Well 8x10 was the professional standard for two good reasons. 1. It fit into standard file drawers. 2. It fit into a 9x12 envelop with cardboard protectors. If the picture demanded a different aspect ratio, say 6x9, you just printed a picture of that aspect ration on an 8x10 sheet of paper with wide boarders.
Oh, just thought of a third reason. 3. It fits a standard 8x10 frame.. There is nothing sacrosanct about the 4x5, or the 2x3 aspect ratio. In days of old we cropped shamelessly, with a paper cutter. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 2:26 PM Subject: Re: Some thoughts related to my Gallery comments > This is silly. Just because a piece of paper is 8x10 doesn't require > that the final print fill the paper. And while 8x10 seems to be > something of a "standard", I believe that other sizes are standard in > other countries, like 8.5x11 ... iac, there's no reason that the > photographer must use standard sized paper and fill it to the borders. > > If you're shooting to fill the paper size, then aren't you doing > essentially the same thing as shooting to the film format? A good lab > will print any size that you want on any sized paper. > > Shooting to fill the frame is but one compositional technique, but, > since the 24x36 format is so small, it seems reasonable to try to get > the frame filled as much as possible with your vision. If you can do it > and use every available mm in the frame, great, then print full frame on > whatever size paper is appropriate. So what if there's a bit of waste. > Use the trim for test strips or smaller work prints. > > Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > > > > One of the reasons that I mentioned cropping > > for several of the shots is because of a habit > > I see many photographers getting into -- shooting > > for the film format, not for the result. > > We try to fill the frame, letting the camera > > determine what should be on the print. Taking that > > approach often fails us. > > > > We're often dissatisfied with what we see on paper, > > knowing 100% that that's not what we saw when taking > > the shot. But we're confused as to where the results went. > > > > The solution: Shoot for the content and EXPECT to crop > > your results. Overframe a bit. Be certain that you get > > everything you want in the frame. > > > > 24x36 is a 2:3 ratio. > > Unfortunately an 8x10 is not all of a 35mm neg. > > Some labs do 8x12s to give you what you shot. > > A 5x7 is closer. I don't know of anyone who does > > 5x7.5. But that's the real problem, isn't it. > > A 4x6 is the right ratio, but it bleeds over. > > Some labs will print full-frame on your 4x6 prints, > > but you also have to ask. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > If cows laughed, would milk come out of their noses? > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ > http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/darkroom-rentals/index.html > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
