Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: John R Smith on June 20, 2011, 02:21:23 pm
-
Chatting to Mark earlier on about printing has made me realise just how pathetic one aspect of inkjet printing really is – the limited choice of paper sizes. I have been messing about this afternoon with my 10x7.5 ins “Digital Contact Print”, and it looks really mean and cramped on A4 paper. But my only other choice is to print it on A3, which as well as being wrongly proportioned (as all the Metric sizes are) is much too big, really. I mean, wide borders are nice, but perhaps these are too wide. And of course (at least here in the UK), that’s it. A4 or A3, no other choice.
But looking at Ilford’s offerings in darkroom silver paper, we have 8x10, 9.5x12, 11x14, and then 12x16. So there are at least two extra sizes between A4 and A3 – and the proportions would fit my 4:3 files much better. Why do we have this sensible choice in darkroom papers, but not for inkjet?
John
-
Real good question and of course the US still insists on the old paper sizes (e.g., 8 1/2 x 11 for standard letter size). Really the sizes also don't deal well with the 35mm format multiple either. I would love to have 17x25 cut sheets so that I could print 16x24 but most manufacturers only have 17x22 as an offering (I don't have a printer that accepts roll paper). Weren't the standard darkroom sizes based on 4x5 cameras that took sheet film.
-
About the only improvement over 4x5-centric sizes from days of yore is the 13 x 19 size. It's the new 16x20, or maybe the new 11x14. It's even starting to be well-supported in ready made frames that are symmetrically larger all around. But that's about it.
The basic problem is that people outside of photography still think in those sizes, and that's what they demand of the pro's they hire. Those are knee-jerk, boiler-plate requirements, not carefully considered ones. But hey they write the checks.
Was surprised to see that Ilford offers such finely graded sizes. For most of my photo life it has been 8x10, 11x14, 16x20. Don't even recall seeing 11x17 before quite recently.
Maybe 9:16 TV will change all that sometime soon.
-
It simply comes down to demand. If enough people will pay for it, someone will produce it - but not before.
-
About the only improvement over 4x5-centric sizes from days of yore is the 13 x 19 size.
The real benefit is that 13x19 fits nicely inside the drawers of my Ikea table that my Epson 3880 sits atop!!!!
-
I have been messing about this afternoon with my 10x7.5 ins “Digital Contact Print”, and it looks really mean and cramped on A4 paper. But my only other choice is to print it on A3...
Think laterally. Get A3+ sheets and cut them in half.
-
A workable alternative would be to buy roll paper and a good paper cutter.
-
Making and stocking multiple sizes with varying demand is costly, and these days when there's less and less printing that's an increasingly unattractive business proposition.
-
What's wrong with just trimming the paper down to the border size you want after you print.
The borders are only too large if you leave it like that. ::)
-
Think laterally. Get A3+ sheets and cut them in half.
That is a very good idea, and I shall try it tonight. It would give me 9.5x13 ins, which is almost my old darkroom favourite of 9.5x12 ins.
A workable alternative would be to buy roll paper and a good paper cutter.
It would be, but Harman do not do 13 inch rolls of the Gloss Baryta which I use.
What's wrong with just trimming the paper down to the border size you want after you print.
The borders are only too large if you leave it like that.
Well, it's very tedious to have to trim every print that you make, and you are paying for paper which you are throwing away. The half A3+ idea sounds the most promising so far.
I think that was my 1,000th post ;)
John
-
Equally annoying is the reluctance of frame makers to provide frames for common inkjet paper sizes. Try finding 22X17 frames, for example. Let alone 25X17.
-
I think that was my 1,000th post ;)
John
Congratulations John!
-
...Really the sizes also don't deal well with the 35mm format multiple either. I would love to have 17x25 cut sheets so that I could print 16x24 but most manufacturers only have 17x22 as an offering (I don't have a printer that accepts roll paper). Weren't the standard darkroom sizes based on 4x5 cameras that took sheet film.
