Why no 8 x 12 Photo Paper
Frank Arthur
35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
G.T.
"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
news:sgG3i.469$KC4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>
> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
Good question, something I've wondered myself.
Greg
Alan Browne
Becasue they're idiots.
In effect the photo imaging industry are idiots.
They've passed up a huge opportunity to adopt sensors that are
proportioned per the ISO 216 "A" system. 1:SQRT(2) = SQRT(2):2 .
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html
The relationship of these paper sizes is akin to aperture stops which is
ironic.
Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
ASAAR
So they can't be easily and inexpensively cut down to 4" x 6"? :)
Joseph Meehan
Paper has traditionally been made at the factory (not photo paper, but
all types of paper) certain widths on very wide rolls. The machinery is
very large, very expensive and last a very long time. All kinds of
industries use paper including newspapers, paper towels, photography,
packaging, construction etc. All these industries have their own machines
designed for certain size paper. Many years of history have determined the
standards. They don't always make sense in today's world, but changing one
size can mean many other sizes and uses would be affected.
The fun part of all this is on the other side of the pond, all those
sizes are different from in the US. If we really wanted to make a change,
we should really look to change to the standards the rest of the world is
using and progress that direction in a planed orderly manner.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia 's Muire duit
Frank Arthur
"Joseph Meehan" <sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:464f4b77$0$16726$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Photo Paper is available in 8 x 10 inch sizes indicating the 8 inch width is
standard.
So are rolls of paper 8 inches wide. Cutting & packing 8 x 12 would be
relatively easy
if customers demanded it.
measekite
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Frank Arthur wrote:Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers? 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?Paper has traditionally been made at the factory (not photo paper, but all types of paper) certain widths on very wide rolls. The machinery is very large, very expensive and last a very long time. All kinds of industries use paper including newspapers, paper towels, photography, packaging, construction etc. All these industries have their own machines designed for certain size paper. Many years of history have determined the standards. They don't always make sense in today's world, but changing one size can mean many other sizes and uses would be affected.
Mark B.
news:sgG3i.469$KC4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>
Probably because 8x12 isn't a standard size in the US - picture frames are
commonly available as 8x10. Try to find a 1 hour photo printer that will do
an 8x12. I agree, 8x12 would be a great option (at least for landscape
orientation) but 8x10 has been a standard photo size for a very long time.
Mark
Mark˛
13x9 is more what you'd want to print your 8x12 on anyway (for framing)....
-And that's the REAL question...
-----Why in H-E-C-K(!!!!!) is it so freaking impossible to buy frames for
the 3:2 ratio!!!!!!!??????
I would have thought that after a zillion years of 35mm...and the huge
adoption of 3:2 DSLR ...that somebody...somewhere...would start selling
frames for the ratio. Instead, we have a glut of everything but 3:2.
Drives me crazy.
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
C J Campbell
For the same reason hot dogs come 10 to a package and buns come 8 or 12
to a pack.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
ASAAR
>> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>
> For the same reason hot dogs come 10 to a package and buns come 8 or 12
> to a pack.
Many hot dogs come 8 to the pack. Two that come to mind are
Nathan's and Hebrew National. H.N. also has a "Premium Taste"
product that has only 7 to the pack, but the reason for that is
pretty clear - profit. Just 6 of the Nathan's hot dogs weigh as
much as the entire H.N. Premium Taste pack.
Arthur Entlich
machines industry and started by distributing printers that print on
standard business page paper.
Also, the early printer were unable to print without fairly large uneven
boarders, and the printers still need to print letter size anyway, for
letter printing.
Lastly, being from the business side of things, the companies that were
hired to make the papers probably mainly produced business dimensional
paper and so already have the the large paper rolls and the slitting
machines set up for those sizes.
Art
Arthur Entlich
more. European width of A4 is about 8.25" wide, US letter is 8.5.
But if you just have to have 8" x 12" paper consider this (and other
websites). I just put: 8" x 12" paper into Google.
http://www.richardfrankfurt.co.uk/index.php?productID=36
Art
Arthur Entlich
The 8" x 12" materials I have found are mainly very specialized papers,
not for inkjet use.
Art
Rob
> The rolls aren't 8" wide. They are more likely 51-52 inches wide or
> more. European width of A4 is about 8.25" wide, US letter is 8.5.
>
> But if you just have to have 8" x 12" paper consider this (and other
> websites). I just put: 8" x 12" paper into Google.
>
> http://www.richardfrankfurt.co.uk/index.php?productID=36
>
>
> Art
>
prior to A4 there was Foolscap - 8½ × 13½ inches (216 × 343 mm)
G.T.
> Frank Arthur wrote:
>> Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>
>> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>
> 13x9 is more what you'd want to print your 8x12 on anyway (for framing)....
> -And that's the REAL question...
>
> -----Why in H-E-C-K(!!!!!) is it so freaking impossible to buy frames for
> the 3:2 ratio!!!!!!!??????
>
> I would have thought that after a zillion years of 35mm...and the huge
> adoption of 3:2 DSLR ...that somebody...somewhere...would start selling
> frames for the ratio. Instead, we have a glut of everything but 3:2.
>
Actually Frame Destination now has several 2:3 frames including 8x12
opening with a 12x16 or 16x20 frame.
Greg
--
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
Robert Coe
<sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Frank Arthur wrote:
: > Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
: >
: > 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
: > so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
:
: Paper has traditionally been made at the factory (not photo paper, but
: all types of paper) certain widths on very wide rolls. The machinery is
: very large, very expensive and last a very long time. All kinds of
: industries use paper including newspapers, paper towels, photography,
: packaging, construction etc. All these industries have their own machines
: designed for certain size paper. Many years of history have determined the
: standards. They don't always make sense in today's world, but changing one
: size can mean many other sizes and uses would be affected.
How do you explain the fact that more than half the newspapers in the United
States, including the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Wall Street
Journal, have changed their size in the past few years?
: The fun part of all this is on the other side of the pond, all those
: sizes are different from in the US. If we really wanted to make a change,
: we should really look to change to the standards the rest of the world is
: using and progress that direction in a planed orderly manner.
Why should we be the ones to change? For better or for worse, we probably
consume more paper than the rest of the world combined.
Bob
Robert Coe
: Arthur Entlich wrote:
:
: > The rolls aren't 8" wide. They are more likely 51-52 inches wide or
: > more. European width of A4 is about 8.25" wide, US letter is 8.5.
