 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 20068 X 10
Where did 8X10 come from? It is ridiculous to have to shoot and leave more headroom than necessary just in case you might someday want to print an 8 X 10. Since 35 MM has been pretty much the standard for an awfully long time, who decided that an 8X10 was a good print size? > Where did 8X10 come from? It is ridiculous to have to shoot and leave more > headroom than necessary just in case you might someday want to print an 8 > X 10. Since 35 MM has been pretty much the standard for an awfully long > time, who decided that an 8X10 was a good print size? The guy who came up with 8x10 film in the 1880s... <grin> He thought it made a great contact print.  SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > The guy who came up with 8x10 film in the 1880s... <grin> He thought it > made a great contact print. & 16x20's when using my 8x10 enlarger :) SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > Where did 8X10 come from? It is ridiculous to have to shoot and leave > more headroom than necessary just in case you might someday want to > print an 8 X 10. Since 35 MM has been pretty much the standard for an > awfully long time, who decided that an 8X10 was a good print size? 35mm roll film is but a pup compared to sheet film view cameras. I don't profess to be a camera history expert by any stretch, but I'd be willing to place a strong bet that the 8x10 print size's placement in modern frame sizes/print sizes comes directly from the popularity of 4x5 and 8x10 view camera sheet film. Can you imagine getting an 8x10 as a contact print? Woof.... Yeah the different aspect ratios are a pain. If you're trying to get std sized prints/frames. Otherwise, just print an 8x12 and be done with it. Best Regards, -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ > Where did 8X10 come from? It is ridiculous to have to shoot and leave > more headroom than necessary just in case you might someday want to > print an 8 X 10. Since 35 MM has been pretty much the standard for an > awfully long time, who decided that an 8X10 was a good print size? It was a good match for both 8x10 and 4x5 film. I suspect that the only reason it's stuck around for so long is because the frame making people still haven't figured out that it's the wrong shape for almost anyone's pictures these days. Just print 8x12. It makes it slightly harder to get a frame, as you may have to have it made, but on the other hand, it fits well in an 11x14 frame with a matte. (11x14 is another size that doesn't make any sense any more.) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Just print 8x12. It makes it slightly harder to get a frame, as you > may > have to have it made, but on the other hand, it fits well in an 11x14 > frame with a matte. (11x14 is another size that doesn't make any > sense > any more.) It's actually a great size from purely aesthetic standpoint (independent of film or sensor size concernts). But printing 8x12 won't as well in 11x14 as it will in 12x16, unless you fudge your mat - perhaps by bottom weighting if the pictue happens to be oriented that way, but just as likely by extending the sides, which isn't considered as cool. But with a 12x16 frame and a two inch mat, the 8x12 fits perfectly. Then the problem simply becomes finding paper on which to print 8x12. So another option is to print 6x9 (which you can do with most printers, on 8.5x11 paper), use a 2.5 inch mat, and the 11x14 frame. BTW, assuming one does want to print larger than 8x5x11 and doesn't have a printer that handles this - are there particular online services people recommend? Both in terms of obscure high end / specialty shops, but also in terms of which of the big name consumer-oriented ones might do especially well. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > But printing 8x12 won't as well in 11x14 as it will in 12x16, unless > you fudge your mat - perhaps by bottom weighting if the pictue happens > to be oriented that way, but just as likely by extending the sides, > which isn't considered as cool. But with a 12x16 frame and a two inch > mat, the 8x12 fits perfectly. Great point, I've not tried it, but you're right, it would be about perfect. > Then the problem simply becomes finding paper on which to > print 8x12. It's common with services that do optical photo prints. > BTW, assuming one does want to print larger than 8x5x11 and doesn't have > a printer that handles this - are there particular online services > people recommend? Both in terms of obscure high end / specialty shops, > but also in terms of which of the big name consumer-oriented ones might > do especially well. I use printroom.com, and always recommend them when this question comes up. They do great work and are used to dealing with pros, so there's no trouble with them thinking your pictures look "professional" and refusing to print them. They do 8x12 in addition to a huge range of sizes up to large posters. But the big thing is that they support ICC profiles, so you don't have to butcher your pictures with sRGB. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Just print 8x12. It makes it slightly harder to get a frame, as you >> may [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >as cool. But with a 12x16 frame and a two inch mat, the 8x12 fits >perfectly. Good point. I'd love to find sources for ready-made 8x12 mats and frames that don't cost an arm and a leg. Does anyone here have any good sources they recommend? jc Signature"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA > I'd love to find sources for ready-made 8x12 mats and frames that > don't cost an arm and a leg. Does anyone here have any good sources > they recommend? I don't know about mats, about for cheap frames of surprising good quality, I've been using Art Supply Warehouse (aswexpress.com). The style of frame I've been using for my oil paintings runs under $20 for the sizes we are talking about here, and that's considerably wider and fancier (linen liner) than most folks probably want photos. I've also see Graphik Dimensions (pictureframes.com) advertising frame/mat combos, and other artists I know use them. Neither company caters specifically to photographers, so I don't know you'll find the exact 2:3-friendly sizes you want, but they are worth checking out. It does seem at least *some* frame styles come in 8x12. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>> Just print 8x12. It makes it slightly harder to get a frame, as you >>> may [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > jc I really don't have that problem. I bought a mat cutter and I make my own frames. I bit more work, but I always get what I want, regardless size. -- Al Reid ... >>I'd love to find sources for ready-made 8x12 mats and frames that >>don't cost an arm and a leg. Does anyone here have any good sources >>they recommend? I've used framedestination.com for matt, frame, glass assembled for 13x19 prints, 21x27 frame about $50 shipped. > I really don't have that problem. I bought a mat cutter and I make my own > frames. I bit more work, but I always get what I want, regardless size. > > -- > Al Reid SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > Where did 8X10 come from? It is ridiculous to have to shoot and leave > more headroom than necessary just in case you might someday want to > print an 8 X 10. Since 35 MM has been pretty much the standard for an > awfully long time, who decided that an 8X10 was a good print size? In early photography beginnings, prints from glass negatives were made by exposing the paper through the negative to daylight or direct sunlight, which caused the paper to produce a brownish image directly with no development required. These papers were called 'printing out papers', and the sepia color was the natural result of this process. Enlargers were not known at this stage, and it wasn't until the arrival of developable paper with much more sensitivity that enlarging, or projection printing was possible. So, if you wanted a large photograph, you needed an equally large negative, various different sizes were invented. The 8x10 and 4x5 sizes were American, while England and Europe used 'Whole Plate' which was 6½x8½ inches, and a half-plate was 6½x4¼ inches - almost a 3:2 ratio there - and a quarter-plate was 4¼x3¼ inches. There was a photographer in the States that had a gigantic camera mounted on a railroad flat wagon which produced huge negatives, I forget the size. Have a look at http://www.bigshotz.co.nz/george_lawrence.html Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Is there a digital back for that yet? > There was a photographer in the States that had a gigantic camera > mounted on a railroad flat wagon which produced huge negatives, I forget [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Colin D. > Where did 8X10 come from? It is ridiculous to have to shoot and leave > more headroom than necessary just in case you might someday want to > print an 8 X 10. Since 35 MM has been pretty much the standard for an > awfully long time, who decided that an 8X10 was a good print size? It's an aspect ratio that's pleasing to the human eye. >> Where did 8X10 come from? SNIP > It's an aspect ratio that's pleasing to the human eye. Is it? It would seem that since ages a golden ratio (approx. 5:3) is considered to be more pleasing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_section SignatureBart ... and if it's in Wikipedia, then you know it's true.... > >> Where did 8X10 come from? > SNIP [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > considered to be more pleasing. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_section Nor argument. The point that was trying to be made, is that there have been many film sizes with aspect ratios that are different than 0.8 and photographers have been composing shots and cropping to make images fit the paper size they have to print to. Can you tell us the mistake(s) in the Wikipedia article? The wise man listens to the village idiot because sometimes the idiot is correct. > ... and if it's in Wikipedia, then you know it's true.... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > considered to be more pleasing. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_section Not in that article, per se, on this particular day. But it's been know to happen. Remember the late-night talk show a few weeks ago that did they whole thing with elephants? It's an okay source, but a source worth double-checking for anything that's important. > Nor argument. The point that was trying to be made, is that there have > been many film sizes with aspect ratios that are different than 0.8 and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > considered to be more pleasing. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_section > Nor argument. The point that was trying to be made, is that there have > been many film sizes with aspect ratios that are different than 0.8 and > photographers have been composing shots and cropping to make images fit > the paper size they have to print to. We know where the 3:2 aspect ratio came from--Oskar Barnack, when developing the Leica, came up with the idea of using 35mm movie film, loaded into little "magazines" as they were then called ("cartridges"). He came up with that aspect ratio because he wanted to field of view to approximate that of the human eye. The Leica, unlike other larger cameras of its day, was designed to be held up to the eye for focusing and shooting. I have always preferred the 3:2 aspect ratio over the square format of MF. I shoot landscapes, and the square format seems unnatural--too much earth and sky taking up the square frame. I would guess that was the size the manufacturing equipment and supplies that George Eastman and others could easily acquire. In the EU A4,8.27×11.69 in, is a common large size print and confirms to their paper standard. Look at this site about early film sizes: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html#variety For still film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_formats How would you like to carry a camera that used 20" X 40" sheet film? > > Where did 8X10 come from? It is ridiculous to have to shoot and leave > > more headroom than necessary just in case you might someday want to > > print an 8 X 10. Since 35 MM has been pretty much the standard for an > > awfully long time, who decided that an 8X10 was a good print size? > > It's an aspect ratio that's pleasing to the human eye. > How would you like to carry a camera that used 20" X 40" sheet film? Maybe not that big but maybe 16x20,...and FYI few years back View Camera magazine ran an article on a photographer that converted rooms into cameras and then photographed projected images that came into them via a small hole on one side. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com Very Roman, but the Chinese were first. http://brightbytes.com/cosite/what.html Imagine no glass lens, just a pinhole. > > How would you like to carry a camera that used 20" X 40" sheet film? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > www.gregblankphoto.com > Very Roman, but the Chinese were first. > > http://brightbytes.com/cosite/what.html > > Imagine no glass lens, just a pinhole. No doubts here "GK" ;-) ,....most of the math and science this world is using is recycled knowledge. Nothing new under the sun as the saying goes/ Take care-GB SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com I decided 8x10 was a good size to print. If I didn't like it and find it pleasing, then I wouldn't do it. It's easy enough to cut down a mat to any given side -- except metric, because my scale is in inches. On the other hand, why did they decide to make that a common size? It probably had to do with the limits of technology. Either they couldn't make good glass for negs larger than that at a reasonable cost or it had to do with the machine making the paper. Or it could be that it has to how many glass plates you could carry, easily. Maybe it could only to to 40' and they thought 4 8x10s was better than 2 10x12s with lots of waste. > Where did 8X10 come from? It is ridiculous to have to shoot and leave > more headroom than necessary just in case you might someday want to > print an 8 X 10. Since 35 MM has been pretty much the standard for an > awfully long time, who decided that an 8X10 was a good print size? >Where did 8X10 come from? It is ridiculous to have to shoot and leave >more headroom than necessary just in case you might someday want to >print an 8 X 10. Since 35 MM has been pretty much the standard for an >awfully long time, who decided that an 8X10 was a good print size? I normally print 8 x 12, or any other 2:3 size, I only use other ratios where the image will benefit by cropping; perhaps the width or height of the subject necessitated 'wasting' part of the frame. It is not wasted by the print size, but by real scenes not always being 2:3. SignatureIan G8ILZ || Where did 8X10 come from? It is ridiculous to have to shoot || and leave more headroom than necessary just in case you might || someday want to print an 8 X 10. Since 35 MM has been pretty || much the standard for an awfully long time, who decided that || an 8X10 was a good print size? Probably the same guy that came up with 5x7. :-) Signature-- "The leading cause of death among fashion models is falling through street grates." -- Dave Barry http://www.obsessionthemovie.com http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/ "My agent asked me if I had an 8x10. I said, 'Honey, if I had an 8x10 I wouldn't have to work anymore.'" RD, RIP -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.