Help Me Understand Why Photographic Paper Isn't 1:1.5 Ratio?

[lencap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings!

I recently purchased a Leica M-A, and am anxiously preparing to learn the art of film processing.  As I began my search I found something I couldn't understand, and I'd like your help. 

 

35mm film is 24x36mm in size, a ratio of 1:1.5.  So if I compose my images into that ratio, and now want to create a photograph I'd assume that I'd want a photographic paper that's scaled the same as my film:  1:1.5. 

 

I notice that museums show photographs in a 11x17 size, much closer to the desired 1:1.5 ratio, but I can't seem to find photographic paper that is in the "correct" 1:1.5 ratio.   It seems to me that to capture the negative onto a photographic paper I'd have to crop my original negative image to fit the paper.  The closest seem to be 5x7, but that size is too small for my needs, and 11x14 requires cropping - which I don't want to do.   What if I don't want to crop my image how do I capture the original dimensions of film on my finished print?  

 

Is there a solution to this, or do you regularly crop your negatives to print your photographs?  If that's the case, what's the point of maintaining a 24x36 ratio on full frame sensors?  Why aren't photographic papers created to match the size of the capture media?  

 

Sorry if this sounds silly, but it's something I can't quite understand.

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by lencap

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[andybarton]

Print onto paper that is larger than your desired end size and trim the white borders.

 

You would generally use a frame to hold the paper flat while printing in any case

[lencap]

Thanks for the reply.  I understand that, but 11x14 seems to be the largest size I can find.  That would mean to print onto that paper my final photograph would be only be 9.3 x14 - far smaller than typical museum photographs.  I'd like the larger size, but can't seem to find paper that will accommodate an 11x17 photograph.

[pgk]

 Why aren't photographic papers created to match the size of the capture media?  

 

Its historic:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_print_sizes

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format#Still_photography_film_formats

 

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Plate_Sizes

 

In essence paper still utilises sizing which can be traced back to earlier days of photography. So 10" x 8" for example was a standard sheet film size and paper was manufactured to this same size for contact printing of the negative. Things have changed to some extent but we are still left with a lot of 'legacy' sizing. 

[pico]

Thanks for the reply.  I understand that, but 11x14 seems to be the largest size I can find.

 

There are larger photo paper sizes: 16x20 and 20x24, for example, and for ink-jet, rolls in 17" and 42".

Edited January 7, 2017 by pico

[lencap]

Thanks for everyone's comments.  The problem seems to be my lack of knowledge.  The camera store I visited had 11x14 as their largest size paper.  I incorrectly assumed that was the largest paper available.  B&H has lots of 16x20 choices, and a few even larger.  I guess that's the solution unless I can find a stock of larger paper locally.  I'll experiment with the different types of paper.  Your suggestions are welcome.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 I'll experiment with the different types of paper.  Your suggestions are welcome.

 

It helps to narrow your selection by categories, for example warm vs cold tone, variable contrast vs fixed contrast, glossy, matte or textured surface, single weight vs double weight.  Some papers are properly cut with longitudinal grain, and in the past I've found bargain papers that curled and warped due to sloppy (economical) grain base.

Edited January 7, 2017 by pico

[Michael Hiles]

I rarely crop images when printing (I am not doctrinaire - it just works out that way). I try to get what I want on the film before pressing the button. I will occasionally trim a very minor mistake from an edge, but I don't make new pictures in the darkroom.

 

I make my prints for framing/exhibition on 11x14 inch paper. The long side of the image is 14 inches (I use a boarderless easel) and the short side becomes 9.33 inches. White edges get trimmed. The small white edges are also useful in the solution trays - they become small handles to manipulate the paper in the solutions.

 

For a smaller size, I cut an 11x14 paper into 7x11, and the long side of the image becomes 11 inches and the short side becomes 7.33 inches. 11x7.33 is a nice size for portraits.

 

FWIW, 8x10 and 16x20 exactly match 4x5 negatives.

[erl]

I intend no disrespect, but your question, when you think about it, is rather like a carpenter asking why trees aren't cut down in sizes to match his building project!

 

The reality for all of us is cut your paper (in our case) down to fit your desired image. Rememmber, when framing your motif in the camera, you are already cropping. Continue the process at the printing stage to fit your original vision.

 

Eg. One of my favourite cameras is a Hasselblad (square format). I used to crop to fit the paper sizes. Now I crop the paper and the negative, if necessary, to fit my vision. It becomes more creative and liberating. Squeezing an image into a 'standard' is ridiculous when you think about it.

[adan]

You can blame it on Leitz's Oskar Barnack.

 

Who had the weird idea of using motion-picture film (35mm with sprocket holes) for still pictures, and making his still pictures (24 x 36mm, aspect ratio 1:1.5 or 2:3) cover the space of TWO motion picture frames ( approx. 18 x 24mm, aspect ratio 1:1.33 or 3:4 - with minor variations).

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/35_mm_Full_Frame.svg/300px-35_mm_Full_Frame.svg.png

 

35mm's 1:1.5 ratio was a minor format, especially for commercial photography, until the 1960s. By which time the photo paper industry was long-established, and not about to throw out all their existing standards for paper and equipment for just one of many picture shapes. A "half-5x7" - 3.5 x 5 inches - was considered completely adequate for drugstore prints from "miniature" 35mm negatives. Since then, there have been some industry concessions to the Barnack format - 4x6 and 8x12 machine prints.

 

Me - I print full-frame almost all the time (35mm or 120), with white borders of whatever size. Once the picture is matted and framed, who cares how big the hidden border is?