The Harman by Hahnemuhle papers come in 17 x 25. Atlex has them for $119/box 25 (see http://www.atlex.com/harman/harman-by-hahnemuhle-professional-inkjet-photo-paper.html (http://www.atlex.com/harman/harman-by-hahnemuhle-professional-inkjet-photo-paper.html)). This is the only one I know at this size but fortunately it's my favorite :)
Rob P
-
For more choice of 17x25 paper (glossy, matte,satin,luster) try Red River Paper: http://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/index.htm
I'm quite satisfied with satin and luster for my landscape images in B&W or Color
irv weiner
-
[...] A3, which as well as being wrongly proportioned (as all the Metric sizes are) is much too big, really. I mean, wide borders are nice, but perhaps these are too wide.
I really agree there aren't many papers naturally fitted to 4:3 size, and 5:4 or square even more so.
But for 3:2 images the metric sizes work very well in my taste, with 17mm margins on a A4 or (17/1.41=)12mm (1/2") margins on a A5 there's no need to crop anything if you don't want to...
And I feel margins are adequate, large enough to give room for handling (I feel the 12mm margins needed on a A3+ are a bit narrow for that) without getting the "lost in a see of white paper" feeling, but of course this is a matter of taste.
-
Think laterally. Get A3+ sheets and cut them in half.
I've been doing this for years and was going to post it, but just a little late getting in to this topic. I find the 9.5x13 size is just right for printing 8x12s. I print for a variety of "photographers", both Pro and Am, and everything is done on large format Epson printers. Therefore, the standard darkroom/traditional paper sizes we all grew up with would be of little use to me, since these printers will not do borderless on sheet material. Every print I do has to be trimmed and I have three Rotatrim cutters that handle the job very well. Those of us who actually remember what the word "hypo" means in darkroom jargon sometimes long for the days when there were far fewer paper sizes, frames that fit those sizes and explaining to your customer why that 8x10 would have to be cropped to fit a 5x7:-( Of course that last part still holds true and I'm constantly amazed at the plethora of young people who just got a camera for their birthday and have miraculously become a "professional photographer", shiny new website and all. Aspect ratio...what's that??? I've been at this for much longer than I would care to admit and as I ponder the depths into which this industry has descended it often brings a tear to my heart. The saving grace for me is that most of the work I do is custom by nature and a lot of my customers are genuinely good people with interesting images to print or to reproduce.
There, that's my rant for the day. Please excuse my off-topicness, but sometimes the fingers want to engage the keys before the brain kicks in. Well...OK...perhaps most of the time.
Now back to the initial post. I think perhaps a well constructed trimmer might be the only rational response your to quest John. I have no experience with the "medium format" printers, Epson or otherwise, so perhaps it is possible to do borderless printing on sheet stock with them, in which case I can definitely commiserate. However, looking at the sizes we do have to choose from and with a bit of creative thinking it is possible to manufacture your own custom sizes as well. Happy trimming John.
Gary
-
I'm the Marketing Manager at Epson America but more importantly, a "Newbie" to Luminous Landscape and hoping someday to be a Jr. Member : )
Thought I would provide some background on paper sizes and then I have a request.
Like most over the age of 40, my roots were in the analogue world and I remember Hypo and that sizzling cuticle pain. So when I joined Epson in 2000 I was befuddled by odd paper sizes named Super B, A3 etc. I was told it meant 13 x 19 etc. but I wondered what happened to the revered 16 x 20 and what about metric sizes.
My very basic understanding (its far more complex) is that the sizes adopted by ink jet manufacturers were not Imperial or Metric, but an ISO standard based on the aspect ratio of the square root of 2. (See attachment) And while not related, it is an interesting connection since the square root of 2 is the core of photography as it defines the F stop range and has a relationship to the inverse square law. The naming of Super B etc. happened in 1798 but was forgotten until 1922 when it became a DIN standard. It seems the printing industry adopted the DIN/ISO methodology but Photographic markets developed paper sizes based on the aspect ratio of view cameras, and how those core sizes enlarged or could be ganged up e.g. 4, 4x5s = 1, 8 x 10. 4, 8x10's = 1, 16 x 20. While some of us are masters of the Scheimpflug principle, the days of shooting film in a view camera are in the rear view mirror.
