Origin of "standard sizes"

Create a Post
F

Frame Lady

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Posts
407
Loc
Seattle, Washington
In answer to Sherry Lee's question, width first, then height, or as I write everything, horizontal then vertical.

But my question is, how did the 8 x 10, 11 x 14 etc. get started and then become established to become the norm? I read somewhere that 11 x 14 was the most popular size in the US, followed by 8 x 10, 16 x 20, etc. am I right?

I have not researched this topic but you fellow grumblers are so fast at answering questions that I thought I would give you all first crack at it!

Lynn
 
Those are photos sizes. At one time, they made sense as photo sizes since they were proportional to the most common negative size. No more. The popularity of 35mm film (24x36mm) has resulted in 4x6 and 8x12 prints.

The other "standard" frame sizes, like 9x12, 12x16, etc are common canvas board sizes. I don't know how they got to be common canvas board sizes. Maybe drawing papers come in those sizes, too. (You'd think I'd know that, wouldn't you?)

People like to make up their own standard sizes. Someone called the other day to see if I had a 23x37 frame in stock.

I was fresh out.
 
The weird thing about the canvas board size is where they came from...... paint by numbers in the late 50s. Take an 11x14 frame and stick a 1-1/4" liner inside and frame size just became .....
Tah Dah!! 9x12 which is the size of the paint by numbers picture of Pinkey or Blueboy that you just finished and now cant find a frame for in Waskeekee Upstate.
But for 8.95 plus s&h, you can own this high valued fine frame with a real linen liner, just like the one in the museum......
12x16 was just a 14x18. Oops! Now figure out where in the world the 14x18 came from..... :confused:
Hint: don't start down the 8x10 track.....
icon45.gif
faintthud.gif

Aint this biz fun. :D
baer
 
4” x 5” was the standard size for glass negatives in early photography. (it’s still the preferred sized negative for a modern view cameras).

When emulsions got better and people discovered you could enlarge a 4 x 5, those proportions came out to 8 x 10 then 16 x 20, perfectly.

The other odd ball sizes, I am guessing, came from an inebriated picture framer in Wisconsin, somewhere, or were translated from European standards ... same thing!
 
The story i am told closely follows the logic alreay expressed here. I wastold it was derived from Poto plate and development paper sizes.
while this is purely second hand information on my part it does seem to follw. 4X5 plate doubled =18X10 doubled =6X20 doubled =32X40 .So it follows that the ease of simply halfing or quarter the larger paper gives us many if not all standard sizes.14X18 is a hard to find standard but 11X14 X2= 22X28 ,9X12 X2 =18X24 X2 =36X48 ETC.
But as I said this is all second hand so maybe those who are more versed and knowlegable about Photograhical matters can verify this.
BUDDY
 
"4” x 5” was the standard size for glass negatives in early photography. (it’s still the preferred sized negative for a modern view cameras)."

Bill - your half right (or maybe I should say 1/4 right)

The view cameras that used film in the early days (after daggerotites) of photography used glass plates on which the photographer spread his light sensitive emulsion were 8x10" in size.

During WW I most raw materials were in short supply and the 5x7 view camera came upon the scene. After the war, most photographers continued to use the 5x7 format because of it's smaller size & reduced cost of film. Also, around this same time the 11x14 plate camera was introduced for photographing larger groups and to provide a larger photograph. Most photographs of that era were "contact" prints (very few photographers had enlargers) so the print size was the same as the negative.

Around that same time the 4x5 camera was introduced & photographers "cut down" their 8x10 plates into 4 - 4x5 plates - That same camera could also transform into an enlarger (by adding the optional light source) to make larger size prints and by reversing the lens could make smaller prints.
 
Mike,

Your posting was as rich and flavored to me as a savarine. I wish I could clone you to have you next to me when struggling with picture taking. Thank you.
 
I think our Grumbler/Photographers may have the cart before the horse.

Weren't frame sizes standardized before the 1840ish advent of photography? If so, then the standard sizes of frames must relate to the size in which a sheet of paper is manufactured.

Interesting question.

Kit
 
I always thought 16 X 20 was standard because you could quarter a sheet of mat board and have no waste...with 40 X 60 matboard...why or why is 20 X 30 an odd size then??? Except in half sheets of illustration board...which means 15 X 20 should also be standard... grins.

Dave
 
Kit, I wonder (okay, I doubt) if standard frame sizes pre-dated photography. It seems like all the old frames I see are random sizes, with the possible exception of the 14x20 ovals with convex glass.
 
Ron,

That "standard" antique oval size is actually 13 1/2 x 19 5/8. I used to pull my hair out over these (I'm bald now) until I discovered Cornell's pet peeve In-Line Ovals.

Pat :D
 
Ron,

In-Line Ovals would only wish so. Pat is one of those very-very rare framers who put quality and accuracy above everything else. Sorry, Pat, I blew your cover up (as our friend John would say)


PS: I did not notice and understand what the capitalized word favorite meant (wink-wink) ;)
 
Actually that 14x20 and the 12x20 "Standard"
ovals with their convex glass were the invent of a genius "photographer" from the Chicago area.
This guy was in the photography business like McDonald's in the food business.
The photographer would take your picture and print the picture and mount it wet onto a convex mount-board. AND IT WAS CHEAP. Those were not standard sizes and noone else was doing convex glass. So you had to buy "their" frame and glass at about 4-5 times what a "standard" frame cost.
My Grandmother just bought the cheap photo, then thumb tacked them to the wall. I later framed them by making the custom size oval and slumping hand blown glass. Now our FAVORITE supplier does it all for me.
I recently still laminated up a 12x20 4.5" deep with a 1" face, for a Brazillian mask. But I don't slump glass anymore. I have a wife now who values her oven.....

