I'm SICK of this 8x10 ratio crap! DUH!!!

[Mark Morgan]

Something's been bugging the heck out of me ever since I started scanning
slides/printing enlargements, and now...using a D30...

Here's why I'm a grump:
With a 35mm image ratio of 3:2, why on Earth don't Epson, HP and all the
other printer folk sell PHOTO PAPER with a 3:2 ratio?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? What is
this 8x10 crap??

And... Why do all the frame manufacturers (who sell by the bucket-load)
only focus on 8x10 and similar ratios???? (yes...I know you can buy 3:2
frames, but only at specialized shops).

We go through pains as we frame our shots with our 100% viewfinder (or a
little less), and then can't print or frame the full shot without paying a
premium for "non-standard" frames and paper, just to print/mount the whole
100% of the shot??????????????

Dang if that doesn't tan my hide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAAAARRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!
-mm

[Barry Twycross]

In article <qzHl6.93616$GV2.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com>, "Mark Morgan"
<mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote:

>Here's why I'm a grump:
>With a 35mm image ratio of 3:2, why on Earth don't Epson, HP and all the
>other printer folk sell PHOTO PAPER with a 3:2 ratio?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? What is
>this 8x10 crap??

This isn't a new gripe, I've been annoyed at 8x10 since I started with
photography (about 20 years now). I'd do 8x12 if I could get long enough
paper, or 6 2/3x10 and wast an inch off the side.

--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
(Obsolete sig deleted).

[Michael J Hoffman]

I print my own 6X9

Michael H

"My psychiatrist sent me for an MRI because she thinks I have a magnetic
personality."

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

Mark Morgan wrote:
>
> ... Why do all the frame manufacturers (who sell by the bucket-load)
> only focus on 8x10 and similar ratios????

For all us users of 4x5 and 8x10 cameras.

Paper sizes match sheet film sizes: 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 & 20x24

Sheet film sizes match glass plate negative sizes

Glass plate negative sizes match window pane sizes

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio noli...@ix.netcom.com
Technical Management Consulting & Engineering Services:
New Product Development; Electrical Engineering;
Software, System and Circuit Design. Oh, & Photography

[Jeffery S. Harrison]

Hotmail H. Hotmail wrote:

> Maybe you should get a 6x7 medium format camera, which fits almost perfectly
> onto 8x10. Buy an expensive camera to save some money on frames and effort on
> cropping.
>
> Mark Morgan wrote:
>
>
That worked for me :)

Jeffery S. Harrison

[Joseph Meehan]

Well maybe you should be upset with the guys who designed the 35 mm
negative? 8x10 was the standard before 35mm was a standard.

Making a number of different sizes is possible and if you really
want paper in the 35 mm ratio, I will be very happy to supply it to you,
at a slight additional charge.

--
Dia 's Muire duit

Joe M

[Tony Spadaro]

I print a lot of 12x18 on Epson 13x19 paper. It's a good large size and if
you worry about waste, the print almost fills the printable area of the
paper.
11x17 paper is somewhat between the 4x5 and 2x3 image ratios, and Epson's
16.5x24 is kinda close to 2x3 - but the 24 is actually a printable length of
22.7 (at least on my Stylus 3000).

Tony (the gimp) Spadaro
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/ArtShow.html
Chapel Hill artist and author of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
a Radical approach to photography

"

[Hello dat123]

Of course, you could post this to the medium format newsgroups too. :)

Say, that's a unique name you got there. Do you realize that Microsoft
has an HTML based e-mail service that uses the same name. I bet, due to
the uniqueness, you would have a strong case against Microsoft. Perhaps
you could win some money from them for using your very unique name.
It's not like your name is Peter or John. Just an idea...

Best,
DAT

"Hotmail H. Hotmail" <hot...@hotmail.hotmail.hotmail> wrote in message
news:3A977FC7...@hotmail.hotmail.hotmail...

> Maybe you should get a 6x7 medium format camera, which fits almost
perfectly
> onto 8x10. Buy an expensive camera to save some money on frames and
effort on
> cropping.
>
> Mark Morgan wrote:
>

[Chris M]

Surely you should blame the guys who set the film size for movie
filming. IIRC the original stills 35mm was movie film turned through 90
degrees.

KRs
Chris

[Hello dat123]

Most of the time, I use Kodak Polymax II RC papers. I never can find it
in 8x12 format, only 8x10. I wish I could, because this is a great
ratio (3:2).

You are right Mark. 100% right.

DAT

"Mark Morgan" <mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qzHl6.93616$GV2.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com...

[Mark Morgan]

That's true.
But I would think that since the market is so saturated with 35mm film,
there would be reason to sell paper to match.

One other factor these days that probably makes my gripe unanswered is that
most consumer digital camera's image is more proportioned to a computer
screen...not 3:2. oh well...

[Mark Morgan]

True... But now that 35mm is so popular, one would think the printer folks
would respond.

[Lisa Horton]

LOL, it doesn't have to be quite as bleak as you describe Mark:) A
couple of options:

Aaron Brothers now carries 3:2 ratio frames and mats in at least a
couple of sizes. I'm sitting here looking at a 12x16 frame with mat
cut for 8x12 photo, the last of a batch I bought for putting some of
my work up at a company gallery.

While your printer can't print 8x12 on 8x10 paper, there are a couple
of options there too. You can print 6.6x10 and do what I did, have
custom mats cut for a 6.6x10 photo in an 11x14 frame. Nice for
displaying in a small space where people will be close to the
artwork. You can also buy 13x19 paper and cut it down to 8.5x13 and
print 8x12's on your printer with little waste. I just did this and
it's wonderful finally being able to use my standard stock of 8x12 fit
frames & mats with inkjet prints.

I used to try and shoot for a 4:5 ratio, imagining a cropping mark in
the viewfinder. Didn't work for me though, the urge to shoot for the
full frame is apparently irrisistible for me:)

Lisa

[Mark Morgan]

I guess that's what I'll have to do...
...I know that the stuff is out there...it's just that you end up paying far
more than would otherwise be necessary. You can buy 8x10 everything for
peanuts. 8x12 is much more...call me cheap.

Now that I think about it... After spending the gazillion dollars on my
gear over the years...I'm sure I can swing the extra. It's just annoying
that they don't make it easier-as they *easily* could.
-mm

[Lisa Horton]

Actually I think that the 8x12 fit frames at Aaron Brothers are about
the same price as the 8x10 fit frames (actually the frames are 11x14
and 12x16). I think the larger size is about a buck more, which is
reasonable since it actually is slightly larger. Of course being me,
I always try to buy them on sale:) The last batch I got during one of
their "second frame for $.01" sales, so they were *really* cheap:)

[Tony Spadaro]

Standard movie ratio at that time was 3x4

[Tony Spadaro]

I don't know these Aaron Brothers, but i get my Neilsen frames, which can
be made up in ANY size.

--

[Matt Clara]

http://www.americanframes.com is a great place to have custom frames made
up, too.
Matt

"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:xVTl6.17620$h52.4...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...

[Susan M. Sanders]

In article <3UUl6.3343$Ea1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Matt Clara" <NOSPAM--...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> http://www.americanframes.com is a great place to have custom frames made
> up, too.
> Matt

That url doesn't work.

However, www.pictureframes.com is Graphik Dimensions web-site. They
carry Nielsen's (cut to size) and lots of other frames and framing
supplies. www.lightimpressionsdirect.com is a similar source, but with
fewer frames but lots miscellaneous archival stuff.

[Matt Clara]

Sorry, it's www.americanframe.com , singular, not plural! (Sheesh!)

"Susan M. Sanders" <ssan...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:ssanders-750997...@news.umich.edu...

