Why no 8 x 12 Photo Paper

[Al Dykes]

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.

 

[Joseph Meehan]

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 4¾ foot would be a problem.

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.

 

[Andrew Rossmann]

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!!)

 

[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]

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]

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

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.

 

[DBLEXPOSURE]

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

 

[John Passaneau]

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

 

[gpaleo]

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.

 

[Fred McKenzie]

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

 

[Al Dykes]

KODAK has 8x12 paper for their dye-sub printers.

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]

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

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!

 

[Mark²]

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

Not sure how 12x16 helps much, as that isn't 2:3 either... I'd love to find
a large selection of 12x18 though...

 

[Mark²]

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]

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.


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.

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]

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.


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.

Thank you. Thank you. And my wife thanks you too.

 

[bob crownfield]

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.

costco,
8x12 for $1.98, 12x18 for 2.98.
'custom lab' quality for everything that I have sent.




I agree, 8x12 would be a great option (at least for landscape

 

[Mark²]

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'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?

www.pbase.com/markuson

 

[Mark²]

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]

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...

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