Composing for 8x10
Sep 7, 2014 22:03:55 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
I didn't say that. I cut my own mats. That a response to me saying that the size and aspect ratio should be dependent on the image, not the other way around.
????????????? No you said "Sure. Then I'll just jog on down to WalMart for a 5.3 X 27.8 inch mat and a 9.3 X 31.8 inch frame".
But I agree that "the size and aspect ratio should be dependent on the image, not the other way around".
But I was responding to wahawk, the conversation was.
"I don't know why I bother responding to any questions on this forum, But since you are responding to me, that is, my quote of "Real men cut their own mats" it was a tongue and cheek response (note the smiley face) to Darkroom317 who said "Sure. Then I'll just jog on down to WalMart for a 5.3 X 27.8 inch mat and a 9.3 X 31.8 inch frame". then showed a panorama photo.
No one is 'berating' the op. and no one is on their "high horses". The OP's question has been answered several times.
If your camera shoots in a 2:3 or 3:4 format and you want to crop to a more square format of 4:5 then compose your shots more loosely to accommodate your chosen format.
And if I may address the OP. Hey MW, if you have a 8x10 mat cut it to 8x12. It will still fit in the same frame. haven't you heard "Real men cut their own mats" note the smiley face."
Sep 7, 2014 22:14:44 #
mrtobin wrote:
????????????? No you said "Sure. Then I'll ju... (show quote)
That was OddJobber. My family owns a small frame shop. I wouldn't go to Walmart. Honestly I wish people would support their local frame shops rather than Hobby Lobby or Walmart. It is worth the extra money to not have to confine your work by following a standard that you don't use to begin with.
Sep 7, 2014 22:38:18 #
In reference to my previous post, a 10X32" 7/16 metal NB frame is $30.05 plus tac and shipping; assembly hardware is included. I'm sure the mat(s) would be quite expensive!
Sep 7, 2014 22:44:34 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
That was OddJobber. My family owns a small frame shop. I wouldn't go to Walmart. Honestly I wish people would support their local frame shops rather than Hobby Lobby or Walmart. It is worth the extra money to not have to confine your work by following a standard that you don't use to begin with.
Anybody who owns any form of local shop wishes people would support the local shop but it's not to ever be again in this lifetime. I lost three music stores and $400,000 over people becoming addicted to the Internet although they could buy from me at the same price but wouldn't even come in to find out. Plus people who would buy a Chinese $179 royal blue painted trumpet-shaped-object on eBay that might last 3 or 4 months yet stupidly announce with pride to everyone they knew that it was exactly the same thing I was selling for $700 - although mine was U.S. made and would last 30+ years.
The whole subject disgusts me. Local shops, even as large as two or three million dollars a year sales, have been vaporizing for almost a decade now and it's sad.
Sep 8, 2014 10:11:07 #
I think this is an important point missing up to here in the responses. This will allow you fiddle with the crop to 8x10 so you don't have to get it exactly right on the fly.
jerryc41 wrote:
If I know I will be printing a shot, I allow enough room for cropping.
Sep 9, 2014 09:32:28 #
In the days of my starting to learning photography (1953 area) the standard formats were 4x5 - 5x7 - 8x10 - 11x14 & 16x20 because the cameras film & paper were Made in The USA, so we used what we liked, and it became the standard. Now 2014 with the new "Being Politically Correct" and trying to move the world into one system of measurements we have confirmed to the standards of others. Letting the view to dictate the composition is the same as just a snap shot of what is there, move compose, quit being lazy, use manual not auto, be a photographer, not just a capture r, by placing limits upon your framing you force yourself to improve. As far as white strips at sides, the eye is drawn to the lightest area presented rather than the subject, again laziness accepted. I am truley sorry for any old foggy views I have expressed that insults anyone - actually no I do not apologize for my views I feel they are valid as yours.
Thank You for reading I hope this improves 1 persons images.
Thank You for reading I hope this improves 1 persons images.
Sep 9, 2014 10:08:32 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
Why are you using 8x10? The print should be dependent on the image. Crop however best fits the image that you want the viewer to see.
RWR wrote:
Exactly. Seems so obvious, doesn't it? :thumbup:
It must be nice to be rich and able to custom frame every print. I am so happy for you two.
Sep 9, 2014 11:14:48 #
A.J.R.
