LULA input to Epson and others re paper in 17x25" size?

[Rand47]

Hello, All . . .

Quasi-rant here, but with a suggestion for the powers that be here at LULA, and others who have direct input to Epson and other folk who provide fine art media for printing.  I'm thinking especially here of Epson, Canson, Moab, and the others . . .

Given that many of us who print for ourselves, and others, find the 17" carriage printer a good compromise between "really big" printers, and smaller desktop ones....  AND that one of "the" most common aspect ratios for camera sensors is 2:3, WHY THE HECK don't paper providers sell 17x25" sheets of paper?  I know I can buy rolls, but then I fight with odd bits at the "ends" and also the curl that comes with, and the pain in the butt in switching between paper types with rolls.  I suffer that OK for panoramas, but for the bulk of my printing sheets are so much easier to handle.

Anyone else find this lack of availability a bit strange-come-idiotic given who the userbase is?

I know there are probably a bunch of reasons why they say they won't or can't... but some do, like Red River Papers.  But I'd like to see all the premium papers available in this most useful size sheets.

What say you all?

Rand

[Mark D Segal]

The sensors may have that aspect ratio, but by the time photographers finish with adjusting composition and crop, the photos may not, so there's a question of how much demand there may be for paper that exactly matches the aspect ratio of the sensors, and on what scale the paper companies would need to invest in that converting option. I don't know whether the paper companies have done market research on this, but certainly no harm putting it to them.

[Rand47]

The sensors may have that aspect ratio, but by the time photographers finish with adjusting composition and crop, the photos may not, so there's a question of how much demand there may be for paper that exactly matches the aspect ratio of the sensors, and on what scale the paper companies would need to invest in that converting option. I don't know whether the paper companies have done market research on this, but certainly no harm putting it to them.

Mark,

You're undoubtedly correct re "final aspect ratio" of any one image - but it still seems as though "starting with the obvious" would be a good place, to, well, "start!"  LOL  I do have a lot of print clients who are very fastidious about maintaining the original aspect ratio, though (as strange as that seems to me on a personal level). 

I'd appreciate any input you could "put to" the manufacturers, and their responses.

Rand

[Mark D Segal]

I can point several of them to your suggestion here and let's see what comes back.

[Rand47]

I can point several of them to your suggestion here and let's see what comes back.

Mark,

Thanks!!!

Others, if you have similar feelings re desiring 17x25" sheets... chime in please.  It would be good if those "looking at this thread" saw input supporting my basic point.

Rand

[Alan Goldhammer]

The sensors may have that aspect ratio, but by the time photographers finish with adjusting composition and crop, the photos may not, so there's a question of how much demand there may be for paper that exactly matches the aspect ratio of the sensors, and on what scale the paper companies would need to invest in that converting option. I don't know whether the paper companies have done market research on this, but certainly no harm putting it to them.

If so then there should be no market for 13x19 paper which has the same aspect ratio as 17x25.  Instead they should market 13x17.  Obviously one can purchase roll paper and cut it to size if the printer doesn't support roll paper (in my case an Epson 3880) but that's a pain (been there and done that).

I too would like to see 17x25 as the standard size rather than 17x22 (which is probably close to a legacy size from the old 4x5 negative size days).

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

If so then there should be no market for 13x19 paper which has the same aspect ratio as 17x25.  Instead they should market 13x17.  Obviously one can purchase roll paper and cut it to size if the printer doesn't support roll paper (in my case an Epson 3880) but that's a pain (been there and done that).

I too would like to see 17x25 as the standard size rather than 17x22 (which is probably close to a legacy size from the old 4x5 negative size days).

I agree.
I use more 13x19" paper than any other size. In my old 3800 and my newer P800 I have probably made three prints (maybe four) total on 17x22". If I could get good 17x25" paper I would do many more.
And probably 80 to 90% of my prints de preserve the sensor's aspect ratio.

-Eric

[I.T. Supplies]

PremierArt (Fine Art Smooth Hot Press 325gsm) and Premier Luster; Inkpress Baryta Warm Tone, Luster, Gloss, Matte, Duo Matte, Cool Tone; Moab Entrada 300gsm and Simply Elegant Luster all come in 17"x25" sheets.

