Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Newbie Help (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/newbie-help-16/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 31737] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/newbie-help-16/%5Brecovered-thread-31737%5D-30686/)

minutephotos.com Jul 31, 2004 6:53 PM

I have two digital camera a Sony F707 and a Canon Digital Rebel. I like the Canon Digital Rebel much better thatn the Sony. However, when I print at Large the highest resolution the camera it uses a format that is not compatiable with 8x10 prints. I use Photoshop CS and set the cropping tool at 8X10. I when I crop to print 8X10 I loose about 1 1/2 inches or more of the original photo.

How can I make what I frame in the lens equal to what I need for 8x10 prints without having to crop?

I print with the Olympus P-440 dye-sub printer.

Here are samples, the little girl are alreay cropped to 8x10the others are straight off the camera unedited and too big to print.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=417633

CastleDude Jul 31, 2004 8:26 PM


I'm afraid you won't like the answer but you "can't get there from here". The Rebel and many of the 35mm type cameras are the same ratio as a 35mm slide (3:2).

This means a 4x6 can be printed borderless but all the other "standards" 5x7, 8x10 don't really fit.So you have to crop or print a border.

So your choices are:
1) Learn to loosen up a little on the framing. With the knowledge you will need to crop later.
2)Learn to like borders (if you mat onto white they disappear).
3) Learn to like non-standard print sizes. 8x12 and 6.67x10
4)Learn to like special effects (frames on the pictures, and creative edges)

---------------------------
BTW this is a feature not a bug:roll:. It is made that way to more closely emulate 35mm film which is the group they are aiming at. The digicams are made (primarily) to match the ratio for TV (4:3) which is the monitor ratio (looks better on web pages).








minutephotos.com Jul 31, 2004 8:50 PM

I am totrying to figure out what you mean by loosing up on the framing? That means zooming out more on the long edge right. So if I want to get the top half of a person frame the top 3/4 or something simular.

I think I get what you are saying, I wish there was a way adjust this in the camera. I am shooting in RAW mode, which forces all manual adjustments. Now to have to add this framing issue makes a lot to consider for each shot.

I have not worked much with creative edges or using mats, and my print only prints on 8x10 paper. I think adding framing to my service might be a good idea, but I generally leave tht up to them.

At least it wasn't something simple I was over looking Thanks.

JimC Jul 31, 2004 9:18 PM

You will need to learn to not frame as tightly. In other words, don't use quite as much zoom (leaving some extra space around your subject in the viewfinder), so you'll have room to crop ifyou're going to print at larger sizes.

You'd have the same issues with a 35mm Camera, too. Your DSLR uses the same Aspect Ratio (3:2) as a 35mm Film Camera. This is the ratio ofwidth to height captured by the camera. This 3:2 Aspect Ratioworks out perfectly for 4x6" prints, but not for larger prints. Your Sony actually worksbetter for 8x10" prints (since it's using a 4:3 Aspect Ratio by default instead).

Here is a chart that shows frameutilization you'll have at different print sizes:

http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleed....htm#frameutil





minutephotos.com Aug 1, 2004 5:05 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is a sample of my delima. Here is a photo that when I shot it I was concentrating on so many other aspects because I shot this RAW no Flash with not much ambient light. Thus a aperture of F3.5 a shutter speed 25 and a ISO 0f 800 shot handheld. Did not consider the 8x10 issue thus a shot that is frmed to tight to shoot a 8x10 with out loosing important parts of photo. Oh, well.





minutephotos.com Aug 1, 2004 5:07 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is another example of the same thing. This phot is shot using Canon's RAW format.





Red Viper Aug 1, 2004 5:52 PM

Why is it so important that your prints be 8 by 10?

minutephotos.com Aug 1, 2004 5:57 PM

Because I print everything I sell on an Olympus P-440 Dye-Sub. I can print 4X6 fine on my Sony Dye-subs, but I do most of my work on the P-440. The prints on that are beutiful once I get them to fit properly. I guess the photos could be smaller than 8x10 but I like to fill the page as close as possible. The photo here has been cropped already, the original photohas more of her shirt. I really wish I had not framed so tight so that It would print the same as I saw it when I took the picture. As you can see this picture is shoter and wider than theother two which have not been cropped. I have found I can print the top twoby scaling the picture to print rather than cropping.





Chako Aug 1, 2004 9:42 PM

Why don't you resize your images so that they will fit an 8x10 format?

