Image Size: When I develop my photos I like to have them in proximity of 5000 pixels x 1700 pixels, (rule of thirds). But often I will develop a photo and pat myself on the back for...

pdsilen Loc: Roswell, New Mexico

When I develop my photos I like to have them in proximity of 5000 pixels x 1700 pixels, (rule of thirds). But often I will develop a photo and pat myself on the back for the good job that I've done. only to find that the photo is too small. I get angry with myself because I'd never do a shot that small and when I try to enlarge it, it gets to grainy. And there are other times when I develop a shot and it turns out to be just the size I want it to be. What's going on?

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

pdsilen wrote:

When I develop my photos I like to have them in proximity of 5000 pixels x 1700 pixels, (rule of thirds). But often I will develop a photo and pat myself on the back for the good job that I've done. only to find that the photo is too small. I get angry with myself because I'd never do a shot that small and when I try to enlarge it, it gets to grainy. And there are other times when I develop a shot and it turns out to be just the size I want it to be. What's going on?

What has "Rule of Thirds" got to do with the overall measurements of a print?

waterford Loc: Perth West Australia

When I develop my photos I like to have them in proximity of 5000 pixels x 1700 pixels, (rule of thirds)

If you mean you want a 2:3 ratio, you should be using 5000 pixels by 3333 pixels

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

pdsilen wrote:

When I develop my photos I like to have them in proximity of 5000 pixels x 1700 pixels, (rule of thirds). But often I will develop a photo and pat myself on the back for the good job that I've done. only to find that the photo is too small. I get angry with myself because I'd never do a shot that small and when I try to enlarge it, it gets to grainy. And there are other times when I develop a shot and it turns out to be just the size I want it to be. What's going on?

I think you misunderstood what the rule of thirds is.

The rule of thirds is a "rule of thumb" or guideline which applies to the process of composing visual images such as designs, films, paintings, and photographs. The guideline proposes that an image should be imagined as divided into nine equal parts by two equally spaced horizontal lines and two equally spaced vertical lines, and that important compositional elements should be placed along these lines or their intersections.

Google rule of thirds and study it. It appears what you are doing is cropping images and in essence creating panoramas from them.

CO

UHH members are correct. The rule of thirds is a compositional rule. Maybe you would want to dimension the image according to the golden mean also called the golden ratio.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

This describes Rule of Thirds:
https://digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds/

Are the "just the size wanted" using the full width of your original image, but cropping from top and/or bottom? As far as "just the size you want it to be," can you post an example to this thread? Click "store original" before clicking the attachment button. How to:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/help/how_to_post_a_picture.jsp

If you are cropping a lot of your photo to get your preferred 5 x 1.7 aspect ratio, you will have to live with the lack of clarity at the larger print sizes.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

pdsilen wrote:

When I develop my photos I like to have them in proximity of 5000 pixels x 1700 pixels, (rule of thirds). But often I will develop a photo and pat myself on the back for the good job that I've done. only to find that the photo is too small. I get angry with myself because I'd never do a shot that small and when I try to enlarge it, it gets to grainy. And there are other times when I develop a shot and it turns out to be just the size I want it to be. What's going on?

This is a fairly confusing question. First of all, set your camera on the largest size available if you are shooting in JPEG and all of your shots be similar in size. RAW should always be a large size file but you may be able to choose from different RAW formats in the camera and that would make a smaller file size. 5000 pixels x 17 pixels sounds a lot like a panorama print size to me. Digital cameras, for the most part, shoot in 3:2 or 2:3 ratio, so longer than taller, a basic rectangle. You must be cropping? When you crop it cuts out pixels and the file size is less than its original size. If you only use a file digitally cropping to any size can possibly work out but when printing there are some guide lines to keep in mind. A file that is 3000 pixels across (letting the other dimension size accordingly) will print out with fairly good quality (using 300 ppi) at 10" across, this is a generalization as there are many factors to consider. A file that is 5000 pixels across will print out at 17" across with fairly good quality.

aphelps Loc: Central Ohio

pdsilen wrote:

When I develop my photos I like to have them in proximity of 5000 pixels x 1700 pixels, (rule of thirds). But often I will develop a photo and pat myself on the back for the good job that I've done. only to find that the photo is too small. I get angry with myself because I'd never do a shot that small and when I try to enlarge it, it gets to grainy. And there are other times when I develop a shot and it turns out to be just the size I want it to be. What's going on?

In addition to the other responses to your question, I offer this: The table shows the relationship in aspect ratio of a desired print dimensions to the aspect ratio of the sensor pixels selected. To minimize the amount of cropping required to fit the print size, the sensor should be configured to the closest common aspect ratio using maximum available pixels. Then, when printing, select either common or custom size in inches and fill the space. This will give you the maximum number of pixels for a given print size and aspect ratio. Hope this helps.

aphelps Loc: Central Ohio

Linda From Maine wrote:

This describes Rule of Thirds: br https://digital-... (show quote)

Linda, I am confused by your "5 x 1.7 aspect ratio". Can you tell me what you mean as that does not appear to be a ratio? If you meant 1.7 ratio then why the 5?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

aphelps wrote:

Linda, I am confused by your "5 x 1.7 aspect ratio". Can you tell me what you mean as that does not appear to be a ratio? If you meant 1.7 ratio then why the 5?

Sorry, I was using the OP's numbers of 5,000 x 1,700. Hopefully, he'll expand and clarify soon

5000 divided by 1000 = 5
1700 divided by 1000 = 1.7

Guyserman Loc: Benton, AR

pdsilen wrote:

When I develop my photos I like to have them in proximity of 5000 pixels x 1700 pixels, (rule of thirds). But often I will develop a photo and pat myself on the back for the good job that I've done. only to find that the photo is too small. I get angry with myself because I'd never do a shot that small and when I try to enlarge it, it gets to grainy. And there are other times when I develop a shot and it turns out to be just the size I want it to be. What's going on?

When you say you 'develop' a photo, are you really talking about editing with Photoshop or some other image editing program? When you start resizing and cropping to make layers and elements fit together just right the image can shrink.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

pdsilen wrote:

When I develop my photos I like to have them in proximity of 5000 pixels x 1700 pixels, (rule of thirds). But often I will develop a photo and pat myself on the back for the good job that I've done. only to find that the photo is too small. I get angry with myself because I'd never do a shot that small and when I try to enlarge it, it gets to grainy. And there are other times when I develop a shot and it turns out to be just the size I want it to be. What's going on?

Am I correct in assuming you are using a digital camera?

Are you using an APS-C, full frame, or micro 4/3s camera.

Are you shooting RAW or JPEG?

What application are you using to "develop" your photos?

Why are you restricting the output image size?

aphelps Loc: Central Ohio

Linda From Maine wrote:

Sorry, I was using the OP's numbers of 5,000 x 1,700. Hopefully, he'll expand and clarify soon

5000 divided by 1000 = 5
1700 divided by 1000 = 1.7

Ok, I got it. Thanks for clarifying.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

Not to be critical or curmudgeonly , but I think the OP needs to learn the language of photography to post a question on The Hog.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

cambriaman wrote:

Not to be critical or curmudgeonly , but I think the OP needs to learn the language of photography to post a question on The Hog.

But sometimes we don't know that we don't know. I had a digital camera for four years before I heard the term "crop sensor" and learned there were different sensor sizes