Print Week

This question has come in from a reader:

 

Are you able to help with this one, I’ve tried googling and the BPIF website but can’t get a definitive answer on this question.

When specifying a paper size which comes first Height x Width or Width x Height, it’s causing a few heated discussions here and studio say because of x y co-ordinates it’s W x H but production say it’s H x W – is there a standard for the print industry?

Alan Manger, Jarvis Print

 

This is a very interesting question. I have struggled to find a definitive source but I'm hoping someone will dig out their old London College of Printing course notes.

Having canvassed a selection of veteran (ahem, perhaps "highly-experienced" is a better description) print pros, they are all adamant that it is H x W - the spine dimension is always first. 

That way, if the dimensions are 297x210mm there is no need to say "portrait" because everyone knows what the orientation should be.

Apparently they used to use some sort of mnemonic at LCP to help students remember this, something to do with going down the stairs and out of the door - am trying to find out precisely what that was too!

Perhaps this explains why your production dept was so adamant about it being H x W.

I will continue to try and find a definitive reference for you - if anyone can point me in the direction of such a thing, would be most grateful.

Cheers

Jo

Have the same problem with Studio/Mac Operators. They tend to state width first, ones who have decent experience at a printers know that depth is stated first.

As far as I am concerned it is always, ALWAYS, depth first, width second. As you say above 297 x 210 will be portrait.

210 x 297 is landscape - all I do now is query this as many specifiers are not aware of any convention and oblivious to why it should ever make any difference.

cheers

Dr Set Off

It's a bit of an old chestnut this one. As a junior print buyer, I dealt with many old school sales people - the ones who had started as comps and worked their way into sales. They would always refer to "down and out" when specifying size. However, on the design side of the fence, colleges seem to train their students that it's vice versa. (Mind you, I heard of a chap training would-be Mac operators at a local college who insisted that "leading" rhymed with "feeding".) So, over the years I've got used to appending "portrait" or "landscape" when dealing with our agencies (something I don't need to do with our printers).    

When I started in this game, it was 'down the stairs and out the door' (Depth x Width) - but alas, these things get diluted over time. Now, nobody seems to care - dimensions are always followed by 'land/port/long edge/short edge'. (looking through my site, I see there's no definitive formula used. Adobe use Width x Height throughout their suite. Terry Livingstone at SpeedQuote has stuck to his guns over the years - strictly D x W. D = Down x W = OuWt Down and Out. - I'm going to make the effort moving forward.

Many thanks for the entertaining responses all - down and out it is! 

Happy New Year

Jo

Jo. We have always had this "discussion" when talking across departments within the print sector. Pre-Press tend to go width x height, as most design tools have used this way for many decades. Print is always height x width. As many of the technologies we supply and train span both aspects of the industry we have a simple way of explaining which avoids the sensitivities of legacy ways of working. It's almost as simple as A B C... well it is based on the alphabet anyway: X Y X comes first, before Y X is a cross (across) Y is vertical so easy And is the same as map reading (unless you are a sailor!) However we would also describe a document as A4 (portrait) then it doesn't matter if its is 210x297 or 297x210 as the orientation provides the extra detail to help everyone understand the correct dimensions.

It has always been spine first. That isn't a standard, it's a written in stone fact. No need to ask the BPiF, they don't know the first thing about print. Problem is that in this enlightened age too many people (including a lot of 'printers' LOL) look at everything on landscape format VDU's, and the only shape they see is wider sideways than upwards whilst viewing it the right way up. Some of them even turn the image round if you hold the viewer the wrong way round - unfortunately a beautifully printed and bound tome doesn't do this, so the darlings get ever so confused. Idiots. Throw in the term 'reporter' and they wouldn't be capable of standing up, whichever edge they were attached by.

Classic case of an industry creating its own rules. We're all familiar with the mathematical standard of XYZ = Width, Height, Depth so why reinvent the wheel? The Cartesian coordinate system is a globally recognised system and the one I'm sure we were all taught at school so why change it?

XYZ (which is a means of description, not a 'standard') doesn't work with book-binding, because it doesn't define which is the bound edge, usually top or left hand side. That is what the whole discussion is about. I will assume you are an e-book fan. Wheels are round nowadays, and their size defined by radius, circumference and width, which does not indicate direction of rotation - also they have been re-invented many times. Wiki (therefore the simple) definition says; "A Cartesian coordinate system specifies each point uniquely in a plane by a pair of numerical coordinates, which are the signed distances from the point to two fixed perpendicular directed lines, measured in the same unit of length. Each reference line is called a coordinate axis or just axis of the system, and the point where they meet is its origin, usually at ordered pair (0,0). The coordinates can also be defined as the positions of the perpendicular projections of the point onto the two axes, expressed as signed distances from the origin." "One can use the same principle to specify the position of any point in three-dimensional space by three Cartesian coordinates, its signed distances to three mutually perpendicular planes (or, equivalently, by its perpendicular projection onto three mutually perpendicular lines). In general, one can specify a point in a space of any dimension n by use of n Cartesian coordinates, the signed distances from n mutually perpendicular hyperplanes." One can conveniently assume therefore that the terms 'upright', 'landscape', 'upright reporter' or 'landscape reporter' can now be safely and simply replaced by M. Descartes' much simpler system of measurement. Thank Christ for that.

Sorry, I explained myself very badly and my recollection of what the Cartesian system meant has clearly faded since leaving school so thank you for the reminder. I apologise. Crab Bucket, I don't agree. The original post talks about which comes first: width or height. The posts about the 'old school' method do nothing to fully address how two dimensions, regardless of how they are written, also denote the binding edge. Using A4 as an example, there are four possibilities: A4 landscape bound long edge, A4 landscape bound short edge, A4 portrait bound long edge and A4 portrait bound short edge. How does writing the width or height first address how each of these formats are to be bound? Surely you need some extra information such as 'landscape' or 'portrait'. If this is the case then my point still stands - it is more common for width to come first when notating dimensions hence the conflict. Clearly I'm not alone otherwise this topic wold never have arisen.

Jim Cunliffe:

strictly D x W. D = Down x W = OuWt Down and Out.

The W appearing in both 'down' and 'ouwt' could be a bit confusing.

No, I am almost completely right and you are not 100% right. Your rather simplistic (as demonstrated very ably by Wikipedia above) Cartesian system does nothing to allow for the fact that a pretty huge section of our planet's population in fact bind all their books on the RIGHT hand side, regardless of format, so the use of abstract descriptions like 'landscape' or 'portrait', 'flat' or 'vertical', or as is now more common, 'tall' or 'horizontal' formats (seriously, ask any web developer) is still pretty critical, as I explained earlier very clearly. However I am honoured that you took my little wind-up so seriously, and apologise to all our antipodean friends who presumably bind the tail (bottom) edge for reporter formats. PS - personally I prefer loose leaf sets, so if you really want to get confused - what is the standard hole punch format? Christ, I think we may have just stumbled across the fifth dimension.

Not sure about the 5th dimension Crab Bucket but we are reaching the Outer Limits I think.

To infinity and beyond!