fitting different stacks of the
paper, and the C4 is fitting in the B4. Or you fold it twice and it will
fit in a C6. Elegant.
But that has nothing to do with the golden ratio. I do not remember that
ratio, but you should refer to some books about arts. I seem to remember,
that it was something like 1/0.6, i.e. much slimer than even 35mm ratio.
So far for the DIN size.
To navigate this discussion into a more enjoyable direction and to
challenge the humor of true Britains, I would like to repeat the story
that there is no uniform passport disign in Europe, just because the
Kingdom was not able to accept the DIN size, but they needed it 1.2mm
smaller to make it similar to some inch values.
Happy Holidays
Jan-Peter
Trevor Varley
>John Fryatt (j...@dircon.co.uk) wrote:
>: David Roberts <oss...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote:
>: >How do you lot manage without A4 sized printing paper?
>: >I.e. 11.75 x 8.25 inches - perfect for the 35mm format.
>That's not perfect for 35mm format! 24x36mm is a 2:3 ratio or .667.
>8.25 x 11.75 inches is 0.702 (Hey that's why the small number comes first,
>to keep the ratio less than 1).
>Or did you have some other definition of "perfect"?
In Europe I believe they state the horizontal dimension first i.e. if
you have a horizontal image it is said to be 10 x 8, 7 x 5 etc and
conversely a vertical image would be 8 x 10, 5 x 7 etc. or am I stating
the obvious?
Trevor
---
* OLX 2.1 TD * TREVOR VARLEY PHOTOGRAPHY - Burlington,Ontario
Tony Sleep
> > 8.25 x 11.75 inches is 0.702
Ha! But if you give the image a nice 15mm border all-round, you get a
(210-30=)180mm x (297-30=)267mm image and ratio of 0.67 : perfect!
Tony Sleep
Lou Kipnis
cong...@ix.netcom.com(Wm. Congreve (Sr.) ) wrote:
[expunge]
>It would be interesting to know where the 4 x 5 and 8 x 10
>proportions ever got started
I'm likely misinformed and sure to be corrected but my understanding
has been paper sizes were derived from sheet film sizes. Question then
is who or what inflicted these film sizes on us. I conjecture it was
due to an arbitrary coadunation of circumstance and convention.
[snip]
>On the practical level, you can't quite get a 36
>exposure roll of 35mm negatives proofed on 8 x 10,in the usual plastic
>sleeve things, and that's a MAJOR pain.
[consign to ether]
Don't you have 8.5x11 photo paper there? I know B&H stocks it, at
least some varieties of RC VC, as my students continually buy it by
mistake.
--
Lou
lki...@bc.cybernex.net
Jan-Peter Meyn
> Mona Lisa 20 x 30 (vertical)
>
Happy Holidays
Jan-Peter
Gregory Pease
>> (I thought there was a set of paper sizes that followed the golden ratio
>> 1 : sqrt(2)/2 + 1 so that you could cut a sheet in half and keep the
>> same proportions).
>I come pretty darn close cutting 11X14 in half to 11x7-Pretty close indeed.
No, Steve. You haven't been listening. That's *7x11* in the US!
Cheers, and lift a pint for me over the holly-daze,
Andrew Stikuts
which is available here in Toronto, Canada. Just fits my
11x 14 trays, just fits my 11x14 Saunders easel using the edge
of the easel rather than the slots, but most importantly lets
me do a full frame image of 8 x 12 inches, with 2 inches for a
border all around to do a proper job of matting. So, does that
make it a "perfect" size?
--- Andrew Stikuts in Toronto --- ab...@torfree.net
Bill Almond
here as well since so much work is being done in 35mm format and
printing full frame on 8x10 (10x8) is APITA.
Bill Almond
Pizzazz Images Photography
Vancouver, B.C. Canada
piz...@cyberstore.ca
Paul A. Brown
>
> :SAN...@SUZY.TOROLAB.IBM.COM writes:
>
> >John Fryatt (j...@dircon.co.uk) wrote:
> >: David Roberts <oss...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >: >How do you lot manage without A4 sized printing paper?
> >: >I.e. 11.75 x 8.25 inches - perfect for the 35mm format.
>
first,
> >to keep the ratio less than 1).
>
> >Or did you have some other definition of "perfect"?
Of course if you use a 1/4 inch border then the A4 actual image ratio
becomes 7.75 x 11.25 = .688 only 1 per cent out. Still, I suppose it's
still not perfect!
Paul.
Happy Christmas to all.
Trevor Varley
PA>In article: <60.46012.46...@canrem.com> trevor...@canrem.com
PA>(Trevor Varley) writes:
PA>>
PA>> :SAN...@SUZY.TOROLAB.IBM.COM writes:
PA>>
PA>> >John Fryatt (j...@dircon.co.uk) wrote:
PA>> >: David Roberts <oss...@bangor.ac.uk> wrote:
PA>>
PA>> >: >How do you lot manage without A4 sized printing paper?
PA>> >: >I.e. 11.75 x 8.25 inches - perfect for the 35mm format.
PA>>
PA>> >That's not perfect for 35mm format! 24x36mm is a 2:3 ratio or .667.
PA>> >8.25 x 11.75 inches is 0.702 (Hey that's why the small number comes
PA>first,
PA>> >to keep the ratio less than 1).
PA>>
PA>> >Or did you have some other definition of "perfect"?
PA>Of course if you use a 1/4 inch border then the A4 actual image ratio
PA>becomes 7.75 x 11.25 = .688 only 1 per cent out. Still, I suppose it's
PA>still not perfect!
PA>Paul.
PA>Happy Christmas to all.
PA>--
PA> ------------------------------
PA>| Paul A. Brown. |
PA>| e-mail contact |
PA>| pa...@pabrown.demon.co.uk |
PA> ------------------------------
Paul:
If you are going to use my name as the lead quoter please make sure
that something I said is in the post. Not one of the included statements
is attributable to me. It is confusing for others trying to follow the
thread.
Thanks,
Trevor
*************************************************
* TREVOR VARLEY PHOTOGRAPHY *
* Commercial/Industrial - Brochures *
* Product Shots - Business Portraits *
* Fashion - Glamour - Model Portfolios *
* Theatrical - Talent - Publicity *
* Burlington, Ontario, Canada *
* e-mail Trevor...@canrem.com *
*************************************************
Tony Sleep
> here as well since so much work is being done in 35mm format and
> printing full frame on 8x10 (10x8) is APITA.
The funny thing is that here in UK, DIN paper has not caught on at all
well. Only Ilford & Agfa sell A4 (and only RC papers AFAIK), and my
suppliers say they don't shift much of it. I've used it for years for
clients (>10yrs I think) as it looks better than 10x8, yet envelopes and
same size stationery are easily available, but it seems only a small
minority here like it.
OTOH I wish we got 11x14, which we don't. That seems just about right for
"hang on the wall" prints from 35mm.
Tony Sleep
David Roberts
Kodak and Kentmere both sell A4 in their more popular RC papers.
(I use Ilford though).
David
Graham Alcock
passport size. (ho. ho)
How else is it that four EEC passport prints fit exactly onto one
sheet of a Polaroid film that was in existence over ten years earlier
and still surrent (type 669), and they subsequently made the Studio
Express camera for use in the EEC by professional studios.
Won't complain though.. made a lot of money out of it !! :-]
Tony Sleep
> (I use Ilford though).
You are right - I dimly remember using Kodak A4 RC at one time now you
mention it.
Tony Sleep