Want to frame.
Mar 27, 2019 14:28:21 #
The problem is feeling locked into standard print sizes. The Photoshop content aware certainly did a great job of adding more sea and sky, but it did nothing to improve on the composition, which was much better in the original. Sure you could get a custom size print, but I would just print it with the correct 14” width and leave white space at the top and bottom. Then take care of it with the matte. You would still need a custom matte and frame.
Mar 27, 2019 14:38:25 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
The problem is feeling locked into standard print sizes. The Photoshop content aware certainly did a great job of adding more sea and sky, but it did nothing to improve on the composition, which was much better in the original. Sure you could get a custom size print, but I would just print it with the correct 14” width and leave white space at the top and bottom. Then take care of it with the matte.
You would still need a custom matte and frame.
You would still need a custom matte and frame.
Not necessarily. There are rules for matting. One of the rules is to make Left Right and Top all the same and the Bottom would be the largest.
Another is L & R the smallest, Top larger and the Bottom the Largest.
With either of the above you can cut the outside of the mat to fit a standard frame.
Mar 27, 2019 15:10:25 #
Indi wrote:
Not necessarily. There are rules for matting. One of the rules is to make Left Right and Top all the same and the Bottom would be the largest.
Another is L & R the smallest, Top larger and the Bottom the Largest.
With either of the above you can cut the outside of the mat to fit a standard frame.
Another is L & R the smallest, Top larger and the Bottom the Largest.
With either of the above you can cut the outside of the mat to fit a standard frame.
True, and I always leave more at the bottom. That is still a custom matte, but it could be done to fit a custom frame, depending on how much extra matte you’re happy with. My main gist was that there’s no rule that prints have to conform to rigid formats.
Mar 27, 2019 15:26:13 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
The problem is feeling locked into standard print sizes. The Photoshop content aware certainly did a great job of adding more sea and sky, but it did nothing to improve on the composition, which was much better in the original. Sure you could get a custom size print, but I would just print it with the correct 14” width and leave white space at the top and bottom. Then take care of it with the matte. You would still need a custom matte and frame.
Actually on looking at the image again I would actually remove a little off the top and bottom, more like a panoramic print.
Mar 27, 2019 16:15:37 #
Mar 27, 2019 16:18:26 #
The photo is sized 20X13.333. You will have to resize the image by cropping to desired size.
Mar 27, 2019 16:30:58 #
alemorkam wrote:
Want to frame this photo but when I try to have it printed as an 11X14 it cuts off part of the boardwalk. Can anyone help?
The other posters who talked about aspect ratio are correct. If you give a call to nationsphoto.com, they will help you with options for printing to go in an 11x14 frame. They are an excellent quality lab with great prices. >Alan
Mar 27, 2019 18:31:57 #
There are certain aspect-ratios or perhaps a less technical term is proportions of height and width of a photographic image. There is a lot to study about in these aspects of composition. Many look to the canvases of the old masters painters and assign mathematical formulas to these proportions.
In photographic camera format design, there was a trend toward the so-called "ideal format" that is 8x10 (5:4) inches. View cameras were produced that accommodated full 8x10 size film. Roll film cameras were set up for 2 1/4 x 2 3/2 4 (6x7 cm.) formats and 6.45 which is 6 x 4.5 cm. So...you fill the frame and your image would fit right into a 4x5, 8x10, and/or a 16x20 etc. print There is nothing wrong with artistic compositional merit of that aspect ratio but it is not the "ideal" or appropriate ratio for EVERY image. The popular 35mm 24 x 36mm frame is certainly not compatible with that ratio. Experienced photographers know how to "leave enough space" in the frame to accommodate the final aspect ratio of there choice.
The ideal format film camera was very popular amongst wedding photographers because that was a popular size for pre-manufactured wedding albums and a standard sizes for custom made leather bound versions. Portrait studios that stocked standard sizw pre-manufactured frames were also big fans of this format.
