Digital BW, The Print

Bob Frost wrote:

> Ernst,
> 
> What sizes of paper do you find aesthetic?
> 
> Bob Frost.

Many sizes, depending on the image shape, but not the in my view 
long A sizes. While it was my choice when I printed 35mm in the 
past (as a student).  But that was more a cost aspect, it filled 
the size well with small margins.  With wider margins around the 
image the A sizes become problematic, the image shape gets even 
longer than the 35 mm (or close to  6x9) aspect ratio is. And I'm 
not doing panoramas (yet) so it isn't my choice.

I used to print posters (in silkscreen) for an old designer who 
couldn't get beyond the golden rule aspect ratio, I assure you 
that that size can become boring after 8 years printing. And that 
size is even longer than an A size.

The 24x30 cm photo paper size (ratio 5:6) etc are too close to 
square, while I like square again since I'm using the Iskra 6x6 
folder :-)

The US letter size may not be the standard, it has however almost 
the same aspect ratio as 56 x 72 mm (Linhof's ideal format, 6x7 
in practice) is usable for 35mm full frame (or 6x9) with wider 
margins and I personally find its shape nicer. it isn't a photo 
size but the much smaller 18x24 cm comes close to its aspect ratio.

Using roll paper now and the customer decides so it isn't my 
problem. As an amateur I don't think I use shapes that come near 
A size ratios or longer but I'm not dogmatic.

The best rectangle would be one that gives equal margins around 
with every scale of enlargement, pity that only the square works 
like that :-)

You see it is an arbitrary, subjective, conflicting mix of 
opinions like most aesthetic values are :-) And they change in 
time like they should.

Ernst

P.S.
A  sizes serve a purpose but don't add too much value to them. 
Lots of other sized papers available here and even in Japan that 
is more metric than Europe.  While it is nice that an A2 can be 
cut in half to get two A3's and an A3 can be cut in half to get 
two A4's there's something odd going on. How many users actually 
do that ?  The paper distribution chain can use that nice aspect 
only for unprinted stock that goes to the customer unprinted. But 
the printer needs a sheet that is larger than an A size for grip 
on the press, cutting it straight before it gets on the press, 
etc. That larger sheet can't be halved before the printrun on 
another smaller press because the margin for grip has to stay as 
wide as it was on the double sheet. All kinds of paper sizes that 
are a bit larger than A sizes available at the printer supplier 
and they can't be halved. I doubt that there's less waist in 
Europe with A sizes than there's in the US with a more sloppy 
standard. Small sheets usually are made of a lower weight paper 
than larger sheets as they are used for different tasks. When it 
is possible to cut a sheet in halves on its thickness the picture 
changes but that's not happening in my time :-)
The standard is a good thing for equipment that has to work with 
it and a worldwide standard will even be better. But I'm printing 
56x76 cm serigraphs right now on halved Arches Velin sheets of 
80x120 cm on a 100x140 cm Thieme silkscreen machine. Only the 
last has some relation to B size (same ratio as A size but 1.4 
larger in M2). Metrification of the whole world (including paper 
weight) is far more important than paper size standarisation.