: >
: > But if you just have to have 8" x 12" paper consider this (and other
: > websites). I just put: 8" x 12" paper into Google.
: >
: > http://www.richardfrankfurt.co.uk/index.php?productID=36
: >
: >
: > Art
:
: prior to A4 there was Foolscap - 8½ × 13½ inches (216 × 343 mm)
The metric dimensions of Foolscap are probably irrelevant. I believe it
originated in England long before England went metric.
How widely accepted a standard did the size of Foolscap become anyway?
Foolscap originated as a proprietary product, taking its name from the
watermark applied by its manufacturer.
Bob
Philip Homburg
Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>Why should we be the ones to change? For better or for worse, we probably
>consume more paper than the rest of the world combined.
I wonder if there is a global market for paper. It sounds expensive to
ship (pre-cut) paper all over the world.
My guess is that cases where content is produced in the US and printed
in Europe, or where content is produced and printed in the US and then
shipped to Europe (or vice versa) are limited enough that there won't be
enough economic impact to change in one direction or another.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Al Dykes
><sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: Frank Arthur wrote:
>: > Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>: >
>: > 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>: > so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>:
>: Paper has traditionally been made at the factory (not photo paper, but
>: all types of paper) certain widths on very wide rolls. The machinery is
>: very large, very expensive and last a very long time. All kinds of
>: industries use paper including newspapers, paper towels, photography,
>: packaging, construction etc. All these industries have their own machines
>: designed for certain size paper. Many years of history have determined the
>: standards. They don't always make sense in today's world, but changing one
>: size can mean many other sizes and uses would be affected.
>
>How do you explain the fact that more than half the newspapers in the United
>States, including the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Wall Street
>Journal, have changed their size in the past few years?
>
The U.S.A. probably ceased to make printing presses.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
Joseph Meehan
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:15:37 -0400, "Joseph Meehan"
> <sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Frank Arthur wrote:
>>> Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>>
>>> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>>> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know
>>> why?
>>
>> Paper has traditionally been made at the factory (not photo
>> paper, but all types of paper) certain widths on very wide rolls.
>> The machinery is very large, very expensive and last a very long
>> time. All kinds of industries use paper including newspapers, paper
>> towels, photography, packaging, construction etc. All these
>> industries have their own machines designed for certain size paper.
>> Many years of history have determined the standards. They don't
>> always make sense in today's world, but changing one size can mean
>> many other sizes and uses would be affected.
>
> How do you explain the fact that more than half the newspapers in the
> United States, including the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and
> the Wall Street Journal, have changed their size in the past few
> years?
I don't have the numbers, but my guess is the new size is size easily
(with out waste) cut from the same standard manufactures size. If the
manufacturer produced a paper type that was 12 feet wide, they could
economically sell paper 2, 3, 4 or 6 foot wide, along with some other sizes,
but 5 foot or 4ž foot would be a problem.
>
>> The fun part of all this is on the other side of the pond, all
>> those sizes are different from in the US. If we really wanted to
>> make a change, we should really look to change to the standards the
>> rest of the world is using and progress that direction in a planed
>> orderly manner.
>
> Why should we be the ones to change? For better or for worse, we
> probably consume more paper than the rest of the world combined.
That is a typical US thought. I highly suspect you are wrong.
>
> Bob
Andrew Rossmann
says...
Seriously OT:
Vienna Beef hot dogs + S.Rosens poppy-seed buns = heaven (just avoid
drug tests for a few days!!)
--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
ASAAR
> : prior to A4 there was Foolscap - 8½ × 13½ inches (216 × 343 mm)
>
> The metric dimensions of Foolscap are probably irrelevant. I believe it
> originated in England long before England went metric.
>
> How widely accepted a standard did the size of Foolscap become anyway?
> Foolscap originated as a proprietary product, taking its name from the
> watermark applied by its manufacturer.
I don't know its actual dimensions, but that seems to be about the
size of legal pads, 8½" x something slightly greater than 11".
ASAAR
>> Many hot dogs come 8 to the pack. Two that come to mind are
>> Nathan's and Hebrew National. H.N. also has a "Premium Taste"
>> product that has only 7 to the pack, but the reason for that is
>> pretty clear - profit. Just 6 of the Nathan's hot dogs weigh as
>> much as the entire H.N. Premium Taste pack.
>
> Seriously OT:
> Vienna Beef hot dogs + S.Rosens poppy-seed buns = heaven (just avoid
> drug tests for a few days!!)
There are a couple of other vehicles that can transport to heaven
- good pastrami on rye and brisket on wick. Sandwiches of choice
for the discriminating testee (and everyone else). :)
Frank Arthur
"Mark B." <mbohnt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PvmdnV49KojKDNLb...@comcast.com...
Since 35mm later digital use all produce 2:3 proportions.
How can you put a 2:3 image in a 4:5 paper.
8x12 would be a great and needed option for portrait as well as landscape.
DBLEXPOSURE
"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>
> "Mark B." <mbohnt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:PvmdnV49KojKDNLb...@comcast.com...
>> "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>> news:sgG3i.469$KC4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>>
>>> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>>> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>>>
I use to lament and grumble over this issue as well. Then I came to the
conclusion that it doesn't matter. After that epiphany I found I was free
of the impossible goal of trying to achieve harmony between the aspect ratio
of a 35mm frame or digital sensor and the paper products and dime store
frames that are available.
I found that the world doesn't fit neatly into any of these human conceived
ratios anyway so why fight it.
Crop and trim, is what I say. If you are going to print the next logical
step is to put it in a frame and if your going to do that, you might as well
choose a decent archive quality mat too; both of which are almost always
custom cut.
Make your print, frame and mat fit your composition rather than trying to
compose your image to fit stock, precut printing and framing products.
I understand to compulsion to use every pixel, after all you did pay for
them. Liberate yourself, get out that crop tool and find harmony, (I know,
you have been told over and over again to crop in the camera, me too and I
do when it works).
Imagine walking into a gallery and the walls are not adorned with the
standard aspect ratio frames but oddities like 4:1 or even 7:1 or God
forbid, 1:1. Once you free yourself from the paper stock paradigm a whole
new world of creativity opens up to you. Choose whatever aspect ratio works
for the image at hand.
If it is worthy of a print then it is worthy of a custom cut frame and mat.
I use AmericanFrame.com, they will print any aspect ratio I want, if it's
just going in the portfolio, 8.5 X 11 is fine with me, I'll make my odd
aspect ratios fit inside those dimensions and I will still have the dramatic
effect and the harmony.
Patrick Ziegler
John Passaneau
news:13508n1...@corp.supernews.com:
> Mark² wrote:
>> Frank Arthur wrote:
>>> Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>>
>>> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>>> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know
>>> why?
>>
>> 13x9 is more what you'd want to print your 8x12 on anyway (for
>> framing).... -And that's the REAL question...
>>
>> -----Why in H-E-C-K(!!!!!) is it so freaking impossible to buy frames
>> for the 3:2 ratio!!!!!!!??????
>>
>> I would have thought that after a zillion years of 35mm...and the
>> huge adoption of 3:2 DSLR ...that somebody...somewhere...would start
>> selling frames for the ratio. Instead, we have a glut of everything
>> but 3:2.
>>
>
> Actually Frame Destination now has several 2:3 frames including 8x12
> opening with a 12x16 or 16x20 frame.
>
> Greg
I just bought on close out 4 12X16 gold alumimum frames for $2 each. They
are out there. 35mm never fit 8x10 so I just used it a an oppertunitly to
crop my pictures to make them better. Worked for me.
John Passaneau
Fred McKenzie
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> In effect the photo imaging industry are idiots.
>
> They've passed up a huge opportunity to adopt sensors that are
> proportioned per the ISO 216 "A" system. 1:SQRT(2) = SQRT(2):2 .
>
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html
>
> The relationship of these paper sizes is akin to aperture stops which is
> ironic.
Alan-
I fully agree with Patrick's ratio-matching-subject assessment. However
I can see an opportunity for standardization as digital photography
evolves.
I believe it is just a matter of time before camera manufacturers arrive
at the so-called full-frame sensor as a dominant format. What do they
do then for the following innovation? One choice would be a sensor with
the same corner-to-corner dimension as full-frame, but in the ratio that
satisfies the ISO. Very little change in camera design would be
required to support it.
If they did that, there would be an immediate market for the new format,
since much of the world already uses it. In fairly short time the US
consumer market would adopt it for photographic prints, and eventually
for everything else.
Remember Instamatic and APS film formats? They both had a rather short
time between introduction and the arrival of film processing equipment.
It could happen again for digital, especially since much of the world is
already using the ISO.
If that were to happen, then it would be logical that Pro digital
cameras with larger sensors would follow using the ISO ratio. That
change would probably be easier, since large-format digital is still
evolving. Manufacturers would only need to produce a sensor with the
same corner-to-corner dimension of a common film format, and the lenses
would already be there to support it.
Fred
gpaleo
Ο "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:oQZ3i.2670$to....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>> Used to be in the old days when 4:5 proportions were common.
> Since 35mm later digital use all produce 2:3 proportions.
> How can you put a 2:3 image in a 4:5 paper.
>
> 8x12 would be a great and needed option for portrait as well as landscape.
KODAK has 8x12 paper for their dye-sub printers.
Al Dykes
FWIW, Red River has paper in a wide range of sizes, but no 8x12. Was
the OP talking about 8.5x11? They have that. You wouldn't lose that
much using 8.5x14.
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/shopbypapersize.html
Frank Arthur
"John Passaneau" <w3...@arrl.net> wrote in message
news:Xns99368C4DC230...@216.196.97.136...
Wow 12 x 16 frames! You know they perfectly match "Light Impressions"
quality mounts that are 12 x 16 with cut out sized for- ready for this?
8 x 12!
Mark˛
Not sure how 12x16 helps much, as that isn't 2:3 either... I'd love to find
a large selection of 12x18 though...
Mark˛
> "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
> news:oQZ3i.2670$to....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Mark B." <mbohnt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:PvmdnV49KojKDNLb...@comcast.com...
>>> "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sgG3i.469$KC4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>>>
>>>> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>>>> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know
>>>> why?
>
>
> I use to lament and grumble over this issue as well. Then I came to
> the conclusion that it doesn't matter. After that epiphany I found I
> was free of the impossible goal of trying to achieve harmony between
> the aspect ratio of a 35mm frame or digital sensor and the paper
> products and dime store frames that are available.
>
>
>
> I found that the world doesn't fit neatly into any of these human
> conceived ratios anyway so why fight it.
Why? Because it means you waste pixels, and carefully frame shots.
I compose my images in-camera very carefully...so it would be nice to have
an easier time utilizing the format to its full potential. Who wants to
always crop? Not me.
> If it is worthy of a print then it is worthy of a custom cut frame
> and mat.
That's nice to say...but not economical for large numbers of frames. For
the occasional framed print...it's no big deal, but churning out large
numbers of framed shots...where every single one requires custom
framing...is a problem for those of us who like the ratio.
You don't care...great! You're in good company with frame-makers. The rest
of us would enjoy some common sense in frame manufacture.
DBLEXPOSURE
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:it14i.13535$AR3....@newsfe07.phx...
That's cool Mark, I compose very carefully too. What ever trips your
trigger. But I don't think your gonna get that 8X12 paper anytime soon.
I don't "churn" out framed shots. If it goes to print then it is a finished
work worthy of a wall somewhere, Don't care how much the frame costs,
within reason. I'm not gonna stick my work in $4.00 Wal-Mart frame.
Archival gallery quality only.
You are either going to throw away pixels or trim paper and throw away
scarps of that.
If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing that you are churning out a
large volume of framed prints?
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
Frank Arthur
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:it14i.13535$AR3....@newsfe07.phx...
bob crownfield
> "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>> Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>
>> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>>
>
> commonly available as 8x10. Try to find a 1 hour photo printer that will do
> an 8x12.
costco,
8x12 for $1.98, 12x18 for 2.98.
'custom lab' quality for everything that I have sent.
Mark˛
I'm talking about frames. Printing 8x12 is easy with roll paper.
> I don't "churn" out framed shots. If it goes to print then it is a
> finished work worthy of a wall somewhere, Don't care how much the
> frame costs, within reason. I'm not gonna stick my work in $4.00
> Wal-Mart frame. Archival gallery quality only.
