I never thought of myself as a Revolutionary for seeking Epson or HP Photo
Paper in 8 x 12 size
to match the 2:3 ratio of 35mm film cameras and most Digital Cameras in use
today.
Somehow I fully expected that users would support the need for such a useful
size prints that
is regularly supplied by vendors like Costco.
Instead, like the days of Frankenstein, instead of the villagers with
pitchforks, clubs and torches
using the modern equivilent- newsgroups to pound the Revolutionary into the
ground.
Do like the rest of us, cut down larger sheets! Get a life and live within
4:5 ratio paper!
Crop even though you don't want to just like the rest of us! Fool- who are
you to be asking
for 8 x12? If paper manufacturers aren't going to change for you- live with
it!

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

PISS OFF

"Roy G" <roy.gibson1 (AT) REMOVE (DOT) tesco.net> wrote

Well Roy G. You've made your contribution to this newsgroup today.

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


There is little point in continuing to present reasonable arguments to you.
I, and many others, have done so.

You just dismiss all of them, you never even consider that you might just be
wrong.

Are you really surprised that I have now lowered my standards to something
which you might understand.

PISS OFF.

I don't think anyone is wishing to flog, lynch or burn you at the stake.

I do think that many people have tried to offer you solutions for the
time being, all of which you have rejected out of hand. I don't think
anyone minds, and some support the idea of other paper sizes. The
problem is that with the many different and changing aspect ratios being
offered in digital technologies (It is much easier to change sensor
ratios from a manufacturing approach, than that of film formats), and
most digital cameras today offer several "standard" ratios to select
from, and if you look into sensor chip sizes, you'll find they vary
considerably not only in digicams but even in DSLRs.

So, even assuming everyone wanted to shoot and print at the highest form
ratio their camera provided, their still would not be an agreement.
As a result, there really is no standard anymore. Considering the 135
film format, which became the most accepted standard in the industry in
terms of total sales of film (35mm was introduced in 1934) and that
still never inspired the paper industry to change the standard ratio,
hoping to force change now, when the digital sensor format is in so much
flux, may be a bit overly hopeful.

Also, keep in mind that inkjet printers are used for many
non-photographic purposes, from signs, to brochures, to graphic art and
composite images, and reproduction of other art forms, and the paper
formats offered have been available in those markets for literally
centuries.

Art
Art


Frank Arthur wrote:

Roy G is actually a pretty nice person and quite knowledgeable. He is,
Yeap, Bait Gator is correct. On very rare occasions, Roy Gibson adds a
minor word of wisdom to this newsgroup. Unfortunately, when one
considers the massive amount of worthless and odorous piss and vinegar
he sprays over most everything else, what he leaves behind makes those
few bits of any worth of little value in the bigger picture. He shows
little tolerance, and no compassion and I expect if he was a guest at
his own bed and breakfast, he'd find him so detrimental to the other
guest that he'd kick himself out and ask him never to return.

I actually bothered to look over Roy's contributions to this newsgroup
over the last few months, and the vast majority was worthless bitching,
complaining and belittling of the intellect of others, which, and I
realize this is only my opinion, doesn't even come close to the value
he's "added" here.

Art



Roy G wrote: