I have wondered about this for years, this article makes it sound like this is something new to the "digital" era, but it is inherant in all 35 mm photography. You cannot make a full frame 8x10 from a 35 mm photo (film or digital). This frustrates me in both my nature photography and our portrait/wedding photography. And try explaining this to a client, sorry we have to cut off your legs in order to print an 8x10. We were at PhotoExpo and there is a company that will etch a grid (8x10 ratio) onto your camera so that you can compose for 8x10's -- very tempting. This article is very intersting and the author has found a FEW places that print 8x12. The real question is the 4x5 market was always a small part of the market, and today it is even smaller, so WHY is 8x10 the standard and not 8x12.
This also begs for the question -- WHY in the world does Epson sell a 17" x 22" paper and not a 16x20. Printing 16x20 would mean that the photograph would directly fit into a standard sie mat/frame, but no, we have to waste inches on each side...
read the full article here...Why no 8″x12″ photo paper?
No comments:
Post a Comment