 

In the darkroom era - 6x9 on 8x10, or 8 x 12 on 11 x 14 or 12 x 18 on 16 x 20 (or 7x7 or 10x10 or 15x15 from 6x6).

[pico]

I intend no disrespect, but your question, when you think about it, is rather like a carpenter asking why trees aren't cut down in sizes to match his building project!

 

The reality for all of us is cut your paper (in our case) down to fit your desired image [...]

 

Or expect that 2x4" lumber is 2x4". It is not. I had the great pleasure of living on a farm that was built buy a wealthy corporation as a research farm in 1929. They moved in their own saw mill, used wood from the forest nearby; cut lumber to to spectacular dimensions, all made to the architect's specs rather than nominal dimensions. When the grainery and oldest barn were salvaged 18 years ago they sold for a bloody fortune.

 

IOW, it's as you mentioned. Indeed, we very often cut our paper to suit us, nominal be damned.

Or do as Andy mentioned - matt to suit.

Edited January 8, 2017 by pico

[almoore]

It's smaller than you appear to be looking for, but A4 (11.75x8.25) Multigrade is still available and conforms to the aspect ratio that you're looking for:

 

http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Ilford-Multigrade-IV-RC-Paper-Glossy-A4-100-Sheets/product/3572/1770449/

 

Back in the day, that particular size was a major seller for both Ilford and Kodak. It was fairly standard for press prints.

[250swb]

Thanks for the reply.  I understand that, but 11x14 seems to be the largest size I can find.  That would mean to print onto that paper my final photograph would be only be 9.3 x14 - far smaller than typical museum photographs.  I'd like the larger size, but can't seem to find paper that will accommodate an 11x17 photograph.

 

You haven't looked very hard then. Ilford make their Multigrade Fibre paper in up to 20"x24" sheets and if you want to go larger still they can do you a 56inx98ft roll. Big enough?   I believe that as with sheet film Ilford also offer paper in their 'once a year' custom size service, where they can make any of their sheet products in whatever size you want.

 

As for printing onto a paper that isn't the exact format as others have said this has always been the case, but it has been adopted as a traditional way to present the print for exhibition. For example you need a larger white border anyway to make mounting the print possible using an over mat without going to the horrible expedient of gluing it down onto a board. And you would generally position the paper in the printing easel so you get a larger bottom border to the print, this gives a little extra space for signing the print in the border (if you are famous enough).

Edited January 8, 2017 by 250swb

[andybarton]

The larger white bottom border also visually "supports" the image in the frame

[tobey bilek]

Print 8x12 on 11x14  and you get two wide borders which help with framing.

 

Actually 24x36 mm is the odd size.  Other film formats support paper sizes well.

 

Some early Nikons were 24x30,  but that did not last.  RF Nikons, not Nikon F before you jump on me.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Greetings!

 

I recently purchased a Leica M-A, and am anxiously preparing to learn the art of film processing.  As I began my search I found something I couldn't understand, and I'd like your help. 

 

35mm film is 24x36mm in size, a ratio of 1:1.5.  So if I compose my images into that ratio, and now want to create a photograph I'd assume that I'd want a photographic paper that's scaled the same as my film:  1:1.5. 

 

I notice that museums show photographs in a 11x17 size, much closer to the desired 1:1.5 ratio, but I can't seem to find photographic paper that is in the "correct" 1:1.5 ratio.   It seems to me that to capture the negative onto a photographic paper I'd have to crop my original negative image to fit the paper.  The closest seem to be 5x7, but that size is too small for my needs, and 11x14 requires cropping - which I don't want to do.   What if I don't want to crop my image how do I capture the original dimensions of film on my finished print?  

 

Is there a solution to this, or do you regularly crop your negatives to print your photographs?  If that's the case, what's the point of maintaining a 24x36 ratio on full frame sensors?  Why aren't photographic papers created to match the size of the capture media?  

 

Sorry if this sounds silly, but it's something I can't quite understand.

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

 

 

Hello Lencap,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

1 possibility for this mis-match in negative & paper sizes might be because: The same people who designed the hot dog package to hold 8 hot dogs & then went on to invent the hot dog bun package which holds 10 hot dog buns: Might have been hired to develop the standards for 35mm negative compatibility with the then pre-existant paper sizes.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Axelwik]

Back in the day photographers used large format cameras and contact printed their work. 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 etc. were, and are, standard large format film sizes. Medium and miniature formats just had to adapt, and they still do.

[01af]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Axelwik:

... and they still do.

Exactly.

And on top of that, an aspect ratio of 1.5:1 (or 3:2) is just ugly.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Pyrogallol]

I have been using Ilford A4 size paper for decades, which is just right for 35mm negs. A size is 1: 1.414141 recurring ratio.

Once a year Ilford make sheet film in old format sizes such as half-plate, 4 3/4 x 6 1/2 inches. You need to pre order through a dealer. When I first used sheet film in old wooden book form dark slides I discovered why the film is 1/8th of an inch smaller than the stated size. Because metal inserts could be used inside the wooden plate holders to take sheet film instead of the full size glass plates. I have some of the metal inserts for half-plate.

Edited April 10, 2024 by Pyrogallol

[LocalHero1953]

I often crop landscape images to 16:9 (the constraint of gravity means that our scenes of human activity are laid out on an extended horizontal plane), and portrait images to 10:8 (which nicely frames a head and shoulders, or head, arms and torso). 

Just a personal rationalisation🤷‍♀️