Why do magazine writers still think that paper ratio should dictate film formats? I don't understand why paper shape should dictate film format use. I shoot 35mm (24x35mm) and 6x9 (56x82mm) film formats and always print the entire image. When I use 8x10" paper I print with enough border to place the 1.5:1 ratio image centered on the page. When I use 11x14" paper I do the same, making the image about 7x10", leaving about a 2" border on all four sides. This gives the image a nice placement and seems to enhance the presentation. Composing my images in the camera to conform to a specific paper size and ratio (all paper sizes are a different ratio) seems to be the wrong approach. The composition of the image should be a photographer's choice at the moment of exposure

-- Thomas Loizeaux (Loizcren@erols.com), March 13, 2001

Answers

Response to Should paper ratio should dictate film formats?

It's not really down to magazine writers, but picture editors want to maximise their page space, so if they've a choice between an image that neatly fits onto A4, and one that doesn't, then they'll go with the A4 proportioned image. The situation is even worse for front covers. The picture editor will be looking for an image with a nice blank area for the title and contents list. What fills the rest of the area is of secondary interest almost.
That's the way of things I'm afraid, and it's no use banging your head and crying about it. You can either stick to your guns and sell fewer shots, or you can shoot with editorial requirements in mind, and eat.

What I can't understand is why the international A series paper sizes have never really caught on for photographic paper. A4 is a nice size for printing from 35mm, but I have to scratch around to find printing paper in that size.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), March 14, 2001.

Response to Should paper ratio should dictate film formats?

I agree that paper formats shouldl not dictate film formats and I'ss go a step further: Why should film formats dictate the proportions of a final print? Is the world really divided up into 6x6cm squares, 4x5 inch rectangles or 6x9cm and 24x36mm ones? How about some long skinny pictures? Or circles? Or ovals, etc? Maybe the individual subject itself can dictate its own "desire" for framing. I see no reason to blindly use the full frame when the final result would have better form with a side or the top cropped. Paper and film formats are convenient for the manufacturers, but I see no reason to tailor our vision or photographs to fit these artificial boundaries. It's like trying to fit round pegs in square holes! Regards, ;^D)

-- Doremus Scudder (ScudderLandreth@compuserve.com), March 14, 2001.

Response to Should paper ratio should dictate film formats?

I absolutely agree. It is nearly impossible to find sizes in the U.S. other than 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20. 5x7 is a bit closer to the ratio I prefer, but is too small for most of my work. These standard sizes go way back, so it's going to be very hard to get manufacturers to change.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edb@unblinkingeye.com), March 14, 2001.

Thomas:

For personal work you can crop to any format you want. But, when you are shooting for reproduction, you have to crop to the aspect ratio of the space your image must fit into. Otherwise, your image won't be reproducable without cropping and further cropping might make the image unusable. This is just a matter of fact and is true for both editorial and commercial work. If you are shooting on assignment, you must determine in advance if there is a particular aspect ration that you must work within, or else you might not get paid for your work.

-- Ken Burns (kenburns@twave.net), March 14, 2001.

Well, I hope this doesn't come across as a smart A answer but in today's niche market for photo papers if it were a choice between getting warmtone, standard tone or coldtone papers or getting only standard tone papers in 3 different sizes I would go for the tone choice and use shears. (Houses somehow manage to get built with 8' 2x4 & 4x8 sheets of plywood)

Cheers,

Duane

-- Duane K (dkucheran@creo.com), March 14, 2001.

Pete:

Could not agree more. A4 would be a great ratio for photo paper. I guess we're stuck in the rut and can't get out.

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), March 14, 2001.

Ahm! This is one strange topic!

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), March 15, 2001.

Thanks for all your answers. I never suggested that we should push for a new paper size. As I explained, I've accomodated the current paper sizes by printing inside the paper, printing the entire image. My main point is that I think photographers should compose in the camera and that paper shapes should not interfere with original composition. If you want to compose square pictures, use a 6x6cm camera. If you like the 3x4 ratio, use a camera that shows you that. I've chosen the 1.5:1 ratio, so I work in 35mm or 6x9cm formats. It's that simple. I do actually cut down all my 16x20 paper to 15x20 so I can print 10x15" images with equal borders. (I also get some 1" wide test strips as a by product)

Tom

-- Thomas Loizeaux (Loizcren@erols.com), March 15, 2001.

So, what was your original question?

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), March 15, 2001.

Try ordering some Bergger in 12x16 inch size. You can print full frame 35mm or 5x7 on it with a nice inch or so border around the image and still have an image on paper large enough to see.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), March 15, 2001.

I looked on Bergger's site at http://www.bergger.com/introusa.htm, but did not find a listing for 12x16 paper. I think their Prestige paper is probably the finest warm tone paper on the market.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edb@unblinkingeye.com), March 20, 2001.

In Europe you can get the 12x16inch (30x40cm) paper at most places. I find that it works really well for 35mm format. I always print with borders because i think it works to make the paper flatter during exposure and then later to protect it from bumps and people's fingers. With 12x16 I can make a nice 11x14 or 8x12 prints. Or if I want I can stretch it out to the edges.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), March 28, 2001.