Happpy Matting
baer
 
Someone that worked for me had a masters in printmaking.

According to him we can blame it all on the French who introduced standardization (and quality control) to the papermaking industry way back in the 1600's, or so.
 
Standard Sizes
2X3
3.5X5
4X6
5X7
6X8
8X10
8.5X11
6X12
8X12
9X12
10X12
11X14
12X16
12X24
14X17
14X18
16X20
18X24
18X36
20X24
20X30
22X28
24X30
24X36
24X48
30X40
36X48
It started with photo sizes, then was expanded on by demand. Not all the sizes I listed are currently available. They come in and out of favor depending on what is popular at the time.

John
 
Oh John,

You and I both know you missed the most favorite size.....
The "Sofa Picture" size, you know. The one that "just fits" over my sofa.....

I used to love those little old ladies......
Now what was that in inches again??????

Memory is a waste thing to bad.

baer
 
Baer, 24X48 is up there, only one I missed was 15X30. Those long narrow ones are known as "panel sizes"

Lance, nope, those ain't standard sizes.

John
 
I've seen 10x13 ready-mades. High-end studios (like Sears
party.gif
) used to make 10x13 prints. Maybe they still do, but I don't see many of them now. The lab would have 10" roll paper for 8x10s, and they could make 10x13s on the same stuff, instead of going to 11x14.
 
Ron and Lance, you are right. It has been so many years since I stocked all the standard sizes, I guess things have changed. The heck of it is, I think I even stocked some 10X13s. I sure can't remember 12X18 though.

John
 
I think if you dig far enough that standard size frames has it’s roots in the sizes used by the paper industry….I think it had little to do with anything the framing industry initiated …..the framing industry is and has most likely responded to the ISO size standards for many years…

Standard paper sizes like ISO A4 are widely used all over the world today. This text (web link) explains the ISO 216 paper size system and the ideas behind its design.

International Standard Paper Sizes
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

There is even a standard size for toilet paper...how did the work that size out :confused:

Readers fascinated by the idea of Central Europeans using A6 as a toilet paper size might also be interested to hear that the U.S. have for the same application field a standard square format of 4.5×4.5 in = 114×114 mm, which is for instance documented in New Jersey Specification No. 7572-01 (May 1997), section 2.3.

A4 and US Letter http://www.betweenborders.com/a4/index.html
 
Dermot,

I think all that green grass has affected you mind. As your research into that 4.5x4.5 is nothing more then the standard quadplex print size of a Kodacolor cropping of the crappy 126 that they used in our old Boy Scout Brownie camera.

baer
 
Baer

The refered "standard" for 4.5 x 4.5" if you check is for Toilet Paper.....I was not aware that Kodak made Toilet Paper!!!!

I'm making the point that the framing or for that matter the photo industry have had little or nothing to do with paper sizes...they have reacted to standard industral sizes used by the paper industry.....Kodak sizes if you care to check will have there sizes rooted in the size of Filter paper used by scientific laboratories........
 
In England the earliest accepted "Standard " size of a full sheet of mount board as used in the framing world was, and still is, known as a double Imperial. This measures 32"x44". It derives,as do other others, from the old paper size called Imperial, which measures 31 1/2" x 21 1/2". The double Imperial cut in half gives 32"x22". This allows the board to be trimmed to 31 1/2".
Most museum store mounted paper pictures in Solander boxes made to cope with these traditional sizes.
Papers used for drawing,watercolour,printing etc
often started life as Imperial,then half Imperial and quarter Imperial size which were the paper sizes used for printed books.
There was,and still is, a size known as Royal. This has been variously sized as 24"x20",24"x19" and 24"x18" !!!!! Approximately.......
In the late 19th c various sizes became considered as "Standard" sizes based on the English Stretched canvases used for oil paintings with sizes such as 48"x36" - 36"x24" - 24"x18" etc etc.
The photographic sizes 10"x8" 20"x16" 24"x20" etc
I think speak for themselves.
I have come across quite a few of the so called Stock Size Frames from the late 1800s but I do not think they were "READY-MADES" .
 
Hawick - there a bit like bad drivers, where ever you go you've got to deal with them. :D

The standards seem to follow the money trail. Who ever is making the market (papermills, Kodak, canvas boards, . .) causes the rest of those in the subsquent markets to make something that will fit. They should be called "Effeciently produced, target marketed, tight profit margined due to competition, stocked by the new employee" sizes.

To their credit - our eye is conditioned to recognise them. When they are used correctly (open to opinion of course) they work well and are pleasing to look at. They can possess some type of Feng Shui quality. There is a balance and an energy that comes from using proportions and shapes that are easy to look at.

The opposite is true that when used incorrectly they are disgusting. IMHO
 
Create a Post
Back
Top