There's something I don't quite get.

The holy grail of camera performance seems to be how well it will it's
pictures will print at the photo-industry standard size of 8X10.

So why is it that most printers (yes, I know there are some that can) cannot
print borderless 8X10 prints?

4X6, 5X7 and 8.5X11? No problem. 8X10? Nope.

Most frames for 8.5X11 are document quality frames. Most high-quality Photo
frames I've seen are for 8X10, not 8.5X11.

I just don't understand

-Larry

Larry wrote:
>
> There's something I don't quite get.
>
> The holy grail of camera performance seems to be how well it will it's
> pictures will print at the photo-industry standard size of 8X10.
>
> So why is it that most printers (yes, I know there are some that can) cannot
> print borderless 8X10 prints?
>
> 4X6, 5X7 and 8.5X11? No problem. 8X10? Nope.
>
> Most frames for 8.5X11 are document quality frames. Most high-quality Photo
> frames I've seen are for 8X10, not 8.5X11.
>
> I just don't understand
>
> -Larry


I would guess that the 8x10 "standard" grew out of the photographic
negative dimensions. It's been a while since I last worked in a
darkroom.

If you want an 8x10 from a file and desktop printer, simply crop your
file, print, and whack off the offending white (if you use 8.5X11 or
larger paper). It ain't rocket science.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:31:25 -0500, Larry wrote:

=>There's something I don't quite get.
=>
=>The holy grail of camera performance seems to be how well it will it's
=>pictures will print at the photo-industry standard size of 8X10.
=>
=>So why is it that most printers (yes, I know there are some that can) cannot
=>print borderless 8X10 prints?
=>
=>4X6, 5X7 and 8.5X11? No problem. 8X10? Nope.
=>
=>Most frames for 8.5X11 are document quality frames. Most high-quality Photo
=>frames I've seen are for 8X10, not 8.5X11.
=>
=>I just don't understand
=>
=>-Larry

You asked for it, so here goes :-)

Paper sizes are a result of paper making history, and the
industrialisation of papermaking and printing in the 19th
century, which made standardisation desirable. When the
Germans invented the DIN system, they recognised five paper
formats IIRC: A, B, C, D, and E (what else?) These were
existing paper formats, and DIN simply standardised them
dimensions. The format is actually the ratio of the two
sides of a rectangular "full sheet" of paper, not any
specific size. DIN added specific sizes to the mix..
"Letter size" is the size you get when you fold the full
sheet four times, and trim it to get a bundle of sheets. I
can't remember which of the five formats gives rise to our
letter size of 8.5x11", but it's obviously not the one that
produced the 8x10 photo sheet.

Worldwide, pretty well all paper formats have disappeared
except the A format, except for the 8x10 photo format, and
the N. American 8.5x11 format.. Note that the other
"standard" photo sizes don't match up 5x7, 4x6, 3.5x5.5,
etc - none of these is an exact fraction of the 8x10. All
are in fact attempts to make full frame enlargements of
various negative formats, almost all of which have
disappeared.

This is an incomplete explanation of the history of paper
making, but it should muddy the waters enough nonetheless.
:-)




--
Wolf Kirchmeir
If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the train?
(Garrison Keillor)
<just one w and plain ca for correct e-mail address>

I realize it's not Rocket Science. That's what I do now.

I just don't think there needs to be that extra step.

-Larry

"Michael" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > There's something I don't quite get.
> >
> > The holy grail of camera performance seems to be how well it will it's
> > pictures will print at the photo-industry standard size of 8X10.
> >
> > So why is it that most printers (yes, I know there are some that can)
cannot
> > print borderless 8X10 prints?
> >
> > 4X6, 5X7 and 8.5X11? No problem. 8X10? Nope.
> >
> > Most frames for 8.5X11 are document quality frames. Most high-quality
Photo
> > frames I've seen are for 8X10, not 8.5X11.
> >
> > I just don't understand
> >
> > -Larry
>
>
> I would guess that the 8x10 "standard" grew out of the photographic
> negative dimensions. It's been a while since I last worked in a
> darkroom.
>
> If you want an 8x10 from a file and desktop printer, simply crop your
> file, print, and whack off the offending white (if you use 8.5X11 or
> larger paper). It ain't rocket science.

Wolf,

Thanks for the complete explanation

If I read it correctly, 8X10 is a _photo_ standard, not a paper standard,
and since the consumables we buy are based more on _Paper_ standards, it's
why printers do not support 8X10 prints.

I understand. Kinda

Then my head comes right back around to the question "Why can you buy 8X10
photo paper (which I just did - a small amount to experiment with), but
drivers don't support it?"

Oh, well. Life is a mystery

Thanks again!

