Epson’s Unofficial Response to Jeff’s Paper Size Rant
Last week, Epson announced their groundbreaking new Signature Worthy Exhibition Fiber Art paper, and after I wrote about it here on the blog, Jeff Revell (Over at the popular Jeff’s Photo Gallery Blog), did a post (he called it a rant), about Epson’s choice of only offering European paper sizes here in the U.S. (you can read Jeff’s rant right here).
Once we got our hands on the paper (and totally freaked out), I invited Epson’s Dan Steinhardt (everybody knows him as “Dano”), down to shoot a special segment for Photoshop User TV (you know this has to be some incredible paper to do a special segment on it. In fact, we’ve NEVER done a segment on paper, but this warrants it).
Anyway, Dano happened to mention that he read Jeff’s comments and had an “unofficial” response, so here it is in Dano’s unofficial words.
“My understanding is that the paper sizes are not European, but are ISO worldwide standards that are based on the Metric system. It’s also my understanding that Canada and the US are the only two regions in the world that don’t use the ISO worldwide standard, probably because it’s metric, and we like our feet in inches. Tradtional photograpy sizes (8×10, etc.) are all based on the aspect ratio of a view camera, so you could gang up, on a contact sheet, four 4×5 negatives and contact them onto one sheet of 8×10, and then 16×20 was the correct aspect from 4×5, to 8×10, to 16×20, etc.
11×14 is probably the exception, and I think it was based on the 5×7 view camera, but that’s 10×14, so it doesn’t quite work. The majority of people today work in a 35mm aspect ratio (which is 24×36), which means you have to crop to 16×20, or 8×10. There are many people who think the ISO sizes are closer to the aspect ratio of a 35mm frame, and what we see is, an almost equal number of people who like the new sizes, to those who prefer the North American photography sizes. So, while Epson is looking at bringing out traditional North American photography sizes, there are a growing number of people who prefer the new sizes. But we certainly recogize the installed base of pre-made frames, and storage boxes, and while Epson is not getting into the framing business, there might be an opportunity there for somebody.”
OK, there you have it: the totally unofficial take from Dano. Hey, that’s good enough for me.
Canada is officially using the metric system. meters, kilograms, liters, etc. But the problem is more of market, supplies and the legacy, what people are used to, etc.
I don’t think it has anything to do with metric paper sizes. The real issue, as you touched on, is the aspect ratio of the camera.
By far the vast majority of frames in the frame shops are based on archaic sizes… specifically 5×7 and 8×10. I don’t take ANY pictures that fit in that format without an EXTREME crop… because I have a digital SLR that is a 3×2 aspect ratio. I am not using a 4×5 view camera… and I have NEVER used a 4×5 view camera.
Many times I have tried to crop one of my shots to fit into an 8×10 frame… and it fails miserably. I simply don’t compose that way, and I’m forced to crop something out that drastically affects the picture.
So I have an Epson 3800… and it does a great job with 11×17 and 13×19 photos. But I go to the frame shop and they have… nothing. What am I to do but buy a Hassie H3D and recompose? Or buy a 4×5 and scan pictures on an Imacon for $100/frame? NO THANKS.
The problem IMO is the framing industry… they need to realize that the world is no longer photographers in stuffy studios taking high-school senior pictures with frizzy hair and ridiculous backlights. The vast majority of people who are printing today are shooting with digital SLRs, and aside from Olympus and Leica, they are shooting with a 3×2 format. Which means, we need papers that fit that format. And we need frames that fit the papers.
Along these lines, who knows of a good online source where I can buy mats that are 11×17 interior and fit in a 16×20 frame? Same for a 13×19 that will fit in a 20×24 frame? Would like acid free window mats
As sent to Jeff Revell previously: Have you priced the cost of 8×10 paper vs 8.5×11? At one site that offers both, the 8.5×11 is actually cheaper than the smaller 8×10. There are probably some historic reasons, but for a photographer with a paper cutter what makes more sense? Plus with Photoshop who doesn’t crop to the desired output size as a primary step. Moot rant.
for John Smith, check out archivalmethods.com, I use them for my 13×19s, you can get mat’s in packs of 5, and they come with the backboards, get the archival tape to hinge the print. They have full frame kits also.
I can live with 13×19 paper — I make full frame 5D 12×18 prints with nice 1/2″ margins. Cut in half, I make 8×12 prints with two 1/2″ margins and two 3/4″ margins. It’s the refusal to offer an alternative to 17″x22″ that bugs me. Sure, if I crop to a 4:5 ratio, I can make a 16×20 print. But I really want to make 16×24 prints! To do that I must buy roll paper (for my 4800), or cut down a 24×30 sheet if I want the heavier stock. Why not offer 17″x25″ paper??? None of the paper manufacturers do. You’d think it would be a natural seller, at least selling as much as 17×22.
I’m pretty sure the only reason we still use non-metric paper sizes in Canada is because the US uses them. It’s a lot easier to have cross-over. If we listed 8×10 in metric (20.32cm x 25.4cm) it would just be confusing if you’re ordering prints/paper from the US or if someone from the US is ordering prints/paper from Canada.
It’s just easier this way.
It is good to see vendors like Epson taking a stand and supporting international standards such as ISO page sizes. Perhaps the framers will now have a think and consider developing a wider range of frames.
As it is, here in New Zealand, like nearly the rest of the world, we use ISO paper, so I imagine that the market for US paper is actually relatively small compared to the global market. So, two things need to happen.
1. US moves towards supporting ISO paper sizes and joins what is most likely a bigger paper market.
2. Framers worldwide, start moving to provide supporting frames.
I’ve been using the A series paper (mostly A4 and A5) in my Olympus P-400 dye sublimation printer for years. It won’t take anything else. In my case it’s been hard to find and expensive when I do. You can still print 5×7 or 8×10. Just buy a paper trimmer and trim it off. It’s no big deal. I doubt many of us are printing so many photos that we’ll notice the time it takes to trim.
Canada’s highway signs are metric so I figured their paper sizes were metric as well. The things you learn…
Per wikipedia “As of 2007, only the United States, Liberia and Myanmar have not adopted the International System of Units as their primary or sole system of measurement…”
The plain paper setting uses the most ink, whereas glossy film and photo paper settings use the least. The main difference that sets photo paper apart from copy paper is the coating, opacity, brightness, weight, caliper (thickness) and finish.
I wish “Dano” would answer this question: Why no 11 x 17 Luster? I, too, struggled with the framing problem and finally caved to the idea that I would have to cut three inches off the bottom to fit my expensive 11 x 14 portfolio. However, Epson doesn’t even make the 11 x 17 let alone 11 x 14. I can cut 13 x 19 down, or get a 13″ x 32′ roll for my Epson 2400 and STILL have to chop. Why should I have to go to all the extra expense and tedious fuss when Epson could simply provide the most wanted paper in the most wanted size? Don’t they want to sell their paper? I spent all night trying to decide whether to use someone elses paper (extra profiles, more work and expense with that option) or do it Epson’s way (which I consider to be customer abuse). I’m inclined to go with the ones that give me what I need and want and it isn’t Epson. They’ve chosen to torment us with all these unnecessary dilemmas.