Everyone on this thread knows the aspect ratio of most capture devices is not congruent to the aspect ratio of ink jet paper sizes, but the requests I hear (In North America) are for "Traditional" sizes like 8X10, 11 x 14 and 16 x 20. I cringe because of the cropping and/or trimming and wonder, if there was awareness of new sizes that aligned with the aspect ratio of modern sensors, might there be a potential market for all manufacturers.
THE REQUEST
I'd be curious to hear thoughts on the following:
-What would be the optimum sizes for ink jet papers?
-Should it be exclusively metric?
-Should it be exact to say a 35mm DSLR of 24mm x 36mm, or should the paper size still force some kind of crop?
Dan (Dano) Steinhardt
Marketing Manager, Professional Imaging
Epson America, Inc.
-
THE REQUEST
I'd be curious to hear thoughts on the following:
-What would be the optimum sizes for ink jet papers?
-Should it be exclusively metric?
-Should it be exact to say a 35mm DSLR of 24mm x 36mm, or should the paper size still force some kind of crop?
I hate metric. A3+ is the main sheet size I stock then I go to rolls. For portfolios where it needs to be dead flat it would be great to have 11x14 and 14x17. The proportions of the sheet don't have to match the image, only that the layout is pleasing. For example, a square image on 14x17 looks great. For most other applications, rolls are the most economical for me.
It's probably only fair to add that Epson doesn't currently make (or sell) any papers I'd want to use, and I stock/offer over thirty different papers. I've seen samples of the Hot/Cold Press but Epson doesn't seem inclined to sell this where I am.
-
THE REQUEST
I'd be curious to hear thoughts on the following:
-What would be the optimum sizes for ink jet papers?
-Should it be exclusively metric?
-Should it be exact to say a 35mm DSLR of 24mm x 36mm, or should the paper size still force some kind of crop?
Hi Dan, good to see an ear/voice from Epson here!
My own position on this as a current 4/3 format photographer who sometimes prints scans from 35mm negs and may or may not shoot with an APS-C or FF sensor DSLR in the future and prints on an Epson 3800, is that paper in a 2:3 format would be most desirable for me. If I am printing an uncropped 4/3 sensor file on a 17x,25 sheet at full width, I can aways trim off the end of the paper, and I get to use the whole paper area with 35mm scans, or 2:3 sensor files. But with Epson's current 17x22 offering, I have to print narrower to fit a 2:3 format image, and I would rather be able to use the full width of the paper. I doubt that I will ever own a roll feed printer, so I'm stuck with cut sheets. (I suppose if I got desperate enough I could buy a roll and cut it myself :-[ )
Thanks for listening.
-
I'm fairly happy with current sizes, but 17x25" sheet size would be great. Since I only have the Epson 4900 and limited to 17" wide, I want to print full width but if I want to print full frame, then I'm stuck with a smaller size unless I use roll paper. Of course then we have to deal with the curl.
-
I vote for 17 x 25 as being a size that would get a lot of support. Cropping is usually done to make the image more square so you are cutting off the ends of the sheet not the sides like you need to with a 17 x 22 sheet. This means you are losing less paper and allows a larger printed area. Most of the new sensors today have an aspect ratio of 2 x 3 so any papers that conform to it would be more useful.
Since the printers are all sized in inches it makes sense to size the papers in inches even though metric is probably the way to go.
Gary
Hey my first post here!
-
I wonder how happy paper manufacturers are with the default size of roll paper in inches and the rest of the world outside the US using DIN standard size cut sheets. It must have an impact on their production costs.
-
I guess it depends. I've seen video of the US Canson-Infinity operation and they for the most part, simply get enormous rolls of the material from their factory and slit/cut/package it as required for the US market. Sure it would be nice to have a unified size & measuring system but it's not going to happen in my life so I tend not to get too wound about it.
-
I will no longer purchase 17X22 sheets. 17X25 is a far better match for the D300 sensor's aspect ratio.
-
I will no longer purchase 17X22 sheets. 17X25 is a far better match for the D300 sensor's aspect ratio.
