Confused with sizes . . . films & papers

[eskorpid]

Hello everyone,
I would be really grateful if someone could help me understand the differences and incompatibilities between film proportions and paper sizes. :bang:

Here is my thinking :
I shoot mainly 135 film which measures 36x24mm or 1.5 in terms of sides proportion
However 6x4.5 MF film has a factor of 1.33 and 6x7 (or 7x6) is 1.17 and 6x9 is 1.5 (same as 135)

The real confusion comes when comparing paper sizes.

So, we have standard photo paper sizes 8x10 (1.4), 11x14 (1,25) 16x20 (1,27)
and we also have standard ISO printing paper sizes (in mm):

A series : A5 (148x210), A4 (210x297), A3 (297x420), etc.
All sizes share the same factor of 1.42 = sqrt(2) 😕

B series : B5 (176x250), B4 (250x353), B3 (353x500) ,etc. again 1.42

Letting cropping out of the equation, I guess the easy thing to do is stick to the standard photographic sizes and adapt my inkjet printing to those, ignoring the size of the ISO printing paper.

Any other suggestions please?

Can someone explain, even on a historical base why there are so many different formats in both film and paper worlds ?

Thanks for your time

Nondas

 

[bmattock]

Nondas,

I don't know about the other film formats, but 35mm film was adapted from movie film stock, and it was used in the opposite orientation in motion-picture cameras. The first 35mm film cameras were in a variety of different sizes, including square 24x24. I believe that the current accepted size of 35mm has to do with what Leitz finally decided on as being optimal - and I speculate that this had more to do with image quality = larger negative than any consideration towards paper size. Film emulsions and lenses were not what they are now.

I'm sorry that cropping is not a solution for you, not sure why. Personally, I am fashed because hot dogs are sold in packs of 10 and hot dog buns are sold in packs of 8. A conspiracy, I tell ya.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[markinlondon]

Ok, Nondas. Photographic paper sizes largely conform to old glass plate sizes which then became LF or ULF film sizes, so 7x5", 8.5x6.5", 10x8", 14x11" etc. Inkjet printers are derived from office equipment and thus use their standards which, in Europe means the A or B paper sizes.

Funnily enough, apart from 6x4" none of the "traditional" sizes are a particularly good fit for the 35mm frame which is rather too long and thin. This used to worry me as much as the global hot dog conspiracy, but I think I've got it under control now. 🙂 When I dabbled with inkjets I usually printed 2 7x5(ish) prints on one sheet of A4. In the darkroom I now only use 10x8" except for specific projects and print either 9ish x 6ish or crop to fill the paper.

Mark

 

[bmattock]

Ok, Nondas. Photographic paper sizes largely conform to old glass plate sizes which then became LF or ULF film sizes, so 7x5", 8.5x6.5", 10x8", 14x11" etc. Inkjet printers are derived from office equipment and thus use their standards which, in Europe means the A or B paper sizes.

Funnily enough, apart from 6x4" none of the "traditional" sizes are a particularly good fit for the 35mm frame which is rather too long and thin. This used to worry me as much as the global hot dog conspiracy, but I think I've got it under control now. 🙂 When I dabbled with inkjets I usually printed 2 7x5(ish) prints on one sheet of A4. In the darkroom I now only use 10x8" except for specific projects and print either 9ish x 6ish or crop to fill the paper.

Mark

Now that I find myself printing more often for exhibition or competition, it does become a bit of a frustration, so I do understand the quandry. I recently took some holiday photos - using the entire frame (35mm) in landscape mode, I found that I could not print 8x10's because I would have had to crop where I did not want to crop. I ended up printing at 8x12 (double 4x6) for more money and of course more money framing this odd size, because I could not get a really good composition cropped to the 8x10 format.

This means that now I have to consider the possible use to which I will be putting a print later, when I am composing in my viewfinder.

This is a new frustration for me, I just have not been printing that often (I didn't think much of what I did was worth printing) and seldom larger sizes.

So I do understand the frustration!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[markinlondon]

This means that now I have to consider the possible use to which I will be putting a print later, when I am composing in my viewfinder.

This is a new frustration for me, I just have not been printing that often (I didn't think much of what I did was worth printing) and seldom larger sizes.

So I do understand the frustration!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Exactly, Bill.

The print is always a balance between cropping in camera or on the easel (or in PS if you must). It took me a long time to realise that 90-odd% of my printing was on 10x8" paper and that I had piles of boxes of other sizes lying around for no good reason. The only other size I ever buy now is 9.5x12" for contacts as it's easier to do this through the Kenro sleeves than lay loose negs down on a sheet of paper. I don't print larger as I really don't have the space (and my pictures aren't worth it, if I'm being honest).

I crop a lot less than I used to now, though but 9ishx6ish full-frame really doesn't waste that much paper. I have a dual problem now that I have a backlog of stuff to print which, when I look at it doesn't seem worth it, so I know how you feel 🙂

Regards,

Mark