[Hello dat123]

I believe the 24x36mm format was initiated by Leica (Barnack). Another
popular format of the period was 6x9cm, another 3:2 ratio. Newer
formats are probably catering to the paper sizes rather than the other
way around.

DAT

"Joseph Meehan" <slig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0XMl6.11127$Aj2.3...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...

[Aaron Taylor]

Then you could use the money to buy an 8x10 view camera...

"Hello dat123" <dat...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:978pt0$bge$1...@wanadoo.fr...

[Tony Spadaro]

I use
http://www.artistsframing.com
a small outfit in the Pacific Northwest somewhere that ships on the same day
I order. I've ordered Neilsons from American too. Graphic Dimensions has
Neilson TYPE metal frames but they aren't as solid as Neilsons. Probably
would last forever anyhow but I've been using Neilson for years - and
nothing else matches the colour.

--
Tony (the gimp) Spadaro
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/ArtShow.html
Chapel Hill artist and author of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
a Radical approach to photography

"Matt Clara" <NOSPAM--...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:BXWl6.3424$gc7.2...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

[MarkTuccillo]

I'm still in the darkroom ( or perhaps the dark ages ), but I have the same
problem with analog prints. I use three basic solutions. The first is that I
will print to something like 6.4 X 9.7, and cut a 11 X 14 matt to what I
actually printed and throw it into a standard frame. For 11 X 14 and 16 X 20 the
same concept applys.The second is to enlarge and crop to 8X10 or 11X14 or 16X20.
The third, and more difficult, is to compose for 4:5 aspect ratio, and then
enlarge to full height and print. I aways use standard size frames and matting,
but I almost always cut my own matts.

Mark

[Bill Tuthill]

Another thing you can do is buy A4 photo paper (from us.buy.com or
elsewhere). It's about the same price as "US" 8.5 x 11 paper, and
is more than 8 inches wide but slightly less than 12 inches long.
The newest Epson inkjets can even print up to the paper's edge.

Lisa Horton <ge...@gatorgames.com> wrote:
> Actually I think that the 8x12 fit frames at Aaron Brothers are about
> the same price as the 8x10 fit frames (actually the frames are 11x14
> and 12x16). I think the larger size is about a buck more, which is
> reasonable since it actually is slightly larger. Of course being me,
> I always try to buy them on sale:) The last batch I got during one of
> their "second frame for $.01" sales, so they were *really* cheap:)

> Mark Morgan wrote:

[Tony Spadaro]

Unfortunately A4 is less than 12 inches long. As I remember the printable
area it was 8 inches by eleven point one or two on my Epson.
If they would make more Legal size papers that would be really handy for
photographers 8.5 x 14 would yield a printable surface of 8x13.x.
FWIW I frequently print to a considerablyt larger size than the paper the
picture would fit on. As an example: last week I printed a roughly 8x10
image that I wanted to fit an 11x14 frame. With 11x17 paper I would have had
to calculate the exact position of the picture on the paper - not a lot of
fun - especially considering that I prefer to make the top and side margins
exactly equal, and the botton larger. So I printed it to 13x19 paper, giving
the printer instruction to put a one point black border around the print.
This border was 11x14,giving the 8x10 picture area a pre-made matte. All I
had to do was pop it in a frame and Bob's your uncle - actually it wasn't a
picture of uncle Bob at all but...
This sounds like waste but consider the expense of a matte, and the
cutting - unless you want ALL your prints made to exactly the specifications
of the framing and matting industry (and being sick of 8x10 was the name of
this thread - right?) So the paper cost me twice as much as using a sheet of
11x17, and I had to do more cutting. The matte is the same white as the
paper, and the same white as every other matte I make this way.
The disadvantage is that the picture is against the glass. I don't use
archival materials so it is of no consequence to me at this time. Later when
I go to an archival printer I will have to use spacers - little glass pieces
that go between the print and the frame - to prevent problems. Spacer scan
be small enough that they are completely hidden under the overhang of the
frame.

