bleirer

Most of my shots benefit from some cropping, I'm surprised when I have no pixels to spare. 3:2 is 1.5 to one while 5:4 is 1.25 to 1 so it doesn't take much to trim a 8x12 into a 8x10, or preserve the full height of the original by filling in 2/3 of an inch left and right.

The content aware tool lets you lock the important portion of the image and 'stretch' each pixel of the remaining background to fill the area.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

My Nikon software will let me crop to a specific size. So if I want an 8x10 I just crop and keep all the picture possible. Which is usually most of one side and all of the other.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Rusty69, I share your pain of the jumbled photo size world we live with.

I note two archaic things are discussed in this thread matting from the 1800s and Photoshop from the 1900s... OH, How primitive!! Matting is used to confine the photo and then people add a gold leaf frame just like the classic painters!! Frame and mat are all meant to distract from the photo and give fodder for debate as to which mat color and texture and frames are best. Also, while I use 8x10 because the paper and printer companies hold it sacred for home use.

Yes, I cheat and change the aspect ration knowing no one will notice the tree being taller than in real life. Yes Rusty69 sensor 35mm aspect ratio, paper size, all a Hodgepodge jumble mixture. Then the drugstore prints are 4x6"! You have sized to 8x10 ratio and they want to print and crop to fit 4x6 rather than 4x5. Why?, well because it is a holdover from the 1900 2-A Kodak Brownie 120 film that had an aspect ratio of 2x3 [4x6]. When will the drugstores realize that few are still using 2-A Browniebox Cameras?

Photoshop, if the name is used like Kleenex, fine a generic term for editing... Photoshop coded in 1988 and patched and expanded has been replaced by modern editing programs like Affinity [using modern computer code and built from scratch] which is a one time fee and generally free upgrades. Photoshop is a Swiss Army Knife of editing that will do almost anything if you have the time and effort. In comparison systems such as Topaz Studio and plugins are quick and easy. The laborious learning effort of photoshop is much like using Calculus to multiply numbers often a bragging thing.

Rather than a mat and frame I use laminate flooring cut to just under 8x10. ON-1 Resize has a great easy to use galley wrap portion which mirrors the wrap area from the photo giving visual continuity. Spray adhesive is used to attach the photo to the smooth bottom side of the laminate. The laminate galley wrapped photo is held away from the wall with 3 [eBay] 3/4" wooden blocks -- hanging string attached to the two upper blocks.

If I frame I use a simple frame that is about 1/8" with no mat.
Walmart 6/$16 Mainstays 8x10 Float Picture Frame [includes glass]

Rusty, Composition is well discussed in a lengthy free book combining art and psychology:
http://truecenterpublishing.com/photopsy/article_index.htm

A.J.R. Loc: Devon, UK

Without answering your question and with the greatest respect, why should your compositions fit nicely into a 10 x 8 inch size just because manufacturers make paper to that ratio? Likewise at the taking stage, why should your compositions fit APSC or the full frame ratio? In the days of film I used medium format cameras giving 2 ¼ inch Square negatives, I must have taken many thousands of images but it was very rare that these were printed square.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

Personally, I don't print my picture to rigid 8x10, 11x14 etc. I print the direction that fills the frame and then mask.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

My work almost never fits a standard aspect ratio and I always crop to the image and cut custom mats. I use a Logan 450-1 and it’s a breeze. I had a cheaper Logan and it worked fine but using the 450 takes probably about 1/3 the time and less chance for mistakes.

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

Some thoughts
My d500 and d850 both have sensors have a 66.6% ration or rounded to whole numbers a 2 x 3 ratio. Hench the 4 x 6 that so many places offer. But still some cropping happens. I think that most of the digital cameras we use have the same.
I struggle with Lightroom and paper sizes. ASEEDC does a better job.
The Asus monitor that I have has a grid feature so i can overlay the photo to see how it fits on various paper sizes.
If you want all the image printed then you end up with uneven white boarders.
I have learned do not crop to tight.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi,Rusty,
IMO the “standard formats” are an arbitrary set of. Shapes dictated by the stock matte and frame manufacturers.
Since I quit matting and framing and began making float mounts more than a decade ago I have been free to devise whatever “custom” format works best for any particular print ! Great creative freedom!
Dave

Rusty69 Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Wow guys! You have certainly given me a lot to think about. My biggest problem is that my budget does not run to a Logan, so I may have to experiment with making my own cutting jig (I've got a good track record in that regard), nor does it really support buying all new frames and rejigging my gallery wall. The plan is to recycle existing hardware as much as possible. Now that I have heard all the suggestions, I have learned my lesson (already had to some extent when I wrote this post) and will try experimenting with different mats. As to what to do "in the field", I guess I need to think more carefully about end use when framing the shot.

Thanks to every one of you. Boy this Covid thing does focus the mind, eh?

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

My response to that is that you do NOT cut all the way into the corners. Then, when all sides are cut, use a loose blade laid into the angle of the cut to get into the corners. It works really well and no overcuts!

But maybe I'm getting off topic here!

Rusty69 Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Not off topic at all - just the sort of guidance I need if I am to start making new mats. Many thanks.

DVZ Loc: Littleton CO

There are 2 simple options: forget about 8x10, it is more expensive but you can buy different size frame kits. You buy the horizontal and vertical legs separately so you can pretty much get any aspect ration you want. The other is use matting to get the aspect ratio you want. This does reduce the image to be smaller than the frame but you save the composition.

bleirer

The Logan bevel cutter without the guide is an inexpensive but clever tool that is hard to jig up. For a guide any straight edge on any flat surface would work with some stops or a good eye. But by the time you buy matboard and the cutter you could have had several custom ones from the link I posted earlier.

I'm wondering how you framed your current gallery wall, didn't the same problem occur?

https://www.amazon.com/Logan-804010600-LOG2000-Retractable-Multicolor/dp/B0019IISD8/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=Logan+mat&qid=1590245042&sr=8-6

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I just remembered: I was able to buy it for 40% off when Michael's had a sale (this was 15 years ago...). Sort of like this one for under $100.

Thank you, Kathy!!

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Precisely !