I discourage my print customers from ordering 8 x 10s of my photos, and instead urge them to go with 8 x 12s, since I shoot to that ratio. Most good framing and photo stores now have pre-cut 8 x 12 mats that are 11 x 14 on the outside. I find these perfect for framing in 11 x 14 frames. I nver frame a print without a mat. Paul
On Feb 12, 2011, at 12:06 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: > > > Following the link posted by Liz, I came across another short article > (blogpost?) on about.com written by her, > http://photography.about.com/od/developingandprinting/qt/ImageFormats.htm > > I liked the subject: I thought it was the first time that I've seen > somebody discussing different aspect ratios of the prints of different > standard sizes and the planning needed for that. > > I've discussed briefly a related question earlier here, on PDML, in some > comments that I personally tend to favor two aspect ratios : 2:3 and 1:1 > (aka 6x6 :-) ). And these are the most common sizes that I tend to post > to the web. In the past, when I was ordering prints at the labs, > I usually ordered prints in those ratios (4"x6", 10cmx15cm, 20cm x 30 cm, > 8"x12", etc.), and then it was sometimes harder to find a premanufactured > (read: inexpensive) frame for 8"x12", as 8"x10" were more popular. > > Once I started printing my own photos with Epson R2880, I found that > it is harder to do 8"x12" prints, as the paper usually doesn't > come in that size. So, every so often, I am trying to fit my 2:3 photo > to 8"x10" or 8.5"x11" ("Letter") formats. > The same problem was (and is) occuring with 5"x7" (aka 13cmx18cm) prints, > - but at least it is much closer to the 2:3 ratio, so it is not as > difficult to do the crop. > > After doing a search, I found that there were some people complaining > about this issue earlier, e.g. here: > http://forums.popphoto.com/showthread.php?279310-standard-photo-print-sizes > > I thought I'd share these with the PDMLers. > > > Also, I hope Liz won't be too mad at me for criticizing her posting. > I realize that the audience of about.com is mostly non-technical, > but still ... > > First of all, I was surprised not seeing 8"x12" and 3.5"x5" among the > "standard print sizes". > > Second, the "squarest" ratio is 1:1! And that's been on the market for > ages (albeit it's becoming less frequent, and may one day die). > > Third, the "multiplication factor" and the "ratio" (in the particular > order of sides) are the same thing. So, the sentence "It is often easier > to think in terms of the length multiplication factors instead of the > actual ratios." sounds weird. What it actually says is "it is easier to use > decimal numbers (decimal fractions) then [non-decimal] fractions." > > Fourth, I don't understand why 3.5:2.5 ratio is chosen for 5x7 prints > (except that the size 3.5"x2.5" is also considered to be one of the > standard, - "wallet", sizes). > It's a bit weird to translate a ratio of simple numbers to a ratio of decimal > non-intengers... > > I also would challenge this statement: > "Many cameras today record photographs in roughly a 3:2 ratio. This > means that the long side is 1.5 times as long as the short side. This is > the reason 4x6 has become a popular print size." > I believe the reason (or to be exact, one of the main reasons) why 4x6 > has become a popular print size is that the negative size on the 35mm > film was 24x36mm, which has the same aspect ratio. > More over, most sensor sizes (except those of DSLRs) are 4:3: > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp . > > > Cheers, > > > Igor > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