--
Tony (the gimp) Spadaro
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/ArtShow.html
Chapel Hill artist and author of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
a Radical approach to photography

"Bill Tuthill" <ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t9ihij...@corp.supernews.com...

[Alan Browne]

I think it's amazing that people consistently frame photos for 3:2
ratio. This is quite a feat. EVERY photo taken on a 35mm SLR is
composed to be exactly 3:2 when printed. Fantastic.

There I go cropping my images for most pleasing composition after I
develop them... gee, I should take them as perfect 3:2 ratio. Wow,
what a concept!

Alan

Mark Morgan wrote:
>
> Something's been bugging the heck out of me ever since I started scanning
> slides/printing enlargements, and now...using a D30...
>
> Here's why I'm a grump:
> With a 35mm image ratio of 3:2, why on Earth don't Epson, HP and all the
> other printer folk sell PHOTO PAPER with a 3:2 ratio?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? What is
> this 8x10 crap??
>
> And... Why do all the frame manufacturers (who sell by the bucket-load)
> only focus on 8x10 and similar ratios???? (yes...I know you can buy 3:2
> frames, but only at specialized shops).
>
> We go through pains as we frame our shots with our 100% viewfinder (or a
> little less), and then can't print or frame the full shot without paying a
> premium for "non-standard" frames and paper, just to print/mount the whole
> 100% of the shot??????????????
>
> Dang if that doesn't tan my hide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> AAAAAAARRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!
> -mm

--
Lert's live longer.
Be A Lert.

[Mark Morgan]

Hmmmm... I don't get it... Call me slow.

"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3A996CEE...@videotron.ca...

[Lisa Horton]

Maybe I'm slow too, but I don't get it either. If I'm understanding
you correctly, you often/frequently/usually crop your images at some
point(s) subsequent to actually taking the picture. That part I get,
but what I don't understand is if your problem is with composing to a
3:2 frame, or doing final composition while shooting.

I shoot mostly 35mm these days, which means that my image on film and
what I see through the viewfinder are going to be 3:2. In the overall
scheme of things, a 24mm x 36mm bit of film is pretty small, so I want
to, as much as possible, use the full area of the film rather than a
smaller area, like 16mm x 20mm, at least from a quality standpoint. A
larger image on film will require less enlargement and provide better
quality than a smaller image.

Personally, when I'm looking through the camera composing a photograph
I'm strongly influenced compositionally by the shape of the
viewfinder. Whether it's the 3:2 of 35mm, the square of 6x6, or the
almost 4:5 of 6x7, the shape of that frame seems to dictate what
potential compositions I see. Sometimes an image can be improved
after the fact by subsequent cropping, but the vast majority of images
I make are the best they can be as they are taken. It could make a
difference though, that I generally "bracket" composition while
shooting, often extensively, and that my style is a very selective
one, focusing more on details than on a larger scene.

With a larger format, and/or a square, like 6x6, I can see composing
loosely planning for later cropping, depending on the larger film size
to maintain an acceptable level of quality, but I couldn't see
shooting tiny 35mm film that way.

Now if you find the 3:2 ratio not pleasing, that's a different issue
altogether:)

Lisa

[Steve Smith]

I think what he is trying to say is that a 3:2 should be printed as a 12 x 8
(8 x 12) print rather than 8 x 10.

"Lisa Horton" <ge...@gatorgames.com> wrote in message
news:3A99769F...@gatorgames.com...

[mcsalty]

What??? WHAT???? Why so damn impatient? Give the poor beggars some time to
work this out!
80-odd years is nowhere near enough time to genetically engineer 3:2 ratio
trees!

and whoever mentions "cutting the paper" is obviously an imbecile who knows
nothing about paper production. I know several tree hunters who are
extremely skilled and dedicated. It's such a shame their art is being killed
by our so-called "government". As if anyone in a position of power can tell
people what to do!

