Dilemma. My pictures are too good.

#21

"Frank Arthur" <Art (AT) Arthurian (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
news:1351ia4s038vr93 (AT) news (DOT) supernews.com...
Frank Arthur wrote:

Dilemma

My pictures are too good. I've got a digital camera that can shoot in
rapid sequence.

Please tell me you aren't considering DX lenses "good" are you? If so,
you've got a lot to learn.

I learned that you are a troll.

Not only are you a troll but the difference between you and Rita is that you
appear to have many more psychological problems than he does.

Greg

--
"What have you got in that paper bag?
Is it a dose of Vitamin C?
Ain't got no time for Western medicine
I am Damo Suzuki" - Mark E Smith

#22

Obviously, this is very important to you, but the only answer you are
willing to accept is if the industry adapts to the solution you have in
mind ASAP.

This is not about world peace or the cure for cancer, but I understand
you wish to be able to print your images at 8" x 12" (exactly?? or with
some borders, or what??) Most people who mat their images need some
extra paper to place under the mat to keep it in place. Some people
like to use a white paper border around the image using a slightly
enlarged mat hole.

However, there are some somewhat reasonable answers to your dilemma. As
others have mentioned, you could use roll paper. You could print
smaller, making a 7.3 x 11 inch print, or a 6.66 x 10" print. You could
buy any of several larger sizes and cut them into two or two plus 8" x
12" prints... Such as: 12" x 18" (Xerox sells paper like this, and
others) making two 12" x 8" and leaving 2" left, or 13" x 19", make two
8" x 12", leaving one inch in one direction and 3" in the other.

Or, I just googled this:

Epson makes a 16" wide paper x 100 feet. Cut it down the middle and you
have 200 sheets of 8" x 12" with no waste. The cost is $104 US, or
about $.52 per sheet of 10 mil semimatte. Or, if you need Canvas, Epson
offers a 13" x 20' roll, that makes 26 - 13" x 9" canvases at $3.00
each, allow for a 1/2" border per side.

There may well be others. I think it is fine to lobby Epson and others
for this change, but it may take a while, and in the meantime you do
have alternatives until you get traction.

If you really want to get a rise, see about going to one of the petition
websites and then link people to it, and finally submit it to these
manufacturers.

Art

They also have a bunch of other roll inkjet paper.

http://www.vistek.ca/details/details...Pri nterPaper

Frank Arthur wrote:

Quote:

Dilemma

My pictures are too good. I've got a digital camera that can shoot in rapid
sequence.
I'm using VR zoom lenses of high quality and autofocus instantly. I can now
compose
in the viewfinder, zoom to fill the frame and rip off 2,3, 10 images in
seconds. Hard
not to get a good well composed, well exposed, well framed image.
That's the dilemma. I finally got the "ultimate" technique down pat thanks
to the new
technologies.
I can't print that well cropped image because the proportions of the Digital
image is
2:3 but I can't readily print it without being forced to crop and lose part
of the
image because Photo Paper is proportioned 4:5.

Until recently because of the Camera/Lens limitations we tended to shoot and
include
much more of the subject knowing we would crop later. We had to because we
simply couldn't
compose accurately enough fast enough. Now that you can achieve in camera
cropping with
frequent success we are able to make use of all the pixels we see leading to
a better
sharper overall image. Now we need to make use of Photo Paper to match our
image media
which cries out for a 8 x 12 Photo Paper size. Epson or HP do not produce
Photo Paper
with 2:3 ratio yet (except for their 4x6 size).
This will happen when customers ask for it.
Believe it or not there are anti-8 x 12 Photo Paper posters out there too.

#23

Well, you are showing your age ;-)

There were 4" x 5" and 8" x 10" view cameras which made that size
negative (sheet film) and the paper could be contact printed, or
enlarged as such. This ratio was standard for many years for
professional photographers.
Many non-35mm roll films were square, including relatively recent
instamatic 126.

