Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Aspect Ratio?
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
Sep 19, 2021 08:35:51   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
burkphoto wrote:
Nor have I, a 33-year pro photo lab veteran.

10x13 is a size offered in the school portrait industry, but it was not popular.

Maybe it was a typo?
Maybe it should have been 11x14?

Reply
Sep 19, 2021 09:14:26   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Longshadow wrote:
Maybe it was a typo?
Maybe it should have been 11x14?


Yeah, that’s popular.

Reply
Sep 19, 2021 09:58:14   #
User ID
 
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
The chart is just a basic guide. You can determine the aspect ratio of any 2 dimensions (Height and Width)

11x17 is 1.54:1

I don't know why that particular size would "sell" more than any other size.
.

Cuz it’s everbody’s traditional habitual fave, 3:2 (3.08:2.00). And acoarst that means it’s already in the charts.

Reply
 
 
Sep 19, 2021 10:05:05   #
User ID
 
Longshadow wrote:
I've never known anyone to get an 11x17 in 50 years.

Used to crank them out like popcorn on our Canon 5000. Most xerographic type production printers max out at 17x11.
It’s a verrrrry common size throughout the paper industry.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Sep 19, 2021 10:12:06   #
Craigdca Loc: California
 
Longshadow wrote:
Maybe it was a typo?
Maybe it should have been 11x14?


Bingo! You nailed it - it should have been 11x14. And as everyone said after I appreciate the confirmation that it’s popular.

Reply
Sep 19, 2021 10:39:54   #
User ID
 
Craigdca wrote:
Bingo! You nailed it - it should have been 11x14. And as everyone said after I appreciate the confirmation that it’s popular.

11x14 is 1.27 ... basically 4x5. Looks its best in portrait orientation. For landscape orientation go with 11x17, basically 3x2.

Reply
Sep 19, 2021 10:49:31   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
User ID wrote:
Used to crank them out like popcorn on our Canon 5000. Most xerographic type production printers max out at 17x11.
It’s a verrrrry common size throughout the paper industry.

Agreed, very common paper size,
not so much photographic print size,
at least in the U.S..

Reply
 
 
Sep 19, 2021 13:13:04   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
I'm sorry if I did not answer the OP's question more precisely. Either that or he or others did not understand what I wrote.

I wrote that understanding the aspect ratio is important if you need to have your images conform to a certain predetermined format such as a specific album page, screen size, and ad layout where a very exact space is allocated for the image, a full-bleed page size, a particular picture frame, etc. As for composition, it is not only the physical SIZE (height and width) but the entire composition, placement of the subject, and if you are applying the rule of thirds or any other compositions theory or method, where change the aspect ratio may alter your composition.

If, however, you are not concerned with a predetermined specification, you are not restricted by your camera's format, the availability of paper sizes, or the standardization of commercial photofinishers.
Perhaps in some photos compositions, there is a specified format, however, most will allow a matte to accommodate odd sizes within the format.

During the film era, many commercial photofinishers, and even professional labs offered "economy" grade prints which were made on automatic printing machines. "School" operations often used package printers which produced multiple prints of various sizes on one she of paper. Sometimes the paper was fed into the printer and later processed in roll paper form. All of these machines had fixed or limited aspect ratios and cropping alternatives, certain masks or negative carriers, and a certain selection of lenses so odd sizes was not offered. The lineup was 3.5 x. 5x7, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14. A few labs offered 6x8, and 14x17, and 10x13. For wedding photographers, 5x5, 8x8, and 101x10 were available. If you wanted anything else or in between, you ordered a mere costly custom print made on an enlarger. School photographers used long roll film cameras in 35mm, 46mm, and 70mm, and packages were offered in the aspect ratios that jibed with those negative sizes. "Machine prints" could not be burned or dodged and cropping was limited to fixed masks or negative carrier/lens combinations.

If you make your own prints or use the service of a custom lab, there is no restriction as to the aspect ratio. The actual size of the prints is only limited by the size of the printer at the lab.

Camera format? for over 35 years, I did much of my medium format work with the Hasselblad system. I produced prints in every imaginable aspect ratio. The lenses were sharp, the film magazines were edge to edge flat. I allowed enough space on the square negatives so I could produce any size and format. I routinely made 30x40 portraits, panoramic images, and all the standard sizes for my clients. Nowadays, with a full-frame digital body and some sharp glass, I can do exacty the same thing. You are paying big bucks for the high-quality camera with impressive pixel counts- if you lose a few pixels in the name of the composition, you are still good to go.