You're making assumptions there. I'm not interested simply in cheap
frames...just the availability of frames in that ratio. They just aren't
there in quantity or variety.
> You are either going to throw away pixels or trim paper and throw away
> scarps of that.
>
> If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing that you are
> churning out a large volume of framed prints?
Mark˛
> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>> If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing that you are
>> churning out a large volume of framed prints?
If you look here:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/landscapes
...you'll notice that very few of these images have been cropped, and are
just the way I want them at 3:2. This is why framing isn't just a matter of
cropping away...
DBLEXPOSURE
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> Mark˛ wrote:
>> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>>> If you don't mind me asking, what are you doing that you are8X12
>>> churning out a large volume of framed prints?
>
> If you look here:
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/landscapes
> ...you'll notice that very few of these images have been cropped, and are
> just the way I want them at 3:2. This is why framing isn't just a matter
> of cropping away...
> --
> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark˛ at:
> www.pbase.com/markuson
>
>
Well, the thread was about paper, So I assumed... Anyway, Getting frames
stock custom cut aint no big deal and you can do it in whatever sizes you
want. And if you really want to get serious you can buy the stock and cut
it yourself, if you have the tools.
Actually, in this day and age with the market the way it is, augmenting your
photo biz with framing capabilities is a good way to add value to your
business.
8X12 framed and matted, $45 + freight at American Frame, I wouldn't
hesitate to put your stuff in a $45 frame. Not to mention the added
protection for your print.
As I said in another comment, the cost forces me to be a better editor.
As for the crop or not to crop thing, it's personal taste. Haven't you ever
had a shot that just wasn't right, a little crop and changes everything.
Lets face it, nobody makes a perfect composition every time they pull the
trigger. And I also am going to stick to my words, the world doesn't
always conveniently fit into a 3X4 aspect ratio.
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1245342
http://www.usefilm.com/Image.asp?ID=1246459
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
David Dyer-Bennet
> "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>> Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>
>> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>>
>
> commonly available as 8x10. Try to find a 1 hour photo printer that will do
> an 8x12.
Mark B.
"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>
> Used to be in the old days when 4:5 proportions were common.
> Since 35mm later digital use all produce 2:3 proportions.
> How can you put a 2:3 image in a 4:5 paper.
>
Where have you been? 8x10 has been a standard long before digital was
around - at least as long as 35mm film which is also a 2:3 ratio!
Mark
Robert Peirce
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> Frank Arthur wrote:
> > Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
> >
> > 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
> > so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>
> 13x9 is more what you'd want to print your 8x12 on anyway (for framing)....
> -And that's the REAL question...
>
> -----Why in H-E-C-K(!!!!!) is it so freaking impossible to buy frames for
> the 3:2 ratio!!!!!!!??????
>
> I would have thought that after a zillion years of 35mm...and the huge
> adoption of 3:2 DSLR ...that somebody...somewhere...would start selling
> frames for the ratio. Instead, we have a glut of everything but 3:2.
>
> Drives me crazy.
I print on 13x19 paper, trim it to 12x18 and mount it in frames I buy at
Michael's for next to nothing.
--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
Robert Peirce
Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <EbQ3i.392031$6P2.1...@newsfe16.phx>,
> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> > Frank Arthur wrote:
> > > Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
> > >
> > > 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
> > > so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
> >
> > 13x9 is more what you'd want to print your 8x12 on anyway (for framing)....
> > -And that's the REAL question...
> >
> > -----Why in H-E-C-K(!!!!!) is it so freaking impossible to buy frames for
> > the 3:2 ratio!!!!!!!??????
> >
> > I would have thought that after a zillion years of 35mm...and the huge
> > adoption of 3:2 DSLR ...that somebody...somewhere...would start selling
> > frames for the ratio. Instead, we have a glut of everything but 3:2.
> >
> > Drives me crazy.
>
> I print on 13x19 paper, trim it to 12x18 and mount it in frames I buy at
> Michael's for next to nothing.
Oops!! That was actually 12x16. I just measured it. OTOH, 8x10, 11x14
and 16x20 have been photo standards forever. What's with 11x14?
I just crop my photos or trim the prints to get whatever size I want
that also is correct for the image. A lot of the time I am printing
8x10 on 8.5x11. I also print 12x15-18 on 13x19. 4x6 is good for
snap-shots even though the natural image is 4.5x6 under the 4:3 standard.
I suspect, no matter what you want to do, there will NOT be a properly
sized paper to do it in some size or another.
Al Dykes
Anyone got a recommendation for a decent, inexpensive , paper trimmer?
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <bob-382A02.2...@news.verizon.net>,
> Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <EbQ3i.392031$6P2.1...@newsfe16.phx>,
>> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Arthur wrote:
>>>> Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>>>
>>>> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>>>> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>>> 13x9 is more what you'd want to print your 8x12 on anyway (for framing)....
>>> -And that's the REAL question...
>>>
>>> -----Why in H-E-C-K(!!!!!) is it so freaking impossible to buy frames for
>>> the 3:2 ratio!!!!!!!??????
>>>
>>> I would have thought that after a zillion years of 35mm...and the huge
>>> adoption of 3:2 DSLR ...that somebody...somewhere...would start selling
>>> frames for the ratio. Instead, we have a glut of everything but 3:2.
>>>
>>> Drives me crazy.
>> I print on 13x19 paper, trim it to 12x18 and mount it in frames I buy at
>> Michael's for next to nothing.
>
> Oops!! That was actually 12x16. I just measured it. OTOH, 8x10, 11x14
> and 16x20 have been photo standards forever. What's with 11x14?
And 5x7? And 3.5x5, which was the standard before 4x6 came along.
John Bean
<b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote:
>> I print on 13x19 paper, trim it to 12x18 and mount it in frames I buy at
>> Michael's for next to nothing.
13x19 is called "Super A3" here in the UK. "Real" A3 is
11.7x16.5 and is usually close enough to 12x16 for most
uses.
--
John Bean
ASAAR
>> Oops!! That was actually 12x16. I just measured it. OTOH, 8x10, 11x14
>> and 16x20 have been photo standards forever. What's with 11x14?
>
> And 5x7? And 3.5x5, which was the standard before 4x6 came along.