Here's a list of roll and sheet film formats throughout the ages, and
when they were popular:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

Art

Roy G wrote:

Quote:

"Frank Arthur" <Art (AT) Arthurian (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:4K34i.4636$Hk.2474 (AT) bignews8 (DOT) bellsouth.net...

Dilemma

So what's new??

Paper sizes, apart from 6 x 4, have never matched up to Negative or Sensor
proportions.

Would you also suggest that paper be made available in proportions to match
all the different Med Format Film Cameras, and the 4 x 3 sensor format of P
& S Cameras.

In any case, I rarely find that images look their best in the 3 x 2 format,
it is just that little bit too long and thin. They nearly always require
some cropping.

Paper does cut quite easily, and if it is a really good picture, what the
hell if a bit of paper is wasted, by trimming, or if some is used as a nice
white margin.

When prints are going to be mounted onto standard 20 x 16 boards, in
Portrait Orientation, some trimming is essential if the bottom margin is
going to be equal or larger than the sides and top margins.

Are you also going to suggest that Exhibition Boards and Frames be changed
to the 3 x 2 format.

Roy G

#24

I think at this point, this discussion needs to be redirected to the
appropriate newsgroups. This is a photographic issue, not a printer
issue, so can we start placing these many tangents into the correct
newsgroups?

I am sending this one message to all three groups as a suggestion. From
this point onward I will direct as appropriately.

Art

Frank Arthur wrote:

Quote:

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
news:1351ia4s038vr93 (AT) news (DOT) supernews.com...

Frank Arthur wrote:

Dilemma

My pictures are too good. I've got a digital camera that can shoot in
rapid sequence.

Please tell me you aren't considering DX lenses "good" are you? If so,
you've got a lot to learn.

And you believe these Nikkor lenses are "no good"
DX Nikkor Lenses for DX Format Digital SLRs
10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor
12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor
18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW!
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor
17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW!

Rita

#25

I enjoyed your sardonic response, but you actually raise an interesting
point that is relevant to this discussion.

One principal usage of photography commercially is the portrait or head
shot, and for that, the old standard 8 x10 ratio is just about perfect.
Our heads pretty much fit into that format in a nice balanced manner.
That may, in part, explain the continued value of that format.

Art

Bill Funk wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps I was too hasty in my previous response.
After giving this some thoiught, I am willing to put my personal
safety in jeopardy by revealing the secret committee that will address
your concern.
This Committee is secret, and very jealous of its power and control
which demands this secrecy. Thus, I am at grave risk of having my
credentials as a photographer (such as they are) being revoked with
extreme prejudice. You will understand if I don't reveal *ALL* of the
Committee's secrets.
The Committee is headquartered in Belgium, with individual Members
spread throughout the world. The Committee evaluates are questions
regarding all aspects of photography, including photographic paper
sizes, and therefore has the authority to look into your concerns.
However, first your claim to have reached the level of photography
where you can say, "My pictures are too good" will need to be
verified.
To do this, you will need to post photos (at full resolution and best
quality) at least ten (10) photos you consider to be representative of
your claim in each the following categories:

Glamour (not to be confused with porn)
Portrait

CUT

#26

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp (AT) mvps (DOT) org> wrote

Quote:

Obviously, this is very important to you, but the only answer you are
willing to accept is if the industry adapts to the solution you have in
mind ASAP.

This is not about world peace or the cure for cancer, but I understand you
wish to be able to print your images at 8" x 12" (exactly?? or with some
borders, or what??) Most people who mat their images need some extra
paper to place under the mat to keep it in place. Some people like to use
a white paper border around the image using a slightly enlarged mat hole.

However, there are some somewhat reasonable answers to your dilemma. As
others have mentioned, you could use roll paper. You could print smaller,
making a 7.3 x 11 inch print, or a 6.66 x 10" print. You could buy any of
several larger sizes and cut them into two or two plus 8" x 12" prints...
Such as: 12" x 18" (Xerox sells paper like this, and others) making two
12" x 8" and leaving 2" left, or 13" x 19", make two 8" x 12", leaving one
inch in one direction and 3" in the other.

