![]() I would have been so nice and efficient if the photo industry had switched to a standard aspect ratio of 1:√2 ≈ 1:1.41 and the ISO 126 (a.k.a DIN) paper sizes A5, A4, A3, A2 etc, see. I think it's pretty ridiculous that the size of a print in 2017 has to be the same as a glass plate of 100 years ago. It's the "we've always done it like that, why change" attitude instead of a "how can we improve" attitude. A 100 sheet box of paper gives me 100 sheets to work with while still giving me the supplies to 'dial in' things on the first few tests.Ĭlick to expand.Essentially it's an unwillingness to change/adapt/modernize/standardize from the photo industry. Is the market pressure for 8x10 kept high simply because 8x10 is the most readily available option around that size?īut personally I look at it as how much do you really waste in cutting your paper to your specifications? For the cost of the effort of slicing the paper down to the size and aspect ratio that you specifically want, you get sheets for your actual prints, plus a stack of test strips to work with. Of course there is the question of how much chicken and egg is going on for it. Given that 6圆 medium format is my main usage this days I'm not overly impressed with the lack of ready off the shelf options for 6圆" and 8x8" printing and presentation supplies. The fact that we still aren't seeing 2x3 ratio on things like matted frames taking over from the 4x5 ratio would suggest that the market pressure is still strongly in favour of the squarer format. 4圆" seems common enough over 4x5", but the market share seems to slip greatly in favour of 4x5 ratios once you step up into the larger sizes. 8x10 is far more common in not only paper stock, but also framing supplies from what I've seen. Only reason I've really heard so far has been 'tradition'.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |