Metric photo paper sizes

[grunnvms]

The photo paper sizes in Affinity Photo are all inch sizes. However, when I want to have my photos printed, it will be done on metric size paper. Those sizes are obviously quite similar, but not the same. Perhaps you should have two photo paper size tables, one for inch size paper, and one for metric size paper. Can't be very difficult ...... 

[R C-R]

33 minutes ago, grunnvms said:

Perhaps you should have two photo paper size tables, one for inch size paper, and one for metric size paper. Can't be very difficult ...... 

You know you can add your own categories & define their sizes in metric units if you want, right?

However, according to this, the inch sizes correspond exactly to certain standard mm sizes, although the latter are generally referred to as rounded off to the nearest cm sizes.

[grunnvms]

You're right, the inch sizes are almost the same as the metric sizes. But not exactly, that is the problem. We use the exact sizes in centimeters, so for instance 20 x 25 cm and not 8" x 10", which is 20.3 x 25.4 cm. I know that 1 inch equals 2.54 cm, but many Europeans don't. We have never used imperial or U.S. Customary units on continental Europe, we have been metric for about 200 years. 

Of course I can add my own sizes, but in Europe we use metric as standard, so we should have predefined metric sizes.

[R C-R]

18 minutes ago, grunnvms said:

But not exactly, that is the problem. We use the exact sizes in centimeters, so for instance 20 x 25 cm and not 8" x 10", which is 20.3 x 25.4 cm.

I do not know anything about it other than what the page I cited says, but it seems to indicate that for instance the 8R standard 8" x 10" size is exactly 203 x 254 mm, not exactly 20 x 25 cm. Is that not correct?

[grunnvms]

Yes, that is correct. And our paper is exactly 200 x 250 mm (or 20 x 25 cm of course).

[R C-R]

4 minutes ago, grunnvms said:

Yes, that is correct. And our paper is exactly 200 x 250 mm (or 20 x 25 cm of course).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying your paper size is not sized to the 203 x 254 mm standard but to a slightly different & smaller one?

[PaulEC]

I must be honest, I am a little confused. I thought the standard European paper sizes were based on the “A” range, as per the ISO 216 standard? (These are included as standard paper sizes in the Affinity apps.)

[grunnvms]

1 hour ago, PaulEC said:

I must be honest, I am a little confused. I thought the standard European paper sizes were based on the “A” range, as per the ISO 216 standard? (These are included as standard paper sizes in the Affinity apps.)

That is not for photo paper. You're absolutely right that some A series sizes, and some B series sizes are included, but so are the letter and ledger formats. Different paper sizes, different purposes.

[grunnvms]

1 hour ago, Red Sands said:

You can do everything yourself, but it would be commendable if the programs provided templates for standardised formats in the scale that is standard in your part of the world or country. But here I still have to deal with inches in the middle of the list. I can't use that for anything.

Here is a software house that simply disseminates it for their customers:

https://www.swiftpublisher.com/useful-articles/paper-sizes-and-formats-explained

They have also passed the basic usability course with distinction by illustrating the paper formats so that anyone can quickly decode their purpose:

 

I don't mind those inch sizes. Letter, Legal and Ledger are defined in inches, and so are the present photo paper sizes. If I were to make some page for an American document, I would have to use the Letter format, that is standard in the U.S. and some surrounding countries. The rest of the world uses A4. Don't ask me why they have a Letter and Legal size paper, that are really almost the same. The A and B series paper sizes all have the same ratio, 1 : √2 . So you go from A5 to B5 to A4 to B4 to A3 to B3, and so on. The U.S. doesn't have something like that I'm afraid.

[grunnvms]

1 hour ago, Red Sands said:

DYI:

That is not the problem, the problem is that 8R is 20.32 cm x 25,4 cm, and not 20 x 25 cm (for instance), the problem is not the units, but the size. I can change the size as well, that is no problem. I do it all the time. But the normal metric photo paper sizes should be in the table, so that we don't have to make these adjustments. 

[grunnvms]

3 hours ago, R C-R said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying your paper size is not sized to the 203 x 254 mm standard but to a slightly different & smaller one?

Exactly, that is the problem. The metric paper sizes are close to, but not the same as the inch paper sizes. 

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, PaulEC said:

I must be honest, I am a little confused. I thought the standard European paper sizes were based on the “A” range, as per the ISO 216 standard? (These are included as standard paper sizes in the Affinity apps.)

The DIN 476 (= EN ISO 216) for A (letter), B (envelope), C, D have all the same aspect ratio: 1:√2  | 7:10 | 1,41.
Whereas Film / Photo can have quite different aspect ratios, e.g. 1:1, 1:2, 2:3, 3:4, 5:7, … 16:9 … etc.

48 minutes ago, grunnvms said:

Exactly, that is the problem. The metric paper sizes are close to, but not the same as the inch paper sizes. 