Looking through the new B&H catalog I see that Canon, HP, Epson,
Ilford, Inkpress and Moab sell 5x7 photo paper. Museo has several
unusual paper sizes (they include matching envelopes) - 4.5x5,
4.5x6, 5.5x7.5 and 3.8x9.1 for panoramas. Epson also has a
heavyweight 4.1x5.8 size photo paper that's printable on both sides,
used for postcards and invitations. HP has an odd 4x12 photo paper
that might delight photo stitchers for their landscape and
architectural shots. :) See below for 3.5x5.
In addition to their dedicated 4x6 printers, Hi-Touch has several
affordable 700 series dye-sub models that print three sizes, 4x6,
5x7 and 6x8. B&H sells these as well as the paper and YMCO ribbon
kits that they use.
There are also a number of much more expensive printers not
intended for home use in B&H's catalog. Prices are $1550 (Sony,
3.5x5, 4x6, 5x7), $2650 (Kodak, 4x6, 5x7, 6x8), $2996 (Kodak, 8x10,
8x12), $2750 (Fuji, 4x6, 5x7, 6x8, 6x9), $3995 (8x10, 8x12).
Mark˛
> In article <bob-382A02.2...@news.verizon.net>,
> Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <EbQ3i.392031$6P2.1...@newsfe16.phx>,
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Arthur wrote:
>>>> Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>>>
>>>> 35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>>>> so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know
>>>> why?
>>>
>>> 13x9 is more what you'd want to print your 8x12 on anyway (for
>>> framing).... -And that's the REAL question...
>>>
>>> -----Why in H-E-C-K(!!!!!) is it so freaking impossible to buy
>>> frames for the 3:2 ratio!!!!!!!??????
>>>
>>> I would have thought that after a zillion years of 35mm...and the
>>> huge adoption of 3:2 DSLR ...that somebody...somewhere...would
>>> start selling frames for the ratio. Instead, we have a glut of
>>> everything but 3:2.
>>>
>>> Drives me crazy.
>>
>> I print on 13x19 paper, trim it to 12x18 and mount it in frames I
>> buy at Michael's for next to nothing.
>
> Oops!! That was actually 12x16. I just measured it. OTOH, 8x10,
> 11x14 and 16x20 have been photo standards forever. What's with 11x14?
That's my point, exactly.
3:2 ratio has been around for many decades and has been, by far, the most
popular format size of the masses, save for the point & shoot digitals.
35mm film and DSLRs use 3:2...and yet we have what you describe...anything
BUT a lot of 12x18, etc.
> I just crop my photos or trim the prints to get whatever size I want
> that also is correct for the image.
Where would you crop these photos?
(Mine):
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/landscapes
I don't want to...because I utilize the entire frame. Who wants to waste
pixels?
A lot of the time I am printing
> 8x10 on 8.5x11. I also print 12x15-18 on 13x19. 4x6 is good for
> snap-shots even though the natural image is 4.5x6 under the 4:3
> standard.
>
> I suspect, no matter what you want to do, there will NOT be a properly
> sized paper to do it in some size or another.
Sure, but it's not just "some size or another." It's the most dominant film
size over the last 50 years, and it continues in DSLRs. It's just amazing
to me that frames are all over the place for the ratio...
Oh well... Despite my whining...clueless frame manufacturers continue...
ASAAR
number here)@cox..net>, in need of a ghostwriter, wrote:
> Where would you crop these photos?
> . . .
>
> I don't want to...because I utilize the entire frame. Who wants to waste
> pixels?
Useful pixels shouldn't be wasted. On the other hand, anyone that
forces all possible pixels into a fixed frame size probably often
creates less than the best possible compositions. What if Canon
upgraded their 5D to a Super SixD, having a 20mp, 36mm x 36mm
sensor? Would you then, in order to avoid wasting pixels, make only
square prints? Or would you take advantage of the extra pixels,
using judicious cropping to not only produce better compositions,
but to compensate for less than perfect framing. Handheld shots
can't match the framing accuracy that a tripod allows.
> Oh well... Despite my whining...clueless frame manufacturers continue...
Frame manufacturers have no monopoly on cluelessness. :)
dj_nme
<snip previous replies>
> FWIW, Red River has paper in a wide range of sizes, but no 8x12. Was
> the OP talking about 8.5x11? They have that. You wouldn't lose that
> much using 8.5x14.
>
> http://www.redrivercatalog.com/shopbypapersize.html
Not a bad idea (using 8.5x14in), then you could use the blank paper
around the 8x12 to mount it with and not cover any of the printed area
with the matt.
Ryadiia
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:8Le4i.128549$Fk2.1...@newsfe08.phx...
Frame manufactures are not as "clueless" as you paint them to be.
4/3 ratio (or close to it) is the dominant aspect ratio of photographs now
that digital cameras have outsold film cameras. By this I mean that in the
best years of 35mm film cameras, sales never reached the level compact
digital camera sales hit last year.
Frame manufacturers are simply making products they can sell. When you want
European sized frames I.E. A4, A3, A2 etc you either need to buy from a
European frame maker or modify your composure to allow trimming to the cheap
frames available in your area.
One of my business interests is in picture framing. I know it's in Oceania
but there would still be some relevance to the subject. About 35% of
customers require custom aspect ratio frames. less than 8% ask for frames
to be made to suit A4 or A3 paper sizes.
One solution my wife has for this is to use a larger (16'x20') frame for an
A4 print. She makes a 'matt' with more area at the bottom than the top.
Sometimes equal space, depending on the picture. This looks surprisingly
correct too and in the OP's case, would save the cost of custom framing. It
also has the side effect of separating the picture from the glass to prevent
adhesion and subsequent premature decay of the photo.
Douglas
Arthur Entlich
>>probably consume more paper than the rest of the world combined.
>
>
> That is a typical US thought. I highly suspect you are wrong.
Although I appreciate the sentiment, just logically, if there is to be a
leader in waste, or overuse of a resource, it is almost always the US,
so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the US used more paper
than the rest of the world combined. They seems to do very well in their
resource abuse of most other things, so why not paper products ;-)
If a tree falls in any forest globally, where are the products from it
likely destined to? The US...
Art
Joseph Meehan wrote:
> Robert Coe wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:15:37 -0400, "Joseph Meehan"
>><sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Frank Arthur wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>>>
>>>>35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>>>>so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know
>>>>why?
>>>
>>> Paper has traditionally been made at the factory (not photo
>>>paper, but all types of paper) certain widths on very wide rolls.