Mark Morgan <mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote in message

news:71Tl6.93904$GV2.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com...

[Mark Morgan]

My "now that it's so popular" was to be taken with a grin...
:-)

"mcsalty" <mcs...@ic24.net> wrote in message
news:7Vgm6.10872$Cq.206305@news2-hme0...

[Alan Browne]

To both Lisa and Mark,

Yes, I do try to make a nice composition with 3:2. However, when
critically appraised, how often is all of the image that pleasing? Look
at nearly any magazine on nearly any subject and you will find a
multitude of aspect ratios in the images. The photo editors are making
sure that the image contains the message in the most pleasing way
without leaving anything out and with minimal distraction. In non-news
magazines, most photography is done in medium format and very often much
of the content of the negative is lost.

3:2 is close to the so called "golden ratio" which is a pleasing
perspective to the human eye/mind, so it's not surprising that it is
common. However, in forcing a 3:2 composition, one is either including
something that distracts, ommiting something required or providing a
perspective that is not right for the subject.

One composition thechnique is to fill the frame with as much of the
subject as possible. How often does the subject fill out to a 3:2 ratio?
Most of the time an image will benefit from cropping.

MHO.

Alan.

[Q-Tonic]

HAHA.. Laugh out loud.

Outlook X. Press

"Hello dat123" <dat...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:978pt0$bge$1...@wanadoo.fr...
> Of course, you could post this to the medium format newsgroups too. :)
>
> Say, that's a unique name you got there. Do you realize that Microsoft
> has an HTML based e-mail service that uses the same name. I bet, due to
> the uniqueness, you would have a strong case against Microsoft. Perhaps
> you could win some money from them for using your very unique name.
> It's not like your name is Peter or John. Just an idea...
>
> Best,
> DAT
>
>
> "Hotmail H. Hotmail" <hot...@hotmail.hotmail.hotmail> wrote in message
> news:3A977FC7...@hotmail.hotmail.hotmail...
> > Maybe you should get a 6x7 medium format camera, which fits almost
> perfectly
> > onto 8x10. Buy an expensive camera to save some money on frames and
> effort on
> > cropping.
> >

[Barry S]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:13:13 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan....@videotron.ca> wrote:

>Most of the time an image will benefit from cropping.

Magazine editors are more concerned with editorial and layout
requirements than the integrity of the original image. Shooting for
3:2 does not mean forcing the image. It means finding and creating
images that work in 3:2.

If you want to see a real master, take a look at Steve McCurry's book
South Southeast. Every image is 3:2, probably full frame, and the
composition (and eveything else) works perfectly. Please don't tell
me how you'd crop McCurry's work, at least not while I'm drinking a
carbonated beverage.

Granted, some photographers will loosely frame an image, for personal
or commercial reasons, but many photographers are quite capable of
filling any aspect ratio and making it work consistently.

Barry S.

[jw&a]

Alan Browne <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message

news:3A99C9C9...@videotron.ca...

> To both Lisa and Mark,
>
> Yes, I do try to make a nice composition with 3:2. However, when
> critically appraised, how often is all of the image that pleasing? Look
> at nearly any magazine on nearly any subject and you will find a
> multitude of aspect ratios in the images. The photo editors are making

[snip]

> Most of the time an image will benefit from cropping.

maybe your images. i shoot mine to print 3:2 and that's the way they look
best. as i said in another thread recently, just for fun i'm going to pick
some other aspect ratios 2:1, 3:1 and compose for them.

bob

[John Halliwell]

In article <qzHl6.93616$GV2.20...@typhoon.san.rr.com>, Mark Morgan
<mmor...@san.rr.com> writes

>Something's been bugging the heck out of me ever since I started scanning
>slides/printing enlargements, and now...using a D30...
>
>Here's why I'm a grump:
>With a 35mm image ratio of 3:2, why on Earth don't Epson, HP and all the
>other printer folk sell PHOTO PAPER with a 3:2 ratio?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? What is
>this 8x10 crap??

