Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Image sizes to print sizes
Page 1 of 2 next>
Mar 12, 2012 10:11:10   #
bdangr Loc: N 41degrees 28", W 87degrees 18"
 
This is probably an old complaint, but it still goes on and quite a few Photographers don't know or don't complain. For one, 35mm image sizes are not matched to proportional Print sizes which cut off pars of the image.
Now, with Digital Cameras without Full Frame there's another mismatch. Does anyone have comments?

Reply
Mar 12, 2012 11:22:12   #
jenny Loc: in hiding:)
 
We just have to live with it,if planning to have prints then
keep this in mind when shooting.Complaints won't change it.With film i just used to ask for full frame prints.

Reply
Mar 12, 2012 11:40:31   #
bdangr Loc: N 41degrees 28", W 87degrees 18"
 
The Ratios of certain DSLRs are still 2x3 so, if you want full frame Prints you would get 6 x 9 or 8 x 12.

Reply
 
 
Mar 12, 2012 14:17:44   #
renomike Loc: Reno, Nevada
 
bdangr wrote:
The Ratios of certain DSLRs are still 2x3 so, if you want full frame Prints you would get 6 x 9 or 8 x 12.


Makes great 20 x 30 prints....;0)

Mike

Reply
Mar 12, 2012 16:44:13   #
bdangr Loc: N 41degrees 28", W 87degrees 18"
 
I know, but how about $40 a print!

Reply
Mar 12, 2012 17:00:21   #
renomike Loc: Reno, Nevada
 
I only do that for "Super Great Photos"...;0) I can print a 13" x 19" here at home, so I do those most of the time.

Mike

Reply
Mar 12, 2012 23:29:17   #
snowbear
 
I answered in the duplicate post.

Reply
 
 
Mar 13, 2012 10:40:01   #
ole sarg Loc: south florida
 
I make my prints all sorts of sizes with matting and cropping.

Reply
Mar 13, 2012 10:59:35   #
marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL
 
bdangr wrote:
This is probably an old complaint, but it still goes on and quite a few Photographers don't know or don't complain. For one, 35mm image sizes are not matched to proportional Print sizes which cut off pars of the image.
Now, with Digital Cameras without Full Frame there's another mismatch. Does anyone have comments?


All you can do is shoot with a hi-res camera so you can afford to lose some resolution during cropping, make your compositions loose so you don't totally fill the whole frame, and then crop in post editing to the standard size you want to print. I do a lot of printing at 8X10 and I always have to crop the 12" side.

Reply
Mar 13, 2012 16:08:41   #
twowindsbear
 
Doesn't the aspect ratio change with the different resolution settings? They sure seem to on my Nikon P500.

Reply
Mar 13, 2012 20:06:04   #
Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE
 
I always allow space around my subject for cropping to print size. If the picture is a landscape without circles and squares it is how to tell if you stretch a print to fit.

Reply
 
 
Mar 13, 2012 22:09:42   #
Hipshot Loc: Frostbite Falls, MN
 
Many cameras have menu choices for aspect ratio. I have ratios of 3x2, 4x3, and 16x9 on both inexpensive point and shoots as well as DSLR and a Micro Four Thirds. I choose to shoot as a ratio that is close to what I think the printed picture will be. If I want to print 4x6, I shoot at 3x2.

Unfortunately, paper and camera mfgs never came to agreement. Image cropping to fit paper has been a way of life for photographers since the advent of roll film.

Reply
Mar 14, 2012 09:14:30   #
RowdyBlue
 
Meives wrote:
I always allow space around my subject for cropping to print size. If the picture is a landscape without circles and squares it is how to tell if you stretch a print to fit.


UHH??? Please explain? :?: :hunf:

Reply
Mar 14, 2012 09:21:49   #
RowdyBlue
 
marcomarks wrote:
bdangr wrote:
This is probably an old complaint, but it still goes on and quite a few Photographers don't know or don't complain. For one, 35mm image sizes are not matched to proportional Print sizes which cut off pars of the image.
Now, with Digital Cameras without Full Frame there's another mismatch. Does anyone have comments?


All you can do is shoot with a hi-res camera so you can afford to lose some resolution during cropping, make your compositions loose so you don't totally fill the whole frame, and then crop in post editing to the standard size you want to print. I do a lot of printing at 8X10 and I always have to crop the 12" side.
quote=bdangr This is probably an old complaint, b... (show quote)


I never crop a photo to fit a print size. My 8 X 10 prints always fit the paper. But whenever I get any prints size 4 X 6, some of the picture is cut off. Why should anyone have to crop a photo to a print size anyway? When you have prints made, the whole picture should be on the print/paper. None of the photo should be cut off.

Reply
Mar 14, 2012 12:16:13   #
marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL
 
RowdyBlue wrote:
marcomarks wrote:
bdangr wrote:
This is probably an old complaint, but it still goes on and quite a few Photographers don't know or don't complain. For one, 35mm image sizes are not matched to proportional Print sizes which cut off pars of the image.
Now, with Digital Cameras without Full Frame there's another mismatch. Does anyone have comments?


All you can do is shoot with a hi-res camera so you can afford to lose some resolution during cropping, make your compositions loose so you don't totally fill the whole frame, and then crop in post editing to the standard size you want to print. I do a lot of printing at 8X10 and I always have to crop the 12" side.
quote=bdangr This is probably an old complaint, b... (show quote)


I never crop a photo to fit a print size. My 8 X 10 prints always fit the paper. But whenever I get any prints size 4 X 6, some of the picture is cut off. Why should anyone have to crop a photo to a print size anyway? When you have prints made, the whole picture should be on the print/paper. None of the photo should be cut off.
quote=marcomarks quote=bdangr This is probably a... (show quote)


If you are using a digital camera you should most likely be creating a file that has a 2X3, 4X6, 8X12, 12X16, 16X20 aspect ratio because of the way most crop-frame digital sensors are shaped. That means, the case of an 8X10 paper, the file is 2" longer than the photo paper when printed unless you crop off 2" of it (or 2" taller if you hold the camera sideways to take a vertical shot).

If you are somehow putting an 8X12 file onto 8X10 paper, something is getting changed. If you are using "fit to paper" in a home printer it would be leaving some blank white above and below to make the 12" sides fit into 10" worth of paper. If you are telling the printer at CVS, Walgreens, or WalMart to print 8X10 your pictures are likely being compressed on the horizontal plane to make them not as wide while retaining the same height and they should look too tall and everybody in the print should be too skinny width wise. Otherwise the printing place would be cutting 2" off your composition for you to fit an 8X10 paper. Maybe they're giving you 8X12 prints because that's the aspect ratio of the file you gave them?

If you would add what camera brand and model you have, someone on here who has the same one could likely tell you what's going on for sure. Maybe you DO have a 2X2.5, 4X5, 8X10, 12X15, 16X20 aspect ratio sensor.

Personally I always size all photo files to the exact dimensions I want at 300 dpi before I take them to a printing place or before I print at home. I will make a 4X6 version, a 5X7 version, and an 8X0 version and save them in folders near the original unedited file so that I always know what I'm going to get at print time. That way the size, composition, cropping, and resolution is optimized before the file ever gets to any printer.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.