-Larry

"Wolf Kirchmeir" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:31:25 -0500, Larry wrote:
>
> =>There's something I don't quite get.
> =>
> =>The holy grail of camera performance seems to be how well it will it's
> =>pictures will print at the photo-industry standard size of 8X10.
> =>
> =>So why is it that most printers (yes, I know there are some that can)
cannot
> =>print borderless 8X10 prints?
> =>
> =>4X6, 5X7 and 8.5X11? No problem. 8X10? Nope.
> =>
> =>Most frames for 8.5X11 are document quality frames. Most high-quality
Photo
> =>frames I've seen are for 8X10, not 8.5X11.
> =>
> =>I just don't understand
> =>
> =>-Larry
>
> You asked for it, so here goes :-)
>
> Paper sizes are a result of paper making history, and the
> industrialisation of papermaking and printing in the 19th
> century, which made standardisation desirable. When the
> Germans invented the DIN system, they recognised five paper
> formats IIRC: A, B, C, D, and E (what else?) These were
> existing paper formats, and DIN simply standardised them
> dimensions. The format is actually the ratio of the two
> sides of a rectangular "full sheet" of paper, not any
> specific size. DIN added specific sizes to the mix..
> "Letter size" is the size you get when you fold the full
> sheet four times, and trim it to get a bundle of sheets. I
> can't remember which of the five formats gives rise to our
> letter size of 8.5x11", but it's obviously not the one that
> produced the 8x10 photo sheet.
>
> Worldwide, pretty well all paper formats have disappeared
> except the A format, except for the 8x10 photo format, and
> the N. American 8.5x11 format.. Note that the other
> "standard" photo sizes don't match up 5x7, 4x6, 3.5x5.5,
> etc - none of these is an exact fraction of the 8x10. All
> are in fact attempts to make full frame enlargements of
> various negative formats, almost all of which have
> disappeared.
>
> This is an incomplete explanation of the history of paper
> making, but it should muddy the waters enough nonetheless.
> :-)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Wolf Kirchmeir
> If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the train?
> (Garrison Keillor)
> <just one w and plain ca for correct e-mail address>
>
>
>

"Larry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:sQeyb.22647$yM6.3690@lakeread06...
> Wolf,
>
> Thanks for the complete explanation
>
> If I read it correctly, 8X10 is a _photo_ standard, not a paper
standard,
> and since the consumables we buy are based more on _Paper_
standards, it's
> why printers do not support 8X10 prints.
>
> I understand. Kinda
>
> Then my head comes right back around to the question "Why can you
buy 8X10
> photo paper (which I just did - a small amount to experiment with),
but
> drivers don't support it?"
>

The 10X8 size is a photographic negagive size. Because early cameras
used a large negative and most printing was done direct, 10x8 was
used as a photo paper size. Photo paper made for use in InkJet
printers is made in photo paper manufacturers it's still cut to their
sizes used in early wet photography. Letter size and A4 all originate
in the printing industry.
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)




> Oh, well. Life is a mystery
>
> Thanks again!
>
> -Larry
>
> "Wolf Kirchmeir" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:31:25 -0500, Larry wrote:
> >
> > =>There's something I don't quite get.
> > =>
> > =>The holy grail of camera performance seems to be how well it
will it's
> > =>pictures will print at the photo-industry standard size of
8X10.
> > =>
> > =>So why is it that most printers (yes, I know there are some
that can)
> cannot
> > =>print borderless 8X10 prints?
> > =>
> > =>4X6, 5X7 and 8.5X11? No problem. 8X10? Nope.
> > =>
> > =>Most frames for 8.5X11 are document quality frames. Most
high-quality
> Photo
> > =>frames I've seen are for 8X10, not 8.5X11.
> > =>
> > =>I just don't understand
> > =>
> > =>-Larry
> >
> > You asked for it, so here goes :-)
> >
> > Paper sizes are a result of paper making history, and the
> > industrialisation of papermaking and printing in the 19th
> > century, which made standardisation desirable. When the
> > Germans invented the DIN system, they recognised five paper
> > formats IIRC: A, B, C, D, and E (what else?) These were
> > existing paper formats, and DIN simply standardised them
> > dimensions. The format is actually the ratio of the two
> > sides of a rectangular "full sheet" of paper, not any
> > specific size. DIN added specific sizes to the mix..
> > "Letter size" is the size you get when you fold the full
> > sheet four times, and trim it to get a bundle of sheets. I
> > can't remember which of the five formats gives rise to our
> > letter size of 8.5x11", but it's obviously not the one that
> > produced the 8x10 photo sheet.
> >
> > Worldwide, pretty well all paper formats have disappeared
> > except the A format, except for the 8x10 photo format, and
> > the N. American 8.5x11 format.. Note that the other
> > "standard" photo sizes don't match up 5x7, 4x6, 3.5x5.5,
> > etc - none of these is an exact fraction of the 8x10. All
> > are in fact attempts to make full frame enlargements of
> > various negative formats, almost all of which have
> > disappeared.
> >
> > This is an incomplete explanation of the history of paper
> > making, but it should muddy the waters enough nonetheless.
> > :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wolf Kirchmeir
> > If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the
train?
> > (Garrison Keillor)
> > <just one w and plain ca for correct e-mail address>
> >
> >
> >
>
>