PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photo Community - View Single Post

Songman45 · 06-04-2008

Man, what a world of confusion the 35mm camera created. Somewhere long ago on a planet far, far away 8X10 became a standard print size. Propotionally equal was the 4X5 "proof" size. Lucky for us that 4 - 4X5's will fit on an 8X10 sheet of paper. The only hang ups with cropping was for the 2.25" square shooters. Suddenly the popularity of 35mm changed things. The first round of photo lab standard prints were 3.5X5 instead of the 4X5. To give retail customers more bang for the buck labs began to offer "super size" prints (first at an additional charge) these are the now standard 4X6 "full frame" which will not proportionally enlarge to 8X10 but will make an 8X12. Now the one hour labs could offer not only a larger standard print but a wall size enlargement of a snapshot with that same bigger bang for the buck larger size. Never mind that 8X10 is the industry standard and 8X12 photo frames are scarce, ready made. Some of the department store portrait studios, like PCA, changed their long roll cameras to 35mm long non-perferated film and began mass marketing this 8X12 and other odd-ball sizes.

So much for getting 4-4X5's on one sheet of paper anymore. There are so many 4X6's out there that the frame makers dropped the 4X5 as standard. People have a perception that bigger paper means more picture for the money. Now that I feel compelled to print 4X6's which are not proportional to the 8X10s which are still accepted as a standard size. In dong those, the cost of paper goes up by 50% and I waste nearly half a sheet that just hits the round file.

In the digital age where camera resolution exceeds human visual acuity and enlargments can be successfully produced from tiny areas of the "negative", why are we still locked into these odd ball enlargement diminisons? Is it because our sensor closely resembles the film area of a 35mm?

Why don't we crop loose, and give oursleves room to accommodate what ever diminsion the customer is likely to ask for. 11X14's 8X10's 5X7's and 2.5X3's are not proportional to each other and therefore cannot be masked to put the same image simply spread over a larger paper or shrunk to fit on a smaller one. There has to be breathing room for cropping and centering. That's the way it was and the way it should be.

That's my time, thank you for yours.

06-04-2008	#10 (permalink)
Songman45 Bactrian Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 2,030 CamelKarma: 2125 Editing OK?: Yes Gallery \| Blog	Re: Package prints Man, what a world of confusion the 35mm camera created. Somewhere long ago on a planet far, far away 8X10 became a standard print size. Propotionally equal was the 4X5 "proof" size. Lucky for us that 4 - 4X5's will fit on an 8X10 sheet of paper. The only hang ups with cropping was for the 2.25" square shooters. Suddenly the popularity of 35mm changed things. The first round of photo lab standard prints were 3.5X5 instead of the 4X5. To give retail customers more bang for the buck labs began to offer "super size" prints (first at an additional charge) these are the now standard 4X6 "full frame" which will not proportionally enlarge to 8X10 but will make an 8X12. Now the one hour labs could offer not only a larger standard print but a wall size enlargement of a snapshot with that same bigger bang for the buck larger size. Never mind that 8X10 is the industry standard and 8X12 photo frames are scarce, ready made. Some of the department store portrait studios, like PCA, changed their long roll cameras to 35mm long non-perferated film and began mass marketing this 8X12 and other odd-ball sizes. So much for getting 4-4X5's on one sheet of paper anymore. There are so many 4X6's out there that the frame makers dropped the 4X5 as standard. People have a perception that bigger paper means more picture for the money. Now that I feel compelled to print 4X6's which are not proportional to the 8X10s which are still accepted as a standard size. In dong those, the cost of paper goes up by 50% and I waste nearly half a sheet that just hits the round file. In the digital age where camera resolution exceeds human visual acuity and enlargments can be successfully produced from tiny areas of the "negative", why are we still locked into these odd ball enlargement diminisons? Is it because our sensor closely resembles the film area of a 35mm? Why don't we crop loose, and give oursleves room to accommodate what ever diminsion the customer is likely to ask for. 11X14's 8X10's 5X7's and 2.5X3's are not proportional to each other and therefore cannot be masked to put the same image simply spread over a larger paper or shrunk to fit on a smaller one. There has to be breathing room for cropping and centering. That's the way it was and the way it should be. That's my time, thank you for yours.
	__________________ Have you ever stopped to think and forgot to start again?