Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 13 posts | 
by James McIntyre on Fri May 18, 2012 6:43 pm
User avatar
James McIntyre
Lifetime Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Member #:00068
Moab Paper announced on May 4 that their Entrada Bright cotton rag paper is now available in 17x25 size:
http://moabpaper.com/moab-support-forum ... ost1818760
http://moabpaper.com/entrada-rag-bright-300/

This will allow 16x24 prints (35 mm camera aspect ratio) with 1/2" borders to be made conveniently on the Epson 17" printers (3800, 3880, 4800, 4880, 4900).

Hooray! Hopefully Entrada Natural will follow if this offering is successful.

For a novel exhibition of large unframed prints on Entrada paper by California artist Naida Osline (http://www.naidaosline.com/Biography/biography.html), see:
http://photomation.com/index.php/blog/2012/04
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri May 18, 2012 6:56 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Good news!
 

by James McIntyre on Fri May 18, 2012 8:42 pm
User avatar
James McIntyre
Lifetime Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Member #:00068
Yes indeed.

Is that your portrait in Naida's exhibition? :-)
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri May 18, 2012 10:29 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86760
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
:?:
 

by James McIntyre on Sun May 20, 2012 1:41 am
User avatar
James McIntyre
Lifetime Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Member #:00068
E.J. Peiker wrote:Good news!
Maybe not so good after all. The only 17x25 sheet paper currently available from Moab is 300 g Entrada Bright in 50-sheet packages @ $221.98 ($4.44 per sheet): http://moabpaper.com/entrada-rag-bright-300/

That's a pretty heavy investment unless you're firmly committed to this paper. Moab should offer smaller packages (10- or 25-sheet) if they want their 17x25 size to catch on.

Strangely a 17x25 sheet cut from a 17"x40' roll ($110.98) is more expensive at $5.78.

As I mentioned previously, FRAME DESTINATION offers an inexpensive 17x25 metal frame if you don't want to mat: http://www.framedestination.com/NL_read ... frame.html
 

by LouBuonomo on Mon May 21, 2012 11:23 am
LouBuonomo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5093
Joined: 8 Aug 2004
Location: Hendersonville, NC
I would like Slickrock in that size... but not 50 sheets !
[url=http://www.nwpli.com]NWPLI Member[/url] http://www.westhighland-imaging.com - Member of NANPA
NSN #353
 

by James McIntyre on Thu May 24, 2012 6:15 pm
User avatar
James McIntyre
Lifetime Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Member #:00068
I just received an Email from RED RIVER PAPER listing their available papers, sizes and prices:
http://us.mg205.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launc ... p1mlhn934u

Of particular interest are their 17x25 papers. There is a total of 13 available; they are favorably priced and available in economical 20-25 sheet packages.

I have not yet tested the Moab Entrada paper or any of the Red River papers so cannot compare their appearance and quality. I hope to soon. Hopefully others will share their experiences.
 

by abiggs on Sat May 26, 2012 7:32 pm
User avatar
abiggs
Regional Moderator
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Member #:00119
Since 17x25 is not a standard size, box costs are quite high. It makes more sense to allocate the cost of a much more expensive box to more sheets in the box, as opposed to only 20 or 25. Just a quick explanation.
Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris & Workshops
[url=http://www.theglobalphotographer.com]My Blog[/url]
 

by James McIntyre on Sun May 27, 2012 7:45 pm
User avatar
James McIntyre
Lifetime Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Member #:00068
abiggs wrote:Since 17x25 is not a standard size, box costs are quite high. It makes more sense to allocate the cost of a much more expensive box to more sheets in the box, as opposed to only 20 or 25. Just a quick explanation.
Andy, I think most of us understand the economics. But is it the best marketing strategy for Moab only to offer 17x25 ENTRADA BRIGHT in 50-sheet lots? What is the cost of a cardboard box? A couple of dollars?

