Pablito
coco frío
In the U.S., photo paper for digital printing is sold in sizes measured in inches, and not always conforming to the old wet process photo paper sizes. For instance 8 1/2 x 11 inches is much more common in inkjet papers than 8 x 10 inches.
Some of these new paper sizes make sense, for instance an image from a DSLR with 3:2 aspect ratio fits very nicely on 13 x 19 inch paper.
Can someone please tell me if it is possible to get, in Europe or Asia, inkjet paper in smaller sizes that conforms to the 3:2 aspect ratio without trimming? For instance 20 x 30 cm paper?
Thanks.
Some of these new paper sizes make sense, for instance an image from a DSLR with 3:2 aspect ratio fits very nicely on 13 x 19 inch paper.
Can someone please tell me if it is possible to get, in Europe or Asia, inkjet paper in smaller sizes that conforms to the 3:2 aspect ratio without trimming? For instance 20 x 30 cm paper?
Thanks.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, there's always 6 x 4" but mostly we buy A4, A3 and A3+
Fitting digital images to the paper sold for digital printers has always been a problem. But then, how do you fit 3:2 to say 8x10 or 5x7" ? To add to the problem I can get 5" x 7 1/2" from my APS locally but not from my 35mm film and it's all done on the same machine...
Regards, David
Well, there's always 6 x 4" but mostly we buy A4, A3 and A3+
Fitting digital images to the paper sold for digital printers has always been a problem. But then, how do you fit 3:2 to say 8x10 or 5x7" ? To add to the problem I can get 5" x 7 1/2" from my APS locally but not from my 35mm film and it's all done on the same machine...
Regards, David
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
seems that photo papers are stuck in the view camera era (i.e. 4x5 " fits quite well on 8x10 
paper)
Since then, noone managed to make a set proper fitting standard sizes.
Inkjet or traditional, nothing fits neither 4:3 nor 3:2 ratio film/sensors.
It's pretty stupid, really.
paper)Since then, noone managed to make a set proper fitting standard sizes.
Inkjet or traditional, nothing fits neither 4:3 nor 3:2 ratio film/sensors.
It's pretty stupid, really.
Pablito
coco frío
ok, just wondering if in Europe or Asia paper producers were a bit more enlightened....
I know Ilford made a 20x30cm Multigrade for wet darkroom.
I know Ilford made a 20x30cm Multigrade for wet darkroom.
mfogiel
Veteran
Europe mainly sticks to the DIN standard: A5. A4, A3, A3+, A2. A1. None of them are precisely in 2:3 ratio. You start with A1, and each subsequent size is half of previous one. All I remember, is that A4 is 210x297mm.
majid
Fazal Majid
The ISO/DIN A and B series papers all have the same 21x29.7 aspect ratio that is very close to 3:2.
ferider
Veteran
= sqrt(2)
The easiest way to remember this is:
2 x A5 = A4
2 x A4 = A3
2 x A3 = A2
etc.
I hate cropping for 8x10 ....
Roland.
emjo
Established
Common papers are 10x15 cm, 13x18 cm, 18x24 cm, 24x30 cm 30x40 cm and 40x50 cm. 1 inch = 2.54 cm.
DtheG
Established
The sqrt(2) aspect ratio was chosen for that property, that is folding a sheet in half makes it the next size down with exactly the same aspect ratio. Hence scaling by a factor of two takes you from A5 to A4 etc. Unfortunately the aspect ratio is not a particulaly elegant one aestheticaly
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
What's really weird is that the aspect ratio of 35 mm film is 3:2 and has been since 1925: assuming that the ratio was set once Leitz went into production. But none of the classic a paper sizes really fit it, apart from 6x4. So they've had 87 years to get their act together and have failed. Or couldn't be bothered.
Then there was the 4:3 on 35mm film (?Nikon's) and again they had no paper for it and, again, crops were necessary.
Then a while back (1950's or 60's) the world, apart from the USA, accepted the standard A series of paper sizes and oddities like "Quarto", "Imperial" and "Double Elephant" were slowly abandoned.
Finally, along comes digital and - since home printers and A4 have been around then for a long time - you'd think the camera makers would make A paper (1:1.414) aspect ratio CCD's and settle the matter for once and for all time. But they didn't.
Sillier still is that many digital camera makers also made/make printers. You wonder if the people in charge know what's going on...
Regards, David
What's really weird is that the aspect ratio of 35 mm film is 3:2 and has been since 1925: assuming that the ratio was set once Leitz went into production. But none of the classic a paper sizes really fit it, apart from 6x4. So they've had 87 years to get their act together and have failed. Or couldn't be bothered.
Then there was the 4:3 on 35mm film (?Nikon's) and again they had no paper for it and, again, crops were necessary.
Then a while back (1950's or 60's) the world, apart from the USA, accepted the standard A series of paper sizes and oddities like "Quarto", "Imperial" and "Double Elephant" were slowly abandoned.
Finally, along comes digital and - since home printers and A4 have been around then for a long time - you'd think the camera makers would make A paper (1:1.414) aspect ratio CCD's and settle the matter for once and for all time. But they didn't.
Sillier still is that many digital camera makers also made/make printers. You wonder if the people in charge know what's going on...
Regards, David
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A-series = 2:2.8, pretty close to 2:3.
There's no great reason to overstate the importance of 2:3. After all, long after the introduction of the Leica, plenty of professionals and quite a few amateurs were shooting all sorts of other formats. I'm particularly fond of Linhof's 56x72mm '6x7 cm'. Blow it up 3x and it's whole plate, 6.5 x 8.5 inches. And today we have four-thirds, among other formats...
Cheers,
R.
There's no great reason to overstate the importance of 2:3. After all, long after the introduction of the Leica, plenty of professionals and quite a few amateurs were shooting all sorts of other formats. I'm particularly fond of Linhof's 56x72mm '6x7 cm'. Blow it up 3x and it's whole plate, 6.5 x 8.5 inches. And today we have four-thirds, among other formats...
Cheers,
R.
jtm6
Well-known
IMHO the golden ratio (~1.618) is nicer than root 2 (~1.414) and gets talked about more, but the root 2 rectangle has also been used in art and design for centuries.