Loc: Devon, UK
dsmeltz wrote:
It must be nice to be rich and able to custom frame every print. I am so happy for you two.
Im sorry but I must agree with Darkroom371 and RWR. We spend a lot of money on cameras, lenses, computers and good quality printers but skimp on getting a mount that suits the composition of the image. In fact if you cut your own mounts it will work out cheaper anyway.
Sep 9, 2014 12:29:23 #
A.J.R. wrote:
Im sorry but I must agree with Darkroom371 and RWR. We spend a lot of money on cameras, lenses, computers and good quality printers but skimp on getting a mount that suits the composition of the image. In fact if you cut your own mounts it will work out cheaper anyway.
Again, I am glad you are rich.
I have nearly 60 8x10's hang in the house in frames that run around $6 each. To help you out since money does not matter to you and the math may prove confusing, that is $360. Now, in my area a custom non-standard frame runs from $100 and up. Again to help you out, that would be around $6,000 minimum.
At this point, I do not have $6,000 invested in equipment or free to spend on framing. That figure is, I repeat, on the low end in my area and some frames would cost more. Further, if I had an extra $6,000, I would probably spend it on equipment instead of framing
Now, before you go saying I should just do my own framing, I should point out that I have a job, a house a wife, etc... Now those of you who are independently wealthy may scoff at such concerns, but I would rather spend my limited free time out shooting instead of framing.
Further, it is a disservice to the OP to remove focus from his honest concern
Sep 9, 2014 13:36:58 #
(1) The math seems to be confusing you too. The difference between 60 frames at $6 or $100 is $5,640, not $6,000.
(2) Sorry the internet, where you can find frames for less than $100, is no longer available in Philadelphia.
(3) You could consider spending the price of one of your frames on a new pair of shorts. The ones you're wearing seem to be bunching up and making you irritable.
(2) Sorry the internet, where you can find frames for less than $100, is no longer available in Philadelphia.
(3) You could consider spending the price of one of your frames on a new pair of shorts. The ones you're wearing seem to be bunching up and making you irritable.
Sep 9, 2014 14:04:13 #
Sep 9, 2014 14:07:21 #
A.J.R.
Loc: Devon, UK
dsmeltz wrote:
Again, I am glad you are rich. br br I have nea... (show quote)
I seem to have messed up with the positioning of my post
Im again sorry if you feel the way you do about my comments and also hope OP doesnt feel I (or anyone else who have put forward similar ideas) are doing him a disservice. We are only putting forward what we might do.
I also cannot find the time to make frames so (at the risk of doing everyone a disservice) I will briefly describe how I would mount and frame an A3 print, cropped if necessary - Buy a (standard size) 16 x 20 inch frame and 2 pieces of 16 x 20 in. mounting card (or to save money cut down from A1 sheet). Cut the mat, tack the photograph on the backing mount, Place cut mat on top and frame. Im sure this is cheaper than buying ready cut mounts. This might or might not be helpful to you or OP but if it isnt I cannot see any harm being done.
Sep 9, 2014 21:50:51 #
OddJobber wrote:
(1) The math seems to be confusing you too. The difference between 60 frames at $6 or $100 is $5,640, not $6,000.
(2) Sorry the internet, where you can find frames for less than $100, is no longer available in Philadelphia.
(3) You could consider spending the price of one of your frames on a new pair of shorts. The ones you're wearing seem to be bunching up and making you irritable.
(2) Sorry the internet, where you can find frames for less than $100, is no longer available in Philadelphia.
(3) You could consider spending the price of one of your frames on a new pair of shorts. The ones you're wearing seem to be bunching up and making you irritable.
1. 6,000 was the price @ 100 each.
2. Ordering individual custom frames at odd sizes is still not cheap.
3. You should know. (Just looking at the expression on your avatar)
Sep 9, 2014 21:52:46 #
Back to the actual question.
I don't think you ever said what camera you are using. There may be a camera specific answer.
I don't think you ever said what camera you are using. There may be a camera specific answer.
Sep 9, 2014 22:44:01 #
dsmeltz wrote:
3. You should know. (Just looking at the expression on your avatar)
Hey, now! That's my "serious look" so guys like you will know I ain't messin' around and won't take any BS. Sometimes you need that look in my neighborhood. :XD: :XD: :XD:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.