Are the photo paper formats indeed all standardized to the millimeter? In my experience this might be true for classic light sensitive papers but nowadays with print services the sizes can vary depending on the service provider, respectively are entirely flexible. For instance:

[PaulEC]

8 hours ago, grunnvms said:

the normal metric photo paper sizes should be in the table

6 hours ago, thomaso said:

Whereas Film / Photo can have quite different aspect ratios, e.g. 1:1, 1:2, 2:3, 3:4, 5:7, … 16:9 … etc.

But is there any official standard of these "metric photo sizes"; how many are there and who decided they are "standard"? – I know that in the days of traditional photography, before digital, there were widely used photo paper sizes, (with varying aspect ratios) such as 10" x 8", 20" x 16", 5" x 7", 6" x 4", Whole Plate, Half Plate, and so on. But, now-a-days, (as thomaso indicates) many service providers offer many different sizes, with, AFAIK no particular standardisation between providers.

It seems to me that, if Affinity apps included all possible sizes as "standard" it could become a very long list! As it is, basic "A" sizes, such as A0, A1 and A2 are not included by default and have to be added manually. I would have thought that sizes such as 20cm x 25cm could easily be added by people who use them regularly, rather than being included by default. 

[grunnvms]

1 hour ago, PaulEC said:

But is there any official standard of these "metric photo sizes"; how many are there and who decided they are "standard"? – I know that in the days of traditional photography, before digital, there were widely used photo paper sizes, (with varying aspect ratios) such as 10" x 8", 20" x 16", 5" x 7", 6" x 4", Whole Plate, Half Plate, and so on. But, now-a-days, (as thomaso indicates) many service providers offer many different sizes, with, AFAIK no particular standardisation between providers.

It seems to me that, if Affinity apps included all possible sizes as "standard" it could become a very long list! As it is, basic "A" sizes, such as A0, A1 and A2 are not included by default and have to be added manually. I would have thought that sizes such as 20cm x 25cm could easily be added by people who use them regularly, rather than being included by default. 

I went to my camera shop, they also have a big professional printer for printing photos. I asked them if they use inch size photo paper, or metric. The reply was metric, exactly 10 x 15 cm for instance. That is what I had noticed my self as well. If you buy a photo frame for 10 x 15 cm, it will have that exact size. 

For a European it makes no sense that a print is 152.4 x 101.6 mm instead of 150 x 100 mm. Things would have been a lot easier these days if the U.S. would have gone metric 150 years ago, as was intended.

A2, A1, and A0 are very big, and not normally used in photography. However, metric size photo paper is standard here, why should European users of Affinity not have those paper sizes in the table? 

[PaulEC]

1 hour ago, grunnvms said:

I went to my camera shop, they also have a big professional printer for printing photos. I asked them if they use inch size photo paper, or metric. The reply was metric, exactly 10 x 15 cm for instance. That is what I had noticed my self as well. If you buy a photo frame for 10 x 15 cm, it will have that exact size. 

For a European it makes no sense that a print is 152.4 x 101.6 mm instead of 150 x 100 mm. Things would have been a lot easier these days if the U.S. would have gone metric 150 years ago, as was intended.

I do understand what you're saying, but two things occur to me. Firstly, there are a lot of users in the U.S. who do use "inch" sizes; they might be a little put out if all the sizes they use were changed to "rounded" metric sizes. Secondly, there are not any "standard" (i.e. universally agreed) sizes for photo papers. There are some common sizes, but different printers/service providers offer different ranges of sizes.

So, I come back to my main point: it would be very difficult for Affinity to include a set of "photo sizes in metric", with no actual standard/ mutually agreed sizes to refer to. Also, there aren't that many people who use them, (compared to the standard ios 216, "A", sizes and the U.S. "inch" sizes). As has been said, it is very easy to just add your own paper sizes that you use regularly. (I did this myself with the larger "A" sizes.)

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, grunnvms said:

Things would have been a lot easier these days if the U.S. would

It is not only the U.S., apparently also Asia has two different specifications (Japan / China). The various Affinity presets are just a selective offer rather than a limitation, as, by the way, same for colour swatches and palettes.

I doubt it would really be useful if all page dimensions would have been included in Affinity – whereas also a limitation / selection of presets varying with the country of app purchase or installation would not be useful because designers don't produce exclusively for their local market but may have clients from various continents. Whereas, if all would be lists, an additional option to filter presets would require more code development … and might come in future, who knows.

Below just common photo print formats from a long wiki list for only the sizes between DIN A7 and A5, while A6 is just one of the 10 listed sizes:

Also, the wide range of photo print sizes is not caused by the two different systems (cm vs inch) but were initiated by the various film formats that already got used (cropped) for more output formats. For instance mentioned here: https://parallaxphotographic.coop/guide-to-film-formats/

[grunnvms]

2 hours ago, PaulEC said:

I do understand what you're saying, but two things occur to me. Firstly, there are a lot of users in the U.S. who do use "inch" sizes; they might be a little put out if all the sizes they use were changed to "rounded" metric sizes. Secondly, there are not any "standard" (i.e. universally agreed) sizes for photo papers. There are some common sizes, but different printers/service providers offer different ranges of sizes.

