DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I think I still have a slide rule tie clip.

Back in the '60s we had a professor who spent $5k on a desk computer because it could do square roots.

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

My day to day is a TI Inspire CX CAS; it has more power than computers of the 70s. My backup is an HP 48GX. My 4 sliderules are collecting dust in the basement.

Dik

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

It does not matter. You will be printing onto paper larger than the opening like A1 (23.4 × 33.1) or ANSI C (22 × 34). So if you print maintaining your 19 short side, the long side will be 28.5 and disappear behind the mat.

The question is: Is that OK for your composition? If you need all of the long side to show, you may need to PP a bit at the top and bottom to fill it out.

Some of the creatives over in the PP forum might have helpful suggestions.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Really! ? Wow, I paid nothing for the 15C, it was my late Father-In-Law's, he was an architect. The 45 and 12C were my purchases mine (or my parents' in the case of the 45). My father-in-law had 11C & 10C 's as well. He used one so much the edges of the keys are worn down!

BebuLamar

The 15C were sold for $135 new in the 80's. Today a good one can can be sold for that much if not more. The 45 is still around $150 but can't match its price of $450 in the 70's. The 10C and 12C have much less value. I have a good number of HP calculators.
The first one I bought back in Christmas 75 was the 25 and I broke it a few years later. I bought a 34C but returned it in a week and got the 41C. It was stolen so I got the 41CV. I bought the 28C which I later gave it to my sister. I bought the 48SX and 48GX as well as the 50G. I also have the 10BII, 20C, 32SII. I got the 97 for free and after I broke the card reader I sold it for $150. I got a number of 41CX with blank keyboard. I sold one for $150 and a book. Traded one for a like new card reader for the 41.
I still have about 8 slide rules and my best was my sister's Faber Castell 2/83.

Bill P

Why crop at all? Simply figure how much matte you want to show, and have mattes cut or cut yourself with an opening the size of the print. Don't be slavishly bound to certain ratios or to paper sizes, there's no law that requires you to use the entire sheet of paper, you can leave a white border on your prints, a good idea if you want to include your signature on the face of the print, which to me is the only acceptable option. Then just make the opening big enough to show a bit of white border on all sides.

Bipod

The OP said this was for a museum. The requirements of museums can vary greatly,
depending on whether the image is for a gallery show, an interpretative display or
part of the permanent collection.

If the latter, they will probably want museum board (such as Rising Paper's) which
can get expensive. If he's able to use existing mats, hat should save some money.

Somtimes the frames themselves are old and valuable (at least to the musuem).
There's no telling what you can run into. I've found all sorts of things tucked
into the backs of pictures: notes, letters of provenance, old photos, auction house
receipts -- and in one case, another painting (not, alas, a valuable one).

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

But, apparently from the OP, there is a LAW of the museum in question as indicated in the OP: " they want them in existing matted frames. The opening is 19x28."

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Thanks for looking.

I ended up putting a narrow "digital mat" just at the inside dimension, so it looks like a double mat, and gave me a little wiggle room, so it gave me a little wiggle room on the ones that were too close to the edge, so I didn't have to cut off a bumper or anything

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Not a "law, or rule" They just wanted to use the existing frames and mats.

I would hsve cut the extra quarter of an inch out of each side of the mats, if I still had all my mat cutting equipment. Not steady enough any more to attempt it with a straight edge and exacto.

Bipod

Yeah, an Exacto knife is tough to use for long cuts. And those hand-held Dexter gadgets aren't much better.

I couldn't live without my 36-inch mat cutter, which I mounted to a table for extra stability.
It will also cut glass--very handy.

Good framing equipment comes up for sale on the used market quite frequently, if you're
interested in getting back into it. Storing it does take up a lot of room, though.

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

I still have my slide rule packed away. I also have a Curta mechanical calculator that I got around 1967; it still works great and is a beautiful mechanical device. I have brought it in to my aircraft design class and my students have no idea what it is. I still use my HP 11C almost daily; it's the only electronic calculator that I own. I am so used to RPN that I really have to think about what I'm doing when I use an algebraic calculator; I wish HP still made them, since they still make the 12C. I got it sometime in the early 1980's as I recall. I do use the calculator that is part of Windows, as well as the one on my Android phone, but I like the tactile feel of the HP and RPN.

Bipod

I still use the TI-59 calculator, which can read and write programs on magnetic cards.

The only computer language I know of that provides as good a math library
as a programmable calculator (e.g., TI or HP) is Mathematica. Fortran
was pretty good. Other compiled languages BASIC, PASCAL, C, C++,
Eiffel all have poor math support libraries. But I'm used to the shortcomings of C.

Interpreted languges and JITs--PERL, Python, Java-- can handle errors more gracefully
(i.e.. division by zero doesn't cause an NMI) but also have limited math support.

This culture just doesn't think math is important. And many "computer science"
curricula only require linear algebra and "discreet math" -- no higher math at all.
"STEM" really ought to be "SEM" -- technologists as a rule are not math guys
or science-oriented, and often dismiss both.

It's possible for a culture to have very advanced technology and engineering and only
a dim grasp of pure mathematics. The Romans were great at technology and
engineering, the Greeks were much better at pure math. Archimedes of Syracuse
was as great as Euler, Gauss or any mathematician who's ever lived.

Some of that Roman technology turned out to be good --- e.g., aquaducts -- and
others turned out to be bad -- e.g. dinner plates made of lead. That's how it goes
with technology and innovation--there are two kinds: good and bad.

It really would be nice if some new science or math came along that actually helped
photography. Cameras are languishing under too much technological cleverness.
The rule among programmers was always K.I. S.S. -- "Keep It Simple, Stupid".
But the best programmers do not work for camera manufactuers in Japan--they'd
have to take a huge pay cut.

The more a camera system depends on firmware and software, the more likely
it is to have bugs, lock up, or lose your data. Every device with a microprocessor
in it will lock up eventually and need to be reset. Sometimes the added complexity
is wroth it, sometime it's not.

Unfortunately, these days the consumer isn't given much choice: cameras, light
meters, CD players, microwave ovens, thermostats, radios and even some toasters
now have microrprocessors in them. Just wait until your toliet has a CPU and
needs a reset....