25" isn't as popular as 17x22, but some brands still offer it if needed.

Atlex.com

[Peter McLennan]

I shoot D800. My large sheet inventory is exclusively 17X25. For me, standardization is good.
“Microceramic”as a search term should find it.

[kj]

PremierArt (Fine Art Smooth Hot Press 325gsm) and Premier Luster; Inkpress Baryta Warm Tone, Luster, Gloss, Matte, Duo Matte, Cool Tone; Moab Entrada 300gsm and Simply Elegant Luster all come in 17"x25" sheets.

25" isn't as popular as 17x22, but some brands still offer it if needed.

Atlex.com

I'd guess that actually it's the other way around: that 17x25 isn't as available as 17x22, even though it may very well be more popular (if both options were available in a given variety). I suspect that production convenience, rather than customer demand is likely the culprit for the current state of options. 17x22 is double the size of 11x17, which is itself double the size of 8.5x11. I think the availability of 17x22 reflects that, more than a desire on the part of customers to have a shorter length (if given the option) of 17" wide paper.

I too would like to see more 17x25 options, as opposed to the more common 17x22. As an example, while there are 17x25 options that I've liked, my preferred paper (Canson Baryta Photographique) is 17x22. Hopefully those who produce papers will see our voice as customers expressed here, and listen.

Ken

[pearlstreet]

I have stated many times on this forum that the paper size should be 17x25. It is frustrating that paper companies don't make that change. Native sizes on my camera are for 12x18 and 16x24 so I like 13x19 and 17x25. Please make this change!

I have told Hahnemuhle and Moab that we need a17x25 option but they didn't say they would do it.

[GrahamBy]

It may be easier to convince them to make available ISO sizes: A2 is 420 x 594mm, or 16.5" x 23.4", which seems a much better compromise than 17x22.

The fact that A3+/13x19 is available in both US and European markets possibly reflects that it's a very useable aspect ratio...

[mearussi]

I was told a few years ago by a paper tech (Canson, Hahnemuhle--I forgot) that the reason for 17x22 was it could be cut without waste from the paper industry standard size master sheet, and that 17x25 produced waste that made it more expensive to produce. Whether this is actually true someone more familiar with the industry will have to say.   

[GrahamBy]

I was told a few years ago by a paper tech (Canson, Hahnemuhle--I forgot) that the reason for 17x22 was it could be cut without waste from the paper industry standard size master sheet, and that 17x25 produced waste that made it more expensive to produce. Whether this is actually true someone more familiar with the industry will have to say.

Since they market 17" rolls, of course it would be possible... but actually setting up the different cutting and packaging, then marketing it, getting retailers to stock an extra line... (gulp).

These things are often not driven by logic; in the "good old days" silver halide papers we were stuck with paper sizes that had more to do with view-camera dimensions than 35mm film.

This site lays out the insanity of it all...

http://papersizes.io/photography/
(note the tabs across the top of the page)

[Mark Lindquist]

Breathing Color Pura Smooth comes in 17 x 25 and it is AWESOME.

[pearlstreet]

Breathing Color Pura Smooth comes in 17 x 25 and it is AWESOME.

Thanks, Mark!

[rdonson]

I think the Epson P800 is limited to 17x22 sheets. Is there anyway to use 17x25 sheets on a P800?

[aduke]

If it will not work to just specify the paper size as 17 x 25, just call it roll paper and define the paper size to be 17 x 25.

I do the latter all the time, except that the paper is actually coming off a roll. 

Alan

[Peter McLennan]

Several surfaces of 17X25 here:

https://www.itsupplies.com/Inkjet-Art-Photo-Paper

My fave:
https://www.itsupplies.com/InkJetArt-Micro-Ceramic-Luster-17x25-50-shts

[LeonD]

I regularly print 17x25 on a P800.  I believe I had to define a custom paper size on the printer.

I've been using Red River since getting the P800.  In addition to liking the look of the paper, I can purchase the same paper from 4x5 up to 17x25.  This way my 4x5 proofs look the same as my framed 17x25.