So, I come back to my main point: it would be very difficult for Affinity to include a set of "photo sizes in metric", with no actual standard/ mutually agreed sizes to refer to. Also, there aren't that many people who use them, (compared to the standard ios 216, "A", sizes and the U.S. "inch" sizes). As has been said, it is very easy to just add your own paper sizes that you use regularly. (I did this myself with the larger "A" sizes.)

These are the sizes my print shop offers (with the price, always nice to know 😆)

10x15  €0,89
13x18  €1,99
15x20  €2,99
20x30  €5,99
30x45  €14,99
40x60  €24,99
50x75  €34,99
60x80  €39,99
60x100 €44,99

These are all very common metric sizes. Normally, no one uses A size photo prints for normal photos. I really don't see why it should be difficult to have two sets of photo paper sizes, photo -  inch, and photo - metric. 

 

[grunnvms]

2 hours ago, thomaso said:

It is not only the U.S., apparently also Asia has two different specifications (Japan / China). The various Affinity presets are just a selective offer rather than a limitation, as, by the way, same for colour swatches and palettes.

I doubt it would really be useful if all page dimensions would have been included in Affinity – whereas also a limitation / selection of presets varying with the country of app purchase or installation would not be useful because designers don't produce exclusively for their local market but may have clients from various continents. Whereas, if all would be lists, an additional option to filter presets would require more code development … and might come in future, who knows.

Below just common photo print formats from a long wiki list for only the sizes between DIN A7 and A5, while A6 is just one of the 10 listed sizes:

Also, the wide range of photo print sizes is not caused by the two different systems (cm vs inch) but were initiated by the various film formats that already got used (cropped) for more output formats. For instance mentioned here: https://parallaxphotographic.coop/guide-to-film-formats/

The wide range of ratios in photo paper is caused by different film formats, not the actual sizes. Photo paper can have a size of 4 x 6 inch, or 40 x 60 cm, both formats have the same ratio.

[grunnvms]

10 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

It always makes me laugh when I see this. Who originally thought that 210x297 millimetres was a "good idea"? Make it 210x300. Nobody cares about the square root of 2. Somebody "clever" decided it was a good idea.

Sorry, but you're wrong. When you take a piece of A3 paper, and cut it in half, you will end up with two pieces of A4 paper. Cut the sheet of A4 paper in half, and you will get two sheets of A5 paper. That is only possible with the square root of 2 as ratio. This ratio was determined by a German scientist, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, in 1786.

The basis for the A series of paper is the A0 size, it is exactly 1 m² in size.

[PaulEC]

10 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

It always makes me laugh when I see this. Who originally thought that 210x297 millimetres was a "good idea"? Make it 210x300. Nobody cares about the square root of 2. Somebody "clever" decided it was a good idea.

Actually, many people care!  if you want to be able to resize a design/publications etc and keep the same ratio, then it makes perfect sense! 

"This ratio has the unique property that when cut or folded in half widthways, the halves also have the same aspect ratio. Each ISO paper size is one half of the area of the next larger size in the same series.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_216

 

[PaulEC]

32 minutes ago, grunnvms said:

These are all very common metric sizes. Normally, no one uses A size photo prints for normal photos.

They may be "common" but they are not "standard" in the same way as iso 216 etc and U.S. sizes. As I've said, it is very easy for you to add these sizes yourself, but other people may require their own, different, list of sizes. It makes much more sense for individuals to add any other sizes they use regularly, (as I did with A0, A1 and A2) than for Affinity to add a random selection of "common" sizes for everyone.

If you're sending images to a print shop, they will usually adjust the size to fit the paper they are using, so getting the ratio right is probably more important than the size!

(Incidentally, I do usually use "A" size paper on the odd occasions that I print photos myself!)

[thomaso]

16 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

It always makes me laugh when I see this. … Make it 210x300.

"Always"? – Why stop laughing about a "good idea"? … Make it 2O0x300 … 😜

Not to mention many other standard sizes …

[grunnvms]

8 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

It was a stupid and pointless decision from the start. Compare with imperial/US customary. 2x1. You can do the numbers in your head. I have seen people argue whether A5 is 148.5x210 or 148x210, precisely because the numbers do divide cleanly.

Literally nobody in any of engineering capacity would design something with the ratio of the square root of 2 precisely because it does give clean numbers. Unless the purpose was to design something with the square root of 2.

Every A size is rounded to the next millimeter, so 148,5 mm is wrong.

[grunnvms]

10 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So what? If the paper sizes were 210x300 I could get 210x150. 

Yes, but then the ratio differs. 210/300 = 0,7 and 150/210 = 0,714

The whole idea of the A, B, C, and even D series paper is that the ratio between the sides is always the same with every sheet size.

[grunnvms]

10 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

But it is not. See the point about folding A4 in half. You lose 0.5mm. That ratio has gone. √2 * 148.5 = 210. √2 * 148=209.3

The A0 sheet of paper is the base, its size is 841 x 1189 mm. There are 16 sheets of A4 in one sheet of A0, so the short size of an A4 is in theory 841/4 = 210,25 mm, rounded down to 210 mm, and the long side is 1189/4 = 297,25 mm, rounded down to 297 mm. Really not that difficult.