As an art photograher, what sells? Everything in any size; miniatures, small prints, large ones, photomurals, whatever! You are the artist. A potential client will buy want the like, need, or can afford. You have to research, determine, and appeal to your market.

The article I suggested was not to come to any conclusion as to what aspect ratio is best for art photography.

Since the advent and popularity of digital photography, lots of the terminology has been adopted from cinematography. Darkroom work has been replaced By post-processing and offshoot of post-production. Darkroom manipulation has been replaced by editing. The aspect ratio was extremely important to cinematographers because the camera format had to conform to the screen size, Terms like Cinemascope, Vista-Vision, Todd-AO, Panavision-70, and Cinerama, I-Max and Screen-X, and more, all dedicated planning, optics, and techniques that must conform to the exhibition screen.

It's difficult for me to believe, what with all the emphasis on post-processing, that some photograher still believe they are restricted to "drugstore" -like photofinishing sizes and formats. YOU shoot, create the file and you can either print it yourself or find a good pro-lab that can print to YOUR specifications ratio and size. Within reason, there is no such thing as "no such size"! 11x17, what not? That is up to you!

Reply
Sep 19, 2021 18:06:22   #
joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
 
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
There is no wrong with a print in an 11 x 17 Size and it may not fit, edge to edge, on a standard monitor screen in horizontal orientation, It is not a standard size offered by commercial photofinsihers. It is, however, a standard paper size used in the production of posters. In the lithographic printing trade, it is called poster or tabloid size.

So, one may say there is no such size as say, 8 x24 inches but you can make a panoramic print in that size, why not?

An image like the one I am attaching can easily fit into that format.
There is no wrong with a print in an 11 x 17 Size ... (show quote)

Love that shot ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Reply
Nov 21, 2021 15:54:38   #
Rick Mills Loc: California
 
I go native camera format. If I’m shooting for broadcast or just like the look, that’s 16x9.
There are a number of different formats - like Cinema at 1.85:1. Rolliflex twin lens reflex cameras use a square format. Medium format can be 6x7cm.

Reply
Nov 21, 2021 17:27:43   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
I did not think this tread was still alive.

So some of the folks here are talking about sizes offered, especially in the past, by commercial photofinishers or school photography outfits. Unless you ordered custom prints, if the lab offer that service, you were restricted to standard sizes. Many of these labs and studios produced their prints on automatic printers such as the Koda S- series of machines. These machines had interchangeable fixed negative carriers or utilized cardboard masks. There were fixed degrees of cropping and enlargement based on the negative size and ratio, the carrier or mask and whatever fixed lens was employed. There were not manually operated enlargers with a chassis that enable various degrees of enlargement and a full range of lenses to accommodate various formats. The easel could be adjusted to any ratio.

In my studio, I had a couple of S-priters to produce proofs and large quantities of small prints but all my finished work was custom printed on enlargers.

From a marketing and decorative approach, I offered all kinds of formats and odd ratios. I had horizontal and vertical panoramics, what we called "slime-line" prints such as 8x16 and 10x 24. We had and still have a concept called "little people" where young children were placed at the lower part of a vertical panoramic with lots of negative space above- it creates scale and is made for the sale of larger prints. We do custom matting and framing so we do not have to conform to fixed sizes.

Of course, we still make standard sizes- 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 16x20, 20x24, etc., but there are no restrictions and composition can be creat to accommodate any number of concepts. If you do your own prints, you can make whatever ratio you prefer. If you have never heard of this- try it, you may like it!

Reply
 
 
Nov 21, 2021 17:41:27   #
Craigdca Loc: California
 
E.L., I thought the same thing and am also happy to see it again. I was mostly using 16:9 to use my photos as computer wallpapers and for Amazon slideshows on my television. This and other related discussions nudged me to do what works for the image and/or the targeted output. Look through my profile and you’ll see how I’ve adapted the vertical format for social media, but occasionally the landscape format called for by the image.

Next may be a journey into mostly black and white as seen in the works of Ansel Adams and recently discovered https://www.sugimotohiroshi.com.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
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.