If Moab wants to capture some of the 17x25 market they must attract buyers, even if they have to use a loss leader to build volume. Their first offering of the less expensive KAYENTA matte paper in this size was apparently unsuccessful.

Meanwhile I look forward to trying out the 4 ENTRADA papers offered in their sample pack (2 sheets of each).
 

by abiggs on Sun May 27, 2012 7:55 pm
User avatar
abiggs
Regional Moderator
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Member #:00119
The economic reality is that 17x25 sheets are much much less popular than 17x22, and also have a much lower yield from a master roll / sheet. This means more waste, and thus a higher cost per sheet. Boxes that size are much more than a couple of bucks, unfortunately.
Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris & Workshops
[url=http://www.theglobalphotographer.com]My Blog[/url]
 

by James McIntyre on Mon May 28, 2012 10:34 pm
User avatar
James McIntyre
Lifetime Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Member #:00068
abiggs wrote:The economic reality is that 17x25 sheets are much much less popular than 17x22, and also have a much lower yield from a master roll / sheet.
It's not clear to me why 17x22 is the preferred size. It will accommodate 16x20 (portrait format) prints well, but not those with higher aspect ratios (landscape format) as we are discussing here. Assuming minimum border widths of 1/2", the largest available image sizes with 4:3 and 3:2 ARs are about 15.75x21 and 14x21, respectively. With 17x25 paper, the corresponding maximum sizes are 16x20, 16x21.33 and 16x24. Note the 30.6% increase in area for 35 mm format prints! That's significant.

For 1.618:1 (Golden Ratio) and 16:9 (HDTV format) images, the mismatch with 17x22 paper is even worse.

Perhaps these are some of the reasons why the 17x25 size is increasingly being offered by several paper manufacturers, although not by the majors.
 

by abiggs on Tue May 29, 2012 11:15 am
User avatar
abiggs
Regional Moderator
Posts: 3108
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Member #:00119
Good roundabout question, actually. The entire paper industry has revolved around the press and pre-press industry for quite a long time. In North America the 8.5x11 standard began many many moons ago. 11x17 is twice an 8.5x11 sheet. 17x22 is a 4-up version of 8.5x11. This allows pre-press folks to proof 4 pages on a single sheet. Like it or not, there are many many people out there who use inkjet printers who aren't photographers. Digital artists, fine art reproduction, pre-press and so on. We are just one spoke in the wheel.

Personally I prefer huge flat sheets, such as 24x36, 30x40 and 24x30. This allows me to print a nice size image, like a 16x24, and still have the all-important white border around the edges. This border allows me or my customers to handle a print and not damage the actual printed area. It's just extra insurance.
Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris & Workshops
[url=http://www.theglobalphotographer.com]My Blog[/url]
 

by James McIntyre on Tue May 29, 2012 4:02 pm
User avatar
James McIntyre
Lifetime Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Member #:00068
abiggs wrote:The entire paper industry has revolved around the press and pre-press industry for quite a long time. In North America the 8.5x11 standard began many many moons ago.
Andy, thanks for providing some perspective on the long history of photo paper sizes in the press and pre-press industries. In contrast, inkjet printers have only been available for about 15 years; those with pigment inks even less. Their development opened up huge new markets for companies such as Canon, Epson, HP and others. These markets have continued to expand even further with the development of affordable digital cameras.

The quality of prints that can now be made by amateur photographers, such as the majority of members of NSN, is truly remarkable. Most of these photographers use affordable desktop printers, beginning with 13"-wide models such as the Epson 2200 and more recently expanding to the 17" size, which is on the borderline of the wide formats used by professionals.

With the continuing growth of this field, we can hope to see more useful paper sizes evolve - such as 17x25. This allows impressive 16x24 prints (such as those you favor) to be made conveniently, inexpensively and quickly. Compare this with the lengthy and taxing dye transfer process used by master printers such as pioneer Eliot Porter and more recently Charlie Cramer.

It would be interesting to know the history of the popular 13x19 (SuperB/A3+) size. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
13 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group