In photoshop, you can easily check off "constraint proportions", then dial in your 8x10 using inches as a unit. Likewise, most digital darkroom programs will allow you to do this.

See what this will give you? Experiment. With digital files, there is always a workaround.

minutephotos.com Aug 2, 2004 12:14 AM

This is a good idea, I will try it that way. Will that distort the photo? Is that why you click constrain proportions? So use inches insted of camera resolution 3000x1800 or what ever full is to 8x10 constrained...



Thanks

eric s Aug 2, 2004 11:46 AM

It will definitely distort the picture, but it might not do it enough that anyone notices. It's the risk you take, but you'll often find that it works out in the end.

For the longest time I didn't do it for that exact reason (distortion) but I'm starting to try it now to see because the problems it can cause for others when trying to frame it is enough that I want to try to improve this.

Eric

luisr Aug 3, 2004 9:39 AM

CastleDude wrote:
Quote:

BTW this is a feature not a bug:roll:. It is made that way to more closely emulate 35mm film which is the group they are aiming at. The digicams are made (primarily) to match the ratio for TV (4:3) which is the monitor ratio (looks better on web pages).
Actually pictures can be any aspect ratio on a web page. What 4:3 does is fill the entire screen when viewing them in the computer monitor as opposed to 2:3 which leaves black borders at the top and bottom of the screen.

minutephotos.com Aug 3, 2004 1:11 PM

I went to a print shop yesterday to ask them how they handle this situation of cropping to print 8x10. And not to my surprise they said the exact same thing as many of you. You can't do it with out cropping, resizing or using borders. I got some great ideas on how to use borders and frames. Sometimes depending on the picture I will resize to 8X10 inches in photoshop to fill the page, other times I wll crop with an measured 8x10 crop tool. Both work well, however resizing slightly changes the picture sometimes for the better. I have not had a chance to do it yet, but I will be more aware of this issue when taking pictures. I think leaving a little space to the left edge, or bottom when camer is vertical is a good idea.



Thanks

luisr Aug 3, 2004 1:25 PM

Not taking this on you personally, just curious whether this is a common subject in forums like this dedicated to film photography. Nothing has changed in this sense since 35 mm film also has the same situation - will only fit 4x6 without cropping, all other sizes not 2:3 will require cropping. Perhaps it is just because I became more interested in photograpy the day I got my digital camera.

minutephotos.com Aug 3, 2004 1:36 PM

just curious whether this is a common subject in forums like this dedicated to film photography

:roll:Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think this forum is dedicated to film photography. I have found tons of information on digital equipment and techniques on this site. I started my business using digital and can't remember the last time I shot film. When I did shoot film I had no idea of went on behind the seens at the photo developement places. I also always just got the default 5x7 prints and never had anything developed at 8x10. I now know they have to crop and I feel like I have a lotmore control over my photos that having a processing lab try to figure out what part of the picture is important to me.

I know there are many debates film vs Digital but the choice for mewas made a long time ago. Itake thousands of shots with my Digital Rebel and simply could not afford to do this with film even if I where developing myself.

ltdedorc Aug 3, 2004 4:29 PM

For a few of your pix you can use Photoshop (I have 6.0) to "place" the pix onto a 8 x 10 canvas, marquee a strip of the picture on both the left and right size in portrait, and finally scale & skew transform the selected area to the edge of the canvas. Here's an example
http://a5.cpimg.com/image/0B/95/3751...-01990200-.jpg

minutephotos.com Aug 3, 2004 4:38 PM

Hey thats pretty darn good... This is probably the best method I have see yet. I like the fact that the original art work has not been modified. The added on edges seem to blend in realy well, how did you match the light and the wood grain? Did you add the trimmed strips to both sides or just the left? It really frames the art better and makes it stand out well, you have a good eye.

This will only work on some of my shots, but is is a real nice trick to add to my arsenal.



Thanks

bennyunknown Aug 3, 2004 10:51 PM

I think I'm perplexed that you bought a DSLR and had no idea about image cropping or aspect ratio.

It's decades old.