Epson and HP have very little photographic backgrounds. Their experience
is with 'normal' plain paper sizes (A4 etc.).

>And... Why do all the frame manufacturers (who sell by the bucket-load)
>only focus on 8x10 and similar ratios???? (yes...I know you can buy 3:2
>frames, but only at specialized shops).

Easy, 10"x8" is probably the most common print size for large prints
around about this size. The frame makers are in this market and 8"x12"
frames probably won't sell as well.

>We go through pains as we frame our shots with our 100% viewfinder (or a
>little less), and then can't print or frame the full shot without paying a
>premium for "non-standard" frames and paper, just to print/mount the whole
>100% of the shot??????????????

Well there's also 5"x7" that doesn't fit either, even some 4"x6" prints
don't show the whole image anyway.

It doesn't bother me, I just get 8x12 prints from the lab I use if using
35mm and it doesn't cost too much more (although they do look rather
'long').

--
John

Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk

[Mark Morgan]

Since Epson markets specifically to photographers, with their Photo printer
line (upper end stuff like their 2000P, and up)...
...I would think they'd be well served to at least provide an easy option to
order paper that handles 8x12.
After all...they've gone after the niche market with several printer models.
Why not complete the package?

I have discovered one option: Roll-paper. But it would certainly be easy
for them to cut paper an extra 2 inches and market it to photographers...
-It just ain't that tough!

-mm

"John Halliwell" <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pl7DxFAy...@photopia.demon.co.uk...

[A1Shooter]

Speaking of roll paper, I haven't seen it anywhere local including
Fry's and Best Buy, which just about rules out finding it at my area
merchants. Any pointers on where to order rolled inkjet photo paper?

On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:54:11 GMT, "Mark Morgan" <mmor...@san.rr.com>
wrote:

>I have discovered one option: Roll-paper.

===========================================
Alan Davenport / a1-shooter at home dot com
Remove NOSPAM from address to reply.
===========================================

[Mark Morgan]

Directly from Epson.

"A1Shooter" <a1-sh...@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote in message
news:40ms9tclimtun9i87...@4ax.com...

[Tony Spadaro]

Have you tried B&H or Adorama? If not them there is pccnnection.

--
Tony (the gimp) Spadaro
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/ArtShow.html
Chapel Hill artist and author of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
a Radical approach to photography

"A1Shooter" <a1-sh...@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote in message
news:40ms9tclimtun9i87...@4ax.com...

[jw&a]

Mark Morgan <mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote in message

news:7Zhn6.97384$GV2.22...@typhoon.san.rr.com...

> Since Epson markets specifically to photographers, with their Photo
printer
> line (upper end stuff like their 2000P, and up)...
> ...I would think they'd be well served to at least provide an easy option
to
> order paper that handles 8x12.
> After all...they've gone after the niche market with several printer
models.
> Why not complete the package?
>
> I have discovered one option: Roll-paper. But it would certainly be easy
> for them to cut paper an extra 2 inches and market it to photographers...
> -It just ain't that tough!

paper mills make paper in large sheets, which are cut to marketable sizes.
if they cut the paper 2 inches bigger, they would have a lot of waste.

you could buy the 8x10 paper and have a copy shop cut the sides off it to
make it 10 x 6.666.
if you can find a bigger size (10x14) then you could get it cut down to
8x12.

don't want to waste all the extra paper? neither does epson.

[Mark Morgan]

"jw&a" <j...@carol.net.x> wrote in message
news:t9tblk6...@corp.supernews.com...

> don't want to waste all the extra paper? neither does epson.

Epson could care less about wasting the paper, as long as they can charge
you for it.
I for one...will gladly pay for 2 extra inches of paper. I'm not suggesting
they make all their paper that way...only that they *offer* it.

Sheesh! I ain't askin' much here... They make all sorts of other odd-ball
sizes, after all...why not this one?