Why paper manufacturers doesn't sell paper larger than size of the negative?

[SAShruby]

If you read books about archiving, the recommendation is to leave make print of bigger paper to prevent oxidation. Oxidation start at the edges and slowly penetrates toward center. It would protect quality of you print more efficiently that having print size match the size of the paper

So, if I do 8x10 contacts from negative, why we don't have paper like 9x11? Oh, I know what you say, use 11x14, but in my opinion that is a big waste. What about 16x20? I'd rather use 17x21 than 20x24.

Would you agree?

[Gene McCluney]

Traditionally prints have had a white border, usually 1/4 inch all the way around. To achieve this with contact prints one would either mask the negative, or create a separate mask to sandwich. Contact prints from contact negatives are such a small, very small part of printmaking in general it would not be cost effective to make the sizes you wish. Most printing is by enlarging, and in enlarging you can set the borders of your easel to make however large a border that you wish.

Good print processing and washing to archival standards, then proper mounting and display can minimize the oxidation you mention.

[rippo]

you can occasionally get 8.5x11 paper though. ilford makes some glossy RC in that size...which is probably not what you're after.

[SAShruby]

IMO, good print processing won't eliminate oxidation. Oxidation is natural effect caused by air being acidic, which is always. It's in the air and oxidation starts at the weakest point, the edge, you cannot prevent it. Therefore it is suggested to leave some white border around print, so oxidation would chew it, instead the your masterpiece.

[Oren Grad]

Harman lists Ilford Multigrade IV FB, FB WT, IV RC and RC WT in 24x30.5 cm size as standard stock items at the factory. You can order the RC papers in that size from B&H online, or ask your favorite dealer to contact Wynit and find out how to get the FB papers in that size.

[Vaughn]

Snip...Would you agree?


No. The extra paper when using 11x14 for an 8x10 contact is nice to have -- it keeps the image area nice and flat, lots of edge for handling without getting near the image area, and gives the image a lot of room to breathe if one is just showing unmatted contact prints. And besides, it really is not all that much "extra"...2" on each long side and 1.5" on the each of the short side.

In other words, I don't sweat the extra paper...compared to everything else it is pretty cheap. If you want to pinch pennies, do all your proofing and trials on 8x10, then use the 11x14 for the final print(s).

Vaughn

[Nick_3536]

Buy 10" roll paper.

[Randy H]

OR...
I got one helluvadeal on a roll of Ilford MG IV RC 48 inch X 500 feet. Something like 25 or 30 USD and shipping. PITA cutting it in current darkroom. More becuse of size of cutter than size of roll. But, if I really really wanted a 48X96 print, I got it. Got enough paper to last a while. I just guesstimate "way too big" for initial cut, and then trim to size. The full rolls of paper go real cheap on the 'Bay and recently a lab was closing near here, and had a few smaller rolls of Supra III that sold (or not, don't remember) cheap. Asking price was cheap, anyway.

[Sal Santamaura]

Why don't paper manufacturers sell paper a bit larger than the negative? They do! But one must be wise enought to shoot 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 negatives and print them on 8x10 paper. :)

[CG]

20x24 cut into 4 pieces makes for 10x12" paper. 8x10 image with 1 " all round.

C

[Ole Tjugen]

I can't remember ever havin come across this particular "problem" before...

I make 13x18cm prints on 18x24cm paper, 18x24cm prints on 24x30cm paper, 24x30cm prints on 30x40cm paper, and so on...

[SAShruby]

Well, maybe I was missunderstood. It was more theoretical question. If life was perfect, which is not, IMO, paper should be larger that negative. By one inch. Plenty of room to work with and have it ready for archival.

It is a simple question to discuss about why they don't do it, not to find an alternative. I don't want to cut paper nor buy RC paper or any other solution. I have 8x10 neg and I'd use 9x11. Not any other "classic" standard. Purpose, Quantity, Technology, Price, it all changed. There were practical reasons to do classic sizes in the past, but I believe they're not today. Price is a factor if you do one print and waste 15 20x24 on 16x20 final print instead size of 17x21. You'll cut almot 25% of your expenses to accomplish same outcome.

[Vaughn]

Well, maybe I was missunderstood. It was more theoretical question. If life was perfect, which is not, IMO, paper should be larger that negative. By one inch. Plenty of room to work with and have it ready for archival....snip.

Ahh, the perfect world! IMO, 9x11 is too small for contact printing an 8x10...perfection, IMO, would be 10x12 or even 11x13...but I'll settle for the imperfection of 11x14.

To each their own perfection...

Vaughn