I have a small collection of 8 by 12's but most of my prints are 8 by 10's as that size photo albums are cheaper and easier to store prints in.
I own a custom cabinet shop so I can quickly make custom frames for any size prints.
If I print something larger than 8x10 or 8x12 it's usually a 16x20; for some reason, I just really like the looks of a 16x20 size for a larger size print, especially using a mat and a 2 to 3" wood frame.
Pictured is a 8 by 12 print of mine in a cherry and ambrosia wormy maple frame that I made.....
I think it was tech, ergonomics, and production costs that drove 4:3. The massive popularity of 16:9 screens suggests "natural" is in the eyes of the millions of beholders.While the 2:3 ratio became popular because 35mm film used it, anyway more "square" formats like 4:3, 4:5 were fairly common with medium and large format cameras, and sometimes look more "natural" (our vision is alike), and they are often used in paintings, they have a less strong "orientation".
When I print I select a format that suits the subject best - it can go from panoramic to the 1:1 square format. Sometimes some specific display needs may dictate the format as well.
What I hate is photo paper makers often following office paper sizes - instead of more photographic ones.
As privatebydesign said, 5:4 works very well in portrait orientation, and that probably made the similar 4:3 a better "all purpose" format. For specific needs other formats were already in use. I have right behind me a city landscape painting, late XIX century, which is about 16:9, and many large paintings may have specific sizes - yet the format became popular only when movies switched to panoramic formats - still, many people find 16:9 monitors less useful for everyday work than 4:3 ones. While the human view is more expanded horizontally than vertically, the main area of focus, the fovea, is far more restricted. Surely for movies the panoramic format works well (and it can accomodate different aspect ratios), even if it means part of the image will be seen by the less sharp peripheral vision (as it happens in reality), but for static images, a more squarer format matching the fovea FOV may work better.I think it was tech, ergonomics, and production costs that drove 4:3. The massive popularity of 16:9 screens suggests "natural" is in the eyes of the millions of beholders.
When I do small prints it is usually 8x10, 12x12, 12x18 and I get them printed at a local Costco. I have a 24" roll printer. I use that for 16x24, 16x16, 24x24, 24x36 (my favourite) and wide panos, up to 84. Here is a photo I printed out at 24x72x300dpi. Also 2 100% crops. Taken across river 1/2 mile away.Hi guys. I have been doing all my photos in 8x12, 20x30, 40x60. But I also know that 8x10 is popular. Do you vary what you do depending on framing? What is your preferred size?