Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Mathematical question????
Page <prev 2 of 2
Nov 27, 2017 10:17:05   #
gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast
 
Look at the EXIF data. Pixel dimension divided by the "ppi"indicates what the physical size would be at 100% magnification. E.g., 3000x4500 would yield 10x15 inches at 100%.

Reply
Nov 27, 2017 11:07:38   #
paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Talking about dealing with a customer back in the early 80's when I managed a 1hr photo finish lab I had a customer who gave me a 35mm negative and he wanted an 8x10. I couldn't do it. At first I gave him an 8x10 but I had to crop the long side a bit and he didn't like it as he wanted the whole picture. I then made him an 8x12 but he didn't like it either as it wouldn't fit in his 8x10 frame. I then made him a 6.6 x 10 and he didn't like it either as there are white border on the short side. It was film and I didn't have an enlarging lens that can squeeze the picture a bit otherwise I would try to distort the image and see if he would take it but I think he wouldn't like it either.
Talking about dealing with a customer back in the ... (show quote)


Thanks. I appreciate your dilemma and his also. Goes to prove that sometimes, yes sometimes you cannot have your cake and eat it to. His wise decision would have been to make a frame for the 8x12 but I guess that is asking too much.

Reply
Nov 27, 2017 11:22:51   #
John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN
 
The 35 mm is the physical width of the film. Images thereon are 36 mm x 24 mm. The shape ratio is 3:2 so any final print or display at that ratio is a simple enlargement. Prints or displays at any other shape ratio must be 'cropped' in some way. Some dumb displays show what is there and may have to 'scrunch' the dimensions, yielding weird results.

Reply
 
 
Nov 27, 2017 11:29:09   #
BebuLamar
 
paulrph1 wrote:
Thanks. I appreciate your dilemma and his also. Goes to prove that sometimes, yes sometimes you cannot have your cake and eat it to. His wise decision would have been to make a frame for the 8x12 but I guess that is asking too much.


Actually in the end while he didn't like the result he became a good customer. I guess because my effort to try to make him happy.

Reply
Nov 27, 2017 13:12:36   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
paulrph1 wrote:
The dimensions of a 35mm does not exactly correlate to print size of 8x10 but it does more correctly correlates to a 16x24. What are the exact dimension of 35mm negative in inches? I would like a print of a 35mm size but it cannot be cropped because it was cropped in the camera and there is no room for cropping on the paper. So an 8x10 would be less than the 8 inches on the short side if it was blown up to 10 inches on the width. I am curious as to what size to ask for because they only are locked into 8x10 and in a close cropped portrait they are going to crop out the people on the edge. I am not worried about the frame because I can build it myself. A formula would be nice for future references.
The dimensions of a 35mm does not exactly correlat... (show quote)


Without losing any image, you can do a 6.66X 10 image on an 8X10 sheet .....from full frame 24X36mm film image.

Reply
Nov 27, 2017 13:21:57   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
Darn. I was hoping for a softball question: what is 2+2?

Reply
Nov 27, 2017 15:05:30   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
paulrph1 wrote:
The dimensions of a 35mm does not exactly correlate to print size of 8x10 but it does more correctly correlates to a 16x24. What are the exact dimension of 35mm negative in inches? I would like a print of a 35mm size but it cannot be cropped because it was cropped in the camera and there is no room for cropping on the paper. So an 8x10 would be less than the 8 inches on the short side if it was blown up to 10 inches on the width. I am curious as to what size to ask for because they only are locked into 8x10 and in a close cropped portrait they are going to crop out the people on the edge. I am not worried about the frame because I can build it myself. A formula would be nice for future references.
The dimensions of a 35mm does not exactly correlat... (show quote)


Any print size with 3:2 aspect ratio allows for full frame of MOST 35mm film images to be printed without any cropping. The vast majority of that type of camera makes a 24x36mm image.

4x6, 6x9, 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, 14x21, 16x24, 18x27, 20x30, 22x33, 24x36, 26x39, 28x42, etc. are all print sizes with precise 3:2 aspect ratio.

There were SOME 35mm roll film cameras that didn't conform to the standard 3:2 aspect ratio. For example, in my collection I have some post-WWII non-interchangeable viewfinder cameras that were designed to make 30x36mm images on a special type of 35mm roll film that doesn't have the sprocket holes along the edges. There also have been "half frame" cameras using 35mm roll film that in a few cases produced unusual sizes (although among half frame the vast majority are also 3:2 aspect ratio).

Reply
 
 
Nov 27, 2017 18:08:23   #
Lucky Jim Loc: San Diego, CA
 
There is a diagram of the 35 mm standard on page 24 of the free book available at:
http://www.davidsalomon.name/PhotoBook/PhoAd.html

Reply
Nov 27, 2017 21:15:09   #
BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England
 
PHRubin wrote:
An 8 X 12 is a full frame print of a 35mm image. I used to get prints that size in my old film days.

Yes, but they had to be cropped. As you stated later, a 35mm is 24x36 mm. That is a 2x3 ratio, thus your photo had to have two inches cropped from the long side to give you an 8x10 since the blown up size would have been 8x12 before cropping.
Bud

Reply
Nov 28, 2017 19:57:55   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
Paulrph1,
You need to print in 8x12 in landscape mode to preserve the aspect ratio of 3:2 with the least white space.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
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.