Aside from that, obviously, motion picture production is based on screen sizes so the cinematographers must conform to a fixed aspect ratio and compose all their shots accordingly on any given production. If you are shooting video or planning a slide show of a series of images, you can prepare for that by conforming to the screen size aspect ratio and orientation.
Commercial and advertising photographers are oftentimes given a layout with a specific size and ratio so that the images will fit into a planned space that is allotted for the visuals.
My point is if you are not shooting for a standard size album page, a specific layout, you do not necessarily have to compose all your images as per any of these standards. If you decide to allow space for an alternative composition and lose a few pixels, your entire image quality will not deteriorate. When you come up with a composition that you prefer and like exactly how it looks, you needn't distort the image, indiscriminately cut part of it off "trying to force the proverbial square peg into a round hole" kinda exercise. Just cut a mat, print in a border, and/or produce a frame to accommodate your print and leave the image intact.
If you a shooting something that must fit into a specific aspect ratio- plan ahead and compose accordingly.
In photographic camera format design, there was a trend toward the so-called "ideal format" that is 8x10 (5:4) inches. View cameras were produced that accommodated full 8x10 size film. Roll film cameras were set up for 2 1/4 x 2 3/2 4 (6x7 cm.) formats and 6.45 which is 6 x 4.5 cm. So...you fill the frame and your image would fit right into a 4x5, 8x10, and/or a 16x20 etc. print There is nothing wrong with artistic compositional merit of that aspect ratio but it is not the "ideal" or appropriate ratio for EVERY image. The popular 35mm 24 x 36mm frame is certainly not compatible with that ratio. Experienced photographers know how to "leave enough space" in the frame to accommodate the final aspect ratio of there choice.
The ideal format film camera was very popular amongst wedding photographers because that was a popular size for pre-manufactured wedding albums and a standard sizes for custom made leather bound versions. Portrait studios that stocked standard sizw pre-manufactured frames were also big fans of this format.
Aside from that, obviously, motion picture production is based on screen sizes so the cinematographers must conform to a fixed aspect ratio and compose all their shots accordingly on any given production. If you are shooting video or planning a slide show of a series of images, you can prepare for that by conforming to the screen size aspect ratio and orientation.
Commercial and advertising photographers are oftentimes given a layout with a specific size and ratio so that the images will fit into a planned space that is allotted for the visuals.
My point is if you are not shooting for a standard size album page, a specific layout, you do not necessarily have to compose all your images as per any of these standards. If you decide to allow space for an alternative composition and lose a few pixels, your entire image quality will not deteriorate. When you come up with a composition that you prefer and like exactly how it looks, you needn't distort the image, indiscriminately cut part of it off "trying to force the proverbial square peg into a round hole" kinda exercise. Just cut a mat, print in a border, and/or produce a frame to accommodate your print and leave the image intact.
If you a shooting something that must fit into a specific aspect ratio- plan ahead and compose accordingly.
Mar 27, 2019 19:01:46 #
alemorkam wrote:
Want to frame this photo but when I try to have it printed as an 11X14 it cuts off part of the boardwalk. Can anyone help?
I would have it printed at 15 x 10 and then double or triple mat it in a 20 x 16 frame. While I usually cut my own mats, I have also used Michael’s to mat and frame a 16 x 9 photo for me and my daughter has had numerous pictures framed by by them. They are not cheap but I thought it was worth it. In another case I had a local artist’s shop cut specialty mats for me.
Bud
Mar 28, 2019 21:22:34 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
True, and I always leave more at the bottom. That is still a custom matte, but it could be done to fit a custom frame, depending on how much extra matte you’re happy with. My main gist was that there’s no rule that prints have to conform to rigid formats.
Definitely a custom Mat can fit a custom frame, er...a custom frame could be made to fit any mat custom or not.
If there were such a rule, "...rule that prints have to conform to rigid formats," I'd be in a lot of trouble. 75-85% of my framed prints are in horizontal format as I see fit. No pun intended. I usually select frames from Michael's that have a long horizontal format and I may my prints to fit.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.