Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why Such Limited Choice of Paper Size?  (Read 6187 times)
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 819



WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2011, 08:31:45 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

gpritch
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2011, 07:22:12 AM »
ReplyReply

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!
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2011, 08:09:36 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

howardm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2011, 08:23:48 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695


« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2011, 11:30:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I will no longer purchase 17X22 sheets.  17X25 is a far better match for the D300 sensor's aspect ratio.
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2011, 12:16:17 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

JohnHeerema
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 187


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2011, 02:23:32 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2011, 05:06:45 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

gromit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2011, 06:04:33 PM »
ReplyReply

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!
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2011, 06:27:24 PM »
ReplyReply

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 Tongue

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 Tongue
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2011, 08:27:13 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2011, 04:43:51 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3793


« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2011, 05:00:44 AM »
ReplyReply

If someone requests 10x57" paper but there's no 10/57 ratio sensor out there, it's probably an outlier Tongue

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
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2011, 06:01:24 AM »
ReplyReply


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
Logged
rodcones
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2011, 01:12:48 PM »
ReplyReply

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?
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2868


« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2011, 04:38:51 PM »
ReplyReply


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
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 02:54:22 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
Audii-Dudii
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2011, 06:42:07 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 293


WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2011, 07:01:21 PM »
ReplyReply

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. 
Logged

- Dean
Dano Steinhardt
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74



WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2011, 01:56:43 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Bill Koenig
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 357


« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2011, 10:48:11 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Bill Koenig,
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad