Photographer
Marc Damon
Posts: 6562
Biloxi, Mississippi, US
Bump. Very helpful Brent. Thanks.
psst... Click the word first just above my avatar!
Artist/Painter
Hunter GWPB
Posts: 8221
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US
Good thread. Good bump.
It would be nice if frame and mat people adjusted or added to their standard mat/frame sizes to accommodate more digital sized prints. As it is now, everything i shoot MUST be shot with an eye towards cropping for size.
Photographer
Leonard Gee Photography
Posts: 18096
Sacramento, California, US
Laurence Moan wrote:
I don't understand where the 9x12 ratio started. I guess it's European but what film format ever fitted that ratio? Slight historical correction to other posts.
The ratio was a result of Oskar Barnack's invention of the Leica camera. To make a compact camera and not re-invent another film format, he decided to use 35mm movie film. Before 35mm still cameras, the movie industry had standardized on 35mm width film and it was widely available.
The standard movie frame is 18mmx24mm and runs vertically. Since the camera he invented used the film horizontally, Oskar decided to double the frame size to 24mmx36mm. Voilà the 2:3 ratio was born.
Photographer
Viator Defessus Photos
Posts: 1259
Houston, Texas, US
Hunter Wald wrote:
Good thread. Good bump.
It would be nice if frame and mat people adjusted or added to their standard mat/frame sizes to accommodate more digital sized prints. As it is now, everything i shoot MUST be shot with an eye towards cropping for size. I actually am able to find some 12x18, 16x24, 20x30, and 24x36 pre-made frames, but there just aren't very many of them.
I've actually been hunting sales at Micheal's and I've managed to get 6 very nice black 16x24 frames for about $20-30 each, depending on the sale I was able to get at the time. I'm going to be using those to put up some good prints of my work for a display I can show guests and clients.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Laurence Moan wrote:
I don't understand where the 9x12 ratio started. I guess it's European but what film format ever fitted that ratio? My guess are magazines printed to 18x12 sheets (or 13x19 with just barely enough from for crop marks). When the magazine is assembled, each page is now 9x12.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Laurence Moan wrote:
I never consciously think of it ever and when I do try to crop for it I gets crazy! I have better luck with 8.5 x 11 format.
Hey you Euro folks... Is 8.5x11 common for business and desktop printing over there? I think for them it's A4 which is 8.3 x 11.7
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
it's 4:3 and I do not know MF well enough to tell if there is a camera that shoots that aspect ratio on film. Olympus does have 4:3 SLR cameras. I see now that this is an older thread...
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
Mark in MTL wrote:
I've been printing 8.5x11 lately. I resisted at first but it seems to be becoming more popular, and it fits SLR images better which is good because I don't crop much. Me too, in terms of cropping/saving for models and actors, unless they request something else. The reasoning is that most have all-in-one ink jet printers and are likely to do everything in that size. It's also handy for actors because then they can just print their resumes on the backs of the pictures for casting submissions.
All IMHO as always, of course.
EDIT: Yep! just caught the old date, but the reasoning is if anything more valid today than when the quote was posted.
Photographer
Marin Photo NYC
Posts: 7348
New York, New York, US
Well the new 5DmkIII if you shoot in 3:2 you can add crop information for different aspect ratios. Some newer cameras do it although you still have to crop it at least you will know where to crop it to fit a particular aspect ratio like 4:5 and it puts bars there so you can see where the crop lands....
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
New York, New York, US
Laurence Moan wrote:
I never consciously think of it ever and when I do try to crop for it I gets crazy! I have better luck with 8.5 x 11 format.
Hey you Euro folks... Is 8.5x11 common for business and desktop printing over there? Never mind... I was thinking of legal letter size...
Photographer
Vector One Photography
Posts: 3722
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Laurence Moan wrote:
I don't understand where the 9x12 ratio started. I guess it's European but what film format ever fitted that ratio? It's not European, it the size of a standard fashion magazine.
Photographer
LeWhite
Posts: 2038
Los Angeles, California, US
I never saw a mention of 1:1.68 invented by ancient Greek film makers
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
I should probably set my camera back to a 5:4 crop mode. I should be pretty safe with most of the other crops like 9x12, 11x14 in that case right?
Model
Lanamaewicks
Posts: 3
Surprise, Arizona, US
Where is the best place to get 9 X 12 print outs for your portfolio?
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Lanamaewicks wrote:
Where is the best place to get 9 X 12 print outs for your portfolio? The OP prints photos.
Photographer
Brian Diaz
Posts: 65617
Danbury, Connecticut, US
Lanamaewicks wrote:
Where is the best place to get 9 X 12 print outs for your portfolio? This is my personal choice for printing:
http://bluecubeimaging.com/
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
Blue Cube Imaging wrote:
Yeah, I know, 9x12 is a 2.25:3 (or 4:3 for you Olympus shooters) aspect ratio not sure who decided on that one. This is also more similar to a glass plate proportion.
That said, I don't think film proportion has anything to do with magazine proportion. Magazines like Vogue and Bazaar started well before full-bleed printing was an affordable option. They would have had good-size borders regardless of what size they made the magazine.
By the time the 645 format came to high quality cameras, we also had 6x6, 6x7, and all manner of cut film.
It's safe to say that any similarity in proportion is coincidence.
|