>>>The machinery is very large, very expensive and last a very long
>>>time. All kinds of industries use paper including newspapers, paper
>>>towels, photography, packaging, construction etc. All these
>>>industries have their own machines designed for certain size paper.
>>>Many years of history have determined the standards. They don't
>>>always make sense in today's world, but changing one size can mean
>>>many other sizes and uses would be affected.
>>
>>How do you explain the fact that more than half the newspapers in the
>>United States, including the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and
>>the Wall Street Journal, have changed their size in the past few
>>years?
>
>
> I don't have the numbers, but my guess is the new size is size easily
> (with out waste) cut from the same standard manufactures size. If the
> manufacturer produced a paper type that was 12 feet wide, they could
> economically sell paper 2, 3, 4 or 6 foot wide, along with some other sizes,
> but 5 foot or 4ž foot would be a problem.
>
>
>>> The fun part of all this is on the other side of the pond, all
>>>those sizes are different from in the US. If we really wanted to
>>>make a change, we should really look to change to the standards the
>>>rest of the world is using and progress that direction in a planed
>>>orderly manner.
>>
>>Why should we be the ones to change? For better or for worse, we
>>probably consume more paper than the rest of the world combined.
>
>
> That is a typical US thought. I highly suspect you are wrong.
>
>
>
>>Bob
>
>
Arthur Entlich
No wonder you're in heaven ;-) Why not just eat the rolls and forget
the hot dogs?
Art
Andrew Rossmann wrote:
> In article <j1sv435gqp7jjmob4...@4ax.com>, cau...@22.com
> says...
>
>>On Sat, 19 May 2007 23:34:19 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>>>>so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>>>
>>>For the same reason hot dogs come 10 to a package and buns come 8 or 12
>>>to a pack.
>>
>> Many hot dogs come 8 to the pack. Two that come to mind are
>>Nathan's and Hebrew National. H.N. also has a "Premium Taste"
>>product that has only 7 to the pack, but the reason for that is
>>pretty clear - profit. Just 6 of the Nathan's hot dogs weigh as
>>much as the entire H.N. Premium Taste pack.
>
>
> Seriously OT:
> Vienna Beef hot dogs + S.Rosens poppy-seed buns = heaven (just avoid
> drug tests for a few days!!)
>
Arthur Entlich
write the same thing we "normal" people would write, and that's if they
print fairly small ;-)
Art
ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:17:53 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
>
>
>>: prior to A4 there was Foolscap - 8½ × 13½ inches (216 × 343 mm)
>>
>>The metric dimensions of Foolscap are probably irrelevant. I believe it
>>originated in England long before England went metric.
>>
>>How widely accepted a standard did the size of Foolscap become anyway?
>>Foolscap originated as a proprietary product, taking its name from the
>>watermark applied by its manufacturer.
>
>
> I don't know its actual dimensions, but that seems to be about the
> size of legal pads, 8½" x something slightly greater than 11".
>
DBLEXPOSURE
"Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:68r4i.205397$aG1.85783@pd7urf3no...
Screw off with you anti-US sentiments.
Arthur Entlich
Very often that is not a standard size, because my world doesn't
quaintly fit into a specific rectangular format ratio. I no longer
worry about frame sizes, and like yourself, I customize mats as
required. Sometimes a square best represents the composition, sometimes
a skinny horizontal or vertical rectangular shape works best. I'm keen
to panoramic compositions of late, probably because of the stitching
programs my digital camera has, which allows me to produce a higher res
wide narrow image.
What does drive me a bit crazy are all those wide screen televisions
being displayed in showrooms, where you'd THINK they'd want to show
image sources that were highest quality, but instead they show grainy,
low res sources, and worse still, they stretch or crush the image so it
fills the whole screen regardless of the correct original aspect
ration... what's that about? Doesn't anyone notice that everyone is 30%
wider that they should be, or looks 8 feet tall and anorexic?
I don't get it. How does that motivate me to buy a new TV?
Art
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
> "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
> news:oQZ3i.2670$to....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>>"Mark B." <mbohnt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:PvmdnV49KojKDNLb...@comcast.com...
>>
>>>"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>>>news:sgG3i.469$KC4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>>Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>>>
>>>>35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>>>>so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know why?
>>>>
>
>
>
> I use to lament and grumble over this issue as well. Then I came to the
> conclusion that it doesn't matter. After that epiphany I found I was free
> of the impossible goal of trying to achieve harmony between the aspect ratio
> of a 35mm frame or digital sensor and the paper products and dime store
> frames that are available.
>
>
>
> I found that the world doesn't fit neatly into any of these human conceived
> ratios anyway so why fight it.
>
>
>
> Crop and trim, is what I say. If you are going to print the next logical
> step is to put it in a frame and if your going to do that, you might as well
> choose a decent archive quality mat too; both of which are almost always
> custom cut.
>
>
>
> Make your print, frame and mat fit your composition rather than trying to
> compose your image to fit stock, precut printing and framing products.
>
>
>
> I understand to compulsion to use every pixel, after all you did pay for
> them. Liberate yourself, get out that crop tool and find harmony, (I know,
> you have been told over and over again to crop in the camera, me too and I
> do when it works).
>
>
>
> Imagine walking into a gallery and the walls are not adorned with the
> standard aspect ratio frames but oddities like 4:1 or even 7:1 or God
> forbid, 1:1. Once you free yourself from the paper stock paradigm a whole
> new world of creativity opens up to you. Choose whatever aspect ratio works
> for the image at hand.
>
>
>
> If it is worthy of a print then it is worthy of a custom cut frame and mat.
>
>
>
> I use AmericanFrame.com, they will print any aspect ratio I want, if it's
> just going in the portfolio, 8.5 X 11 is fine with me, I'll make my odd
> aspect ratios fit inside those dimensions and I will still have the dramatic
> effect and the harmony.
>
>
>
>
>
> Patrick Ziegler
>
> www.imagequest.ifp3.com
>
>
>
>
DBLEXPOSURE
Roger that! The trouble is most of the people that work at Wal-mart etc no
jack about what programming to feed their expensive TV's. The other thing
that give me a laugh is the people who stare into those artifact-ridden
screens in awe and say, "Wow that looks awesome".
BTW, I have a Leica that shoot 16X9, anyone know where I can find some paper
to fit?