That's fine if the paper comes in that size (I also have a D300). The papers that I print on do not and if I cut roll paper to size (I have an Epson 3880), I then have to worry about decurling it prior to printing which adds more labor to the process.
-
I also would put in a vote for paper sizes closer to a 3:2 or 16:9 aspect ratio.
For the most part I don't mind trimming, but a 24" x 36" sheet size would be nice for stiff papers like Epson Exhibition Fibre, which can be difficult to uncurl if you print from roll stock.
-
It's probably only fair to add that Epson doesn't currently make (or sell) any papers I'd want to use, and I stock/offer over thirty different papers. I've seen samples of the Hot/Cold Press but Epson doesn't seem inclined to sell this where I am.
Gromit - you can order it online from Epson Australia (I know it's often nicer to be able to go and see it or pick it up locally, but it's an option):
https://www.epson.com.au/shoponline/shop/SearchConsumables.asp?Cat=largeformatpaper
-
Gromit - you can order it online from Epson Australia (I know it's often nicer to be able to go and see it or pick it up locally, but it's an option):
Just ordered a box of Hot Press Natural to evaluate. No Cold Press Natural in A3+ though ... I don't stock metric sizes. Thanks for the heads up!
-
THE REQUEST
I'd be curious to hear thoughts on the following:
-What would be the optimum sizes for ink jet papers?
-Should it be exclusively metric?
-Should it be exact to say a 35mm DSLR of 24mm x 36mm, or should the paper size still force some kind of crop?
Relying on a forum like LL will give a very poor understanding on what the market requires. You will get personal requests which might or might not be representative of professional fine art landscape photographers - in any case a minuscule market segment. Even if Michael would run a poll it would only be representative of the people who actually bother to respond to polls, not of the wider LL forum membership, let alone your target market.
The obvious route would be to go to IDC or Gartner (or whoever does market research for photography gear), get market shares of sensors and cameras, installed base, and printing rates of each, and utilize that data. Then take a closer look at the size requirements - eg. 3:2 DSLR guys print larger, while 4:3 MFT guys print smaller. If 3:2 sensor users print 100m pages a year and 4:3 sensor users print 45m, that should give guidance on which paper sizes and aspect ratios to launch. Look at your existing paper sizes and see where there might be room for a new paper - this is where recommendations and personal requests found on forums like this will actually be handy, as they can give you hints as to where the gaps are. If someone requests 10x57" paper but there's no 10/57 ratio sensor out there, it's probably an outlier :P
Many (most?) paper sizes should fit existing printer widths. The influence of existing frame, photo album and portfolio conventions should not be ignored - there are still a lot of people who religiously crop to legacy aspect ratios. And as I said earlier, a big hurdle for adoption of a new paper size is that it costs money to hold stock at retail, so an attractive marketing campaign, rebates, samples, return program etc. is probably necessary.
The bill is in the mail :P
-
I think it's safe to assume that Dano knows about other means of acquiring market information - he's just giving LL forum users an opportunity to voice some opinions and take that into account on top of all the other data he'd been seeing :-)
Market research numbers are useful, but sometimes tempering it with detailed, individual responses helps to bring some perspective and understanding.
-
Market research numbers are useful, but sometimes tempering it with detailed, individual responses helps to bring some perspective and understanding.
Absolutely, and I mention this in my post as well.
-
If someone requests 10x57" paper but there's no 10/57 ratio sensor out there, it's probably an outlier :P
Or an extreme stitched pano photographer ..., of which there may be more than meets the superficial eye (although they usually are roll paper printers).
Cheers,
Bart
-
It may be too simple to judge the usability of sheet paper and by that it's market acceptance on just the aspect ratio of the sheet itself. If borders on the print page itself get into the discussion then the aspect ratio of the printed image changes much on what is a better sheet aspect ratio. Rolls and decurling are in my opinion less a xxx* than creating economy in sheets. On the other hand ISO A and B sheets are not that bad if you do not use a 4/3 camera.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
I had thought about making a small essay on this matter of paper sizes.