Or, I just googled this:

Epson makes a 16" wide paper x 100 feet. Cut it down the middle and you
have 200 sheets of 8" x 12" with no waste. The cost is $104 US, or about
$.52 per sheet of 10 mil semimatte. Or, if you need Canvas, Epson offers
a 13" x 20' roll, that makes 26 - 13" x 9" canvases at $3.00 each, allow
for a 1/2" border per side.

There may well be others. I think it is fine to lobby Epson and others
for this change, but it may take a while, and in the meantime you do have
alternatives until you get traction.

If you really want to get a rise, see about going to one of the petition
websites and then link people to it, and finally submit it to these
manufacturers.

Art

They also have a bunch of other roll inkjet paper.

http://www.vistek.ca/details/details...Pri nterPaper

Frank Arthur wrote:

Dilemma

My pictures are too good. I've got a digital camera that can shoot in
rapid sequence.
I'm using VR zoom lenses of high quality and autofocus instantly. I can
now compose
in the viewfinder, zoom to fill the frame and rip off 2,3, 10 images in
seconds. Hard
not to get a good well composed, well exposed, well framed image.
That's the dilemma. I finally got the "ultimate" technique down pat
thanks to the new
technologies.
I can't print that well cropped image because the proportions of the
Digital image is
2:3 but I can't readily print it without being forced to crop and lose
part of the
image because Photo Paper is proportioned 4:5.

Until recently because of the Camera/Lens limitations we tended to shoot
and include
much more of the subject knowing we would crop later. We had to because
we simply couldn't
compose accurately enough fast enough. Now that you can achieve in camera
cropping with
frequent success we are able to make use of all the pixels we see leading
to a better
sharper overall image. Now we need to make use of Photo Paper to match
our image media
which cries out for a 8 x 12 Photo Paper size. Epson or HP do not produce
Photo Paper
with 2:3 ratio yet (except for their 4x6 size).
This will happen when customers ask for it.
Believe it or not there are anti-8 x 12 Photo Paper posters out there
too.

Yes Arthur things take time. In the meantime I continue to print my 8 x 12's

using Epson
Premium Glossy Paper on 11 x 14 sheets and trim to size. The other
alternative for most
of my work is printing on 8 1/2 x 11 sheets whenever I can.
I continue to press Epson for 8 x12 because I believe they will market that
size if there are
enough people asking for it. Conversely if no one asks there is no chance of
offering that size.

#27

On Tue, 22 May 2007 03:13:51 GMT, Arthur Entlich
<e-printerhelp (AT) mvps (DOT) org> wrote:

Quote:

I enjoyed your sardonic response, but you actually raise an interesting
point that is relevant to this discussion.

One principal usage of photography commercially is the portrait or head
shot, and for that, the old standard 8 x10 ratio is just about perfect.
Our heads pretty much fit into that format in a nice balanced manner.
That may, in part, explain the continued value of that format.

Art

Well, my head isn't square.

But if you like 8x10, what's your problem?

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Mormon Bishop Anthony Owens was put in jail
in Atlanta Friday after four women testified
he proposed to them. He's already served two
terms in prison for bigamy. Before they locked
him up, he was five points ahead of Rudy Giuliani
in New Hampshire.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Dilemma. My pictures are too good.

Printers Technical discussion of printers (comp.periphs.printers)

Re: Dilemma. My pictures are too good. - 05-21-2007 , 08:43 PM

Re: Dilemma. My pictures are too good. - 05-21-2007 , 10:02 PM

Re: Dilemma. My pictures are too good. - 05-21-2007 , 10:19 PM

Re: Dilemma. My pictures are too good. - 05-21-2007 , 10:36 PM

Re: Dilemma. My pictures are too good. - 05-21-2007 , 11:13 PM

Re: Dilemma. My pictures are too good. - 05-22-2007 , 11:58 AM

Re: Dilemma. My pictures are too good. - 05-22-2007 , 12:13 PM