What exactly is 8x10?

rutt

Here's a dumb question. When someone want an 8x10 print to fit "standard frames", what exactly is s/he asking for? Is the print itself 8x10 with some additional border? Or is the whole thing 8x10 including the border?

And why are people so fixated on this particular size which doesn't really match the aspect ratio of cameras?

Andy

http://www.smugmug.com/prints/8x10-prints

arodney

rutt wrote:

Here's a dumb question. When someone want an 8x10 print to fit "standard frames", what exactly is s/he asking for? Is the print itself 8x10 with some additional border? Or is the whole thing 8x10 including the border?

And why are people so fixated on this particular size which doesn't really match the aspect ratio of cameras?

The paper that fits into the frame has to be 8x10 (or it doesn't fit). You can make the image size anything you want within that page size. You could put a 1 inch border around the image (7x9) or anything you so desire. But an 8x10 print is just that, a piece of paper 8x10 inches.

As to the proportions, well folks have been putting paper into frames before photo's came along (certainly those from 35mm film).

Thunder Rabbit

Howdy.

These days, letter sized frames (8.5x11) are widely available, and fit the camera aspect ratio better. You might suggest this to your clients for photos where the 8x10 crop loses something of importance.

Andy

8x12, ftw. Makers are selling 8x12s now, too, more readily.
http://www.framedestination.com/ready_made/fdi_8x12_picture_frame_black/item/rffdix00000000506400/

Oh but not at W*al-M*art, boo-hoo

CatOne

Still, it would be nice if there were more framing options for the SLR format. Finding a frame to fit an 11x17, or 13x19, is nigh impossible in a brick and mortar shop. It's mostly web custom order only.

The people that sell frames are apparently still used to those cheezeball powder-puff soft light studio portraits of senior graduation pictures shot with a 4x5 in a studio, I guess?

ziggy53

In the not too distant past you could order prints as "bordered" or "borderless", depending partly on your use for the prints. Bordered prints were nice if you wanted a traditional matte as it gave you some overlay without losing image area.

You can now create image borders digitally if you want to and you can even do digital mattes including museum mattes and captioned images.

There has never been a better time to produce images to "your" dimensions and then inexpensively matte the image to any kind of standard print size, frame and ratio.

Work with your clients to realize something truly unique.

colourbox

One solution is to try and develop a habit of composing with multiple aspect ratios in mind. I'm still not that good at it but I want to get better at keeping key content away from the edges. It isn't just for 8x10 vs 8x12 (which represent the 4:5 vs 3:2 aspect ratios), but also for those times when the horizon is not straight and needs to be rotated because that will drop content in the corners.

Unlike most still photographers, videographers and cinematographers are very aware of this need and are trained to shoot for it. Pro video and film viewfinders typically display guides that show action-safe and title-safe borders (the outer area that can get cut off with video overscan) plus composition guidelines for different aspect ratios, so that a cinematographer shooting for Hollywood widescreen like 2.39:1 can compose the picture so that if/when the film is later cropped to 16:9 or 4:3 for some other medium, the essential action still makes visual sense. Maybe we need those in our viewfinder too. Some still cameras do, especially those with a one-shot panorama feature.

Anyway, this is not a new, digital problem. It happened any time you composed a 35mm 3:2 film frame all the way to the edges and then realized it wasn't gonna fit in an 8x10 frame.

Anthony

rutt wrote:

[..]

And why are people so fixated on this particular size which doesn't really match the aspect ratio of cameras?

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but 10 x 8 was originally a 'full plate' glass negative size back in the 19th Century. 5 x 4 being quarter plate. Early prints were made as contact prints, hence a 10 x 8 print size.

As we know, once a size or layout gets started, it can survive well past it's original use and appear curious in later contexts. A good example is the early screens on IBM PCs which had 80 columns of text. This is a clear throwback to the Hollerith card produced by IBM called the IBM 80 which was first created in 1928.

Anthony.

CatOne

Anthony wrote:

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but 10 x 8 was originally a 'full plate' glass negative size back in the 19th Century. 5 x 4 being quarter plate. Early prints were made as contact prints, hence a 10 x 8 print size.

As we know, once a size or layout gets started, it can survive well past it's original use and appear curious in later contexts. A good example is the early screens on IBM PCs which had 80 columns of text. This is a clear throwback to the Hollerith card produced by IBM called the IBM 80 which was first created in 1928.

Anthony.

Right.

"The people that sell frames are apparently still used to those cheezeball powder-puff soft light studio portraits of senior graduation pictures shot with a 4x5 in a studio, I guess? "

:-)

Anthony

CatOne wrote:

Right.

"The people that sell frames are apparently still used to those cheezeball powder-puff soft light studio portraits of senior graduation pictures shot with a 4x5 in a studio, I guess? "

:-)

I am curious to know why you quote my post in full and then reiterate your comments from an earlier posting.

Here in the UK frames come in a range of sizes, including ISO sizes and I cannot say I have had any problem in purchasing appropriate sized frames.

By the way, what is a cheezeball (or is it cheeseball) ?

Anthony.

cmason

I solved this by purchasing a very simple matte cutting kit. Buy my own mattes, and then I can put 5x7 in any frame, or an 8x10 in a 11x17 etc. Gotta get used to lots of matte, but I like the results.