I am going to have to say again before the 3X4 crowd jumps all over me,
Whatever works for you is fine W/me. Photography is a form of expression
and if you want to express yourself via a 3X4 frame then I wish you well in
your seach for paper that needs no trim.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
John McWilliams
> "Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:68r4i.205397$aG1.85783@pd7urf3no...
>>
>> leader in waste, or overuse of a resource, it is almost always the US, so
>> it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the US used more paper than
>> the rest of the world combined. They seems to do very well in their
>> resource abuse of most other things, so why not paper products ;-)
>>
>> If a tree falls in any forest globally, where are the products from it
>> likely destined to? The US...
>
I've been reading top posting Arthur's posts for some time and have seen
no pattern of anti-U.S. statements, actually, maybe not even a hint.
I've lived in California for 25 years, and have a good idea what goes on
in the rest of the country. He's right: The U.S. is the leader in per
capita waste.
--
john mcwilliams
Arthur Entlich
personal artistic statements are usually produced to current market
standards to keep things simple and cheap. My "fine art" work is done
to MY format standards, which may mean custom frames and mats, although
not always.
I have always thought that all sensors, film, monitors and viewers
should be square, with the understanding that it's square for highest
adaptability, not because every image must be square to "use up all the
pixels". For instance, what is happening with being able to view images
on monitors and televisions? Who decided that our point of view is
always horizontal, in fact, becoming more so with HD and wide screen
television. Yes, I know we have two eyes and they create a more
horizontal visual field than a vertical one, but we are not always
wishing to replicate our field of view when capturing an image. Yet if I
wish to present images on most electronic viewing screens, the
horizontals are going to have 3 or 4 times larger surface area available
to show them than the vertical versions, and that gets worse with the
wider and wider screens.
Most slide projection screens are/were square. It is movie screen that
are/were wider than higher.
Art
Mark² wrote:
> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>
>>"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>>news:oQZ3i.2670$to....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>>"Mark B." <mbohnt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:PvmdnV49KojKDNLb...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:sgG3i.469$KC4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>>>Why can't you buy 8 x 12 inch Photo Paper for Epson or HP Printers?
>>>>>
>>>>>35mm Film Cameras and Digital Cameras use the 2:3 proportions
>>>>>so they would fit 8 x 12 paper yet none is available. Anyone know
>>>>>why?
>>
>>
>>I use to lament and grumble over this issue as well. Then I came to
>>the conclusion that it doesn't matter. After that epiphany I found I
>>was free of the impossible goal of trying to achieve harmony between
>>the aspect ratio of a 35mm frame or digital sensor and the paper
>>products and dime store frames that are available.
>>
>>
>>
>>I found that the world doesn't fit neatly into any of these human
>>conceived ratios anyway so why fight it.
>
>
> Why? Because it means you waste pixels, and carefully frame shots.
> I compose my images in-camera very carefully...so it would be nice to have
> an easier time utilizing the format to its full potential. Who wants to
> always crop? Not me.
>
>
>>If it is worthy of a print then it is worthy of a custom cut frame
>>and mat.
>
>
DBLEXPOSURE
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uf-dnY9Lm5Rr2M_b...@comcast.com...
There is a hint.
I wouldn't call it abuse, We use allot of resources, no doubt. We also
produce quite a bit and have an economy that keeps most of us fed and
gainfully employed.
Here a little research for you, give me the top ten countries with the
highest GNP?
I live in America but have traveled to the darkest regions of the planet and
have a good idea what goes on there.
Arthur Entlich
> (Mine):
>
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/landscapes
>
> I don't want to...because I utilize the entire frame. Who wants to waste
> pixels?
Obviously, composition is very personal and each will have different
approaches, so this isn't a criticism as much as a different POV. I
find many of the images you referenced overly tightly cropped as they
are. I would have photographed most wider and then cropped them into an
even longer version, since most are horizontal landscapes, which for me,
at least, are too cramped in terms of their current width. Your couple
of panoramic images allow for the kind of breath I would prefer to
represent in these kinds of landscape.
So, I'm not sure 8" x 12" paper would have worked for the way I would
have wished to represent these types of images. My versions might have
tended toward 8" x 14-16" probably. Perhaps not a "standard" but I'm
not after standards, I want my vision to me presented in a manner that
best flatters the subject matter. ;-)
Art
John McWilliams
> "John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:uf-dnY9Lm5Rr2M_b...@comcast.com...
>> DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
>>> "Arthur Entlich" <e-prin...@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>> news:68r4i.205397$aG1.85783@pd7urf3no...
>>>> Although I appreciate the sentiment, just logically, if there is to be a
>>>> leader in waste, or overuse of a resource, it is almost always the US,
>>>> so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the US used more paper
>>>> than the rest of the world combined. They seems to do very well in their
>>>> resource abuse of most other things, so why not paper products ;-)
>>>>
>>>> If a tree falls in any forest globally, where are the products from it
>>>> likely destined to? The US...
>>> Screw off with you anti-US sentiments.
>> I've been reading top posting Arthur's posts for some time and have seen
>> no pattern of anti-U.S. statements, actually, maybe not even a hint.
>>
>> I've lived in California for 25 years, and have a good idea what goes on
>> in the rest of the country. He's right: The U.S. is the leader in per
>> capita waste.
>
> There is a hint.
>
> I wouldn't call it abuse, We use allot of resources, no doubt. We also
> produce quite a bit and have an economy that keeps most of us fed and
> gainfully employed.
>
> Here a little research for you, give me the top ten countries with the
> highest GNP?
Why should I do that? I have a good idea, but I ain't looking it up (nor
stating it on usenet).
>
> I live in America but have traveled to the darkest regions of the planet and
> have a good idea what goes on there.
Excellent.
What are you really taking issue with? Or: With what are you really
taking issue?
Please give a few specifics.
--
john mcwilliams
Michael Benveniste
> FWIW, Red River has paper in a wide range of sizes, but no 8x12. Was
> the OP talking about 8.5x11? They have that. You wouldn't lose that
> much using 8.5x14.
>
> http://www.redrivercatalog.com/shopbypapersize.html
For a modest fee, Red River Paper will happily cut down their
8.5x14" paper to 8x12" for you.
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/CS/customsizes.htm
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Mark˛
Perfectly fine thoughts Art. Part of the issue has to do with cost but
other times it involves other practicalities. -If there is motion in the
shot, panoramas are tricky...so unless you've got the raw pixels to spare,
it means cropping a single shot. This works to a point... My intent is
actually to work on creating more panos in the future, as they always draw
my eye as they do yours.
With regard to that even WIDER aspect ratio...that's just greater reason why
the suggestion (by others) to crop to an even MORE squeezed 8x10 is not
attractive to me at all.
Thanks for the comments.
Mark
TJ
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 08:17:53 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> : prior to A4 there was Foolscap - 8½ × 13½ inches (216 × 343 mm)
>>
>> The metric dimensions of Foolscap are probably irrelevant. I believe it
>> originated in England long before England went metric.
>>
>> How widely accepted a standard did the size of Foolscap become anyway?
>> Foolscap originated as a proprietary product, taking its name from the
>> watermark applied by its manufacturer.
>
> I don't know its actual dimensions, but that seems to be about the
> size of legal pads, 8½" x something slightly greater than 11".
>
don't know about non-US sizes. Never had occasion to look it up.
TJ
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
ASAAR
>>> : prior to A4 there was Foolscap - 8½ × 13½ inches (216 × 343 mm)
>>>
>>> The metric dimensions of Foolscap are probably irrelevant. I believe it
>>> originated in England long before England went metric.
>>>
>>> How widely accepted a standard did the size of Foolscap become anyway?
>>> Foolscap originated as a proprietary product, taking its name from the
>>> watermark applied by its manufacturer.
>>
>> I don't know its actual dimensions, but that seems to be about the
>> size of legal pads, 8½" x something slightly greater than 11".
>>
> US legal size is 8 1/2" x 14", if that's what you're referring to. I
> don't know about non-US sizes. Never had occasion to look it up.
Yes, thanks. Arthur also pointed out that ½" discrepancy.
Fortunately there are no cameras that take Foolscap size film plates
(forget about Fs size sensors), or there would surely be complaints
possibly leading to legal action from lawyers over not being able to
take true macro 1:1 shots of their legal pads. <g>
DBLEXPOSURE
John,
The thread is about paper, frame sizes etc, not about global politics.
This guy obviously has a chip on his shoulder about America and used this
thread to take a little shot. I'm not gonna let that pass by with out
taking a shot in return and to you I will defend my right to do so. Mr.
Arthur has emailed me off-line with his particular view of America and I do
believe that my read-between-the-lines was right on target.
He has asked me not to post it in this forum, as much as would like to I
will not unless pushed to do so.
As not to get a tongue lashing for ranting on about a seriously off-topic
discussion I will make this brief, Take your political opinions elsewhere.
Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com
Robert Coe
: The thread is about paper, frame sizes etc, not about global politics.
: thread to take a little shot. I'm not gonna let that pass by with out
: taking a shot in return and to you I will defend my right to do so. Mr.
: Arthur has emailed me off-line with his particular view of America and I
: do believe that my read-between-the-lines was right on target.
:
: He has asked me not to post it in this forum, as much as would like to I
: will not unless pushed to do so.
:
: As not to get a tongue lashing for ranting on about a seriously off-topic
: discussion I will make this brief, Take your political opinions elsewhere.
:
: Patrick Ziegler
: www.imagequest.ifp3.com
Are you Ron Ziegler's kid? If so, that factoid might have a certain amount of
explanatory value, I suppose.
(For those who don't remember, Ron Ziegler was Richard M. Nixon's mouthpiece
during the first several months of the Watergate fiasco.)
Bob
DBLEXPOSURE
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:ng5753t3elhf3410r...@4ax.com...
Yes Bob, how did you figure it out. You are so clever. There is only one
familiy with that name in the entire U.S.
And thanks for the history lesson.
Hey, are you Robert Glen Coe's brother?
http://www.dprc.us/Robert%20Glen%20Coe.htm
Ass.
Arthur Entlich
>> Hey, are you Robert Glen Coe's brother?
>>
>> http://www.dprc.us/Robert%20Glen%20Coe.htm
>>
>> Ass.
Sorry that this is off topic...
Did you actually read the link you posted below (and above)?
Robert Glen Coe was a man who was convicted of murder and kidnap and who
was ultimately executed. He was mentally handicapped, and in all
likelihood innocent of the crimes.
Also, I don't know of too many families who have brothers with the same
first name, except for those two guys from the Bob Newhart show ;-)
Art
DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
> "Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
> news:ng5753t3elhf3410r...@4ax.com...
>
>>Are you Ron Ziegler's kid? If so, that factoid might have a certain amount
DBLEXPOSURE
Art,
You top-posting son-of-a-..., yes I did read it, innocent, but still
mentally handicapped, I thought it fit the situation quite well. You see
Art, I don't really think these two are related I was pointing out how weak
and easy Bob's little simpleton jab was and that this game can be plaid by
anybody who knows how to use Google.
And yes again, Bob and his other brother Bob, is exactly what I was
thinking; worth a snicker at least.
I hate it when I have to explain a joke.
Have a great day!
Arthur Entlich
You see, Patrick, I "got it" from the beginning, so you didn't need to
"explain" the "joke" to me.
It is just that I don't find mentally handicapped people being executed
for crimes they didn't commit particularly humorous, regardless of the
context.
Art
William Sanderson is an American character actor (born January 10, 1948
in Memphis, Tennessee, USA). He portrayed "Larry" in the United States
TV show Newhart from 1982 to 1990, famous for the catch phrase, "Hi, I'm
Larry. This is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl."
================
In the case of Robert Glen Coe, convicted, sentenced and executed for
the kidnap, rape and murder of eight-year-old Cary Ann Medlin, research
establishes through "public documents" that the State of Tennessee
wrongfully killed this man, who had a long history of mental illness.
================
There does seem to be a Tennessee connection, however... not sure what
that means.
DBLEXPOSURE
Art,
What is it with the top-posting?
You have a gift for over-exaggeration and drawing disconnected conclusions.
> It is just that I don't find mentally handicapped people being executed
> for crimes they didn't commit particularly humorous, regardless of the
> context.
Who does?
My remarks to Mr. Coe where designed to point out how childish it was for
him to connect me to Ron Ziegler via our common last name. Your campaign to
turn that into something else is simply a manifestation of your gift for
over-exaggeration and drawing disconnected conclusions.
Please, stop top posting.