Photographically, you don't need to be restricted to using the fixed capture frame or full size of a print paper to establish an aesthetically pleasing result. Nevertheless, the various formats that we have - though all having their own pleasing shape - should maybe "gel" better. And being able to match a "just so" original capture to a print paper shape should be included.
In the context of selling, I fully understand that a strip cut off a sheet is not a deal breaker and you or your client decide the shape and size of the end result which may or may not fit inside a "standard" like the 'A' series, be it print or frame. Of course roll papers can be a panacea.
Someone pointed out the historical root-2 or 1.414 ratio which applies to the 'A' series. It's very convenient for paper makers to make big sheets and just cut the long side for same ratio smaller sizes but we're stuck with 1.414 or roughly 7:5 ratio paper.
The main point I would make about engendering market share or innovating is that the majority of digital cameras use 3:2 (full frame /aps-c) or 4:3 (four thirds!) ratio capture areas. To have print sheets that related to those ratios would be of great benefit and people wouldn't have to waste time or material doing trimming and cropping. The only sheets that get near a capture ratio like 3:2 are the A3+ (13x19in) and the 17x25in. Nothing for 4:3.
Having manufacturers introduce machinery that could do a sequential cut halving the long side but starting with a huge 3:2 would give a range of 4:3 3:2 ... sizes quite easily. Do the math 1/2 x 3/2 = 3/4, 1/2 x 4/3 = 4/6 = 2/3.
Too much to wish for?
-
Having manufacturers introduce machinery that could do a sequential cut halving the long side but starting with a huge 3:2 would give a range of 4:3 3:2 ... sizes quite easily. Do the math 1/2 x 3/2 = 3/4, 1/2 x 4/3 = 4/6 = 2/3.
Too much to wish for?
Yes, I thought about that too sometime ago. And have two ranges: 4/3 and 3/2 of equal square inches size so no 4/3 camera owner has to print on a smaller size than a 3/2 camera owner :-) But the trailing edge margin of a sheet in the printer should be added to the size otherwise it does not work either. And when someone likes borders he may end with an A size anyway for a 3/2 image. On A sizes with a border 0.082% of the smallest side you get a perfect 3/2 image area, with some printing skill one border can act as the trailing margin in the printer. No waste of paper at all. There are frames for A sizes. But we seem to forget the square format photographers and I did think of a big format sheet that would deliver a 3/2 sheet as waste when it was initially cut to get a square format. Let us first wait for the metrication of the US before we make more excercises in geometry :-)
Edit: I do not think we will ever get a sheet size that satisfies everyone's wishes. Maybe long sheets that will deliver two golden ratio, three 3/2's, four 4/3's, four "ideal" formats and five squares, with or without borders. We are getting closer to a roll. This thread can become long too to fit all opinions.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
The only sheets that get near a capture ratio like 3:2 are the A3+ (13x19in) and the 17x25in. Nothing for 4:3.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but a 15x20 image area on a 17x22 sheet of paper works very well indeed for me and my 4:3 format camera/back combo.
-
Actually, 14x21 works well for a 2:3 aspect ratio on 17x22 paper, especially if it's a horizontal image. The wide borders on the top and bottom are good for hinge mounting. I never want hinging tape behind the printed area, and I think a 1/2" border is hardly adequate at this paper size. In the end the decision to crop should only depend on the image itself, and not on the sensor aspect ratio or paper size. Of course you're bound to get a lot of images composed for the aspect ratio of the sensor you use.
-
Thanks for the feedback!
Its helpful not just for me and Epson, but for the industry.
Dan (Dano) Steinhardt
Marketing Manager, Professional Imaging
Epson America, Inc
-
2:3 Aspect ratio, or 17x25 I will not buy any paper sized 17x22
>The Harman by Hahnemuhle papers come in 17 x 25. Atlex has them for $119/box >25 (see http://www.atlex.com/harman/harman-by-hahnemuhle-professional-inkjet- photo-paper.html). This is the only one I know at this size but fortunately it's my >favorite Smiley
Take a closer look at that link, all they have now is 17x22
-
I just buy rolled paper and use muh ruler to cut. :P