As mentoned, your best option is to leave a little extra on the frame portion of the photos for any cropping, because once you crop it, you'll be back at the desired zoom again :) It takes a few shots to get over that (cause in your head you're like "thus sucks, it's not close enough") but with 6 megapixels, you've got plenty of space to crop an 8x10 before you even think about losing quality. :)





For this reason I print a large number of 8x12's because I prefer the width of a 3:2 aspect (3:4 is dumb)

Just sucks finding a nice variety of frames :(





minutephotos.com Aug 3, 2004 11:19 PM

Just to set the story straight, I baught a digital camera because most of the photos I shoot are for E-commerce. I am a web designer. My Sony F707 did not have this problem at 5 megapixels its difault aspect ration print 8x10 perfect with no crop. That camera has a setting that allows you to change the aspect ration to 2:3. For 8x10 the Sony is perfect, until you get into camera speed, shutter lag is terible. Before that, I knew nothing about photography at all. That is why I am in the Newbie Help Forum :P.

After all of this I still can't firure out why with a digital camera as fine as the Canon Rebel. They didn't think to add the ability to change the aspect ratio in the camera since this hass been a decade old issue. In any case, I think I have learned enough in this forum to determine that I wasn't just over looking something simple.

Thanks for all of your help...:-)

bennyunknown Aug 4, 2004 8:57 PM

minutephotos.com wrote:
Quote:


After all of this I still can't firure out why with a digital camera as fine as the Canon Rebel. They didn't think to add the ability to change the aspect ratio in the camera since this hass been a decade old issue.
That is because it' uses the standard size of FILM! Not the Point and Shoot 4:3 ratio of computer monitors.

if they were to make the Rebel into a lower grade NON PROFESSIONAL camera and use the 4:3 format, it would lose out on the huge array of Canon Lens. it would have to develop an entirely new line of lens for 1 low grade prosumer camera...not a wise business standpoint.

As such, all Canon SLR cameras follow the 3:2 format, this allows the sharing of the top notch line of Canon Lens, and stays in format with how film has been for many many years.

Why fix something that aint broke right? You'll always encounter a scenario where you'll have to crop with both formats.

Most people dont use DSLR's for e commerse, and if they are, they've got the resourses and such to be cropping photos without a second thought.





minutephotos.com Aug 5, 2004 3:25 PM

Maybe I still just don't get this aspect ratio stuff. I don't see how the aspect ratio has anything to do with the lens at all. As I said before this was adjustable with a switch setting on the Sont which uses a very nice Carl Ziess lens. As a Digital only users I could care less about how it was done with film camera's, whats the corrolation?

I believe in the long run, Digital camers will supercede film camera's and film will end up just being onld technology. I see it like adding rewind and fast forward to DVD player because that is how casette tapes have done it for years.

The Canon Digital Rebel is great for E-comerce, becuase of the direct capture to the computer option. It you are photographing hundreds of items like for a Toys-R-US type web site. You still need studion strobes to control shadows and increase detail for items sold on the net. Cropping for web is easy because you are always trying to get things to fit in the frame. But for print, If you could reduce the cropping step by setting this in the camera that would be a huge time savings. Espeacially when I do on-site shots where I could go straight from camera to printer with no computer.

Anyway, I am sure eventually some one will figure this out. Again its only a computer they do what we tell them to do...:-)

JimC Aug 5, 2004 3:52 PM

minutephotos.com wrote:
Quote:

Maybe I still just don't get this aspect ratio stuff. I don't see how the aspect ratio has anything to do with the lens at all. As I said before this was adjustable with a switch setting on the Sont which uses a very nice Carl Ziess lens. As a Digital only users I could care less about how it was done with film camera's, whats the corrolation?
Well, your Sony LCD and EVFused a live feed from the CCD. It's CCD was already designed for a 4:3 Aspect Ratio, too. So, all Sony needed to do for a 3:2 Aspect Ratio, was not use the entire sensor. This way, you'd see the correct image proportions, regardless of which Aspect Ratio you selected.

In contrast, a DSLR must use an Optical Viewfinder, and it's sensor is designed to a 3:2 Aspect Ratio (which is perfect for 4x6" prints, but not for other sizes). As a result, the only good way for you to have a view of what the Aspect Ratio would need to be for an 8x10" print, would be to change the proportions of the viewfinder.

Now, I did find a forum post somewhere after you mentioned thinking about taping up the lens (which probably wouldn't work). Someone else marked their focus screenfor this purpose. Although I understand that the Digital Rebel does not have interchangeable focus screens.

In any event, the 4:3 Aspect Ratio you could use in the Sony, requires some cropping for an 8x10" print, too. In fact, the only popular Aspect Ratio/Print Size combination (by popular, I mean 4:3, and 3:2) that doesn't require cropping, is shooting at a 3:2 Aspect Ratio for 4x6" prints.

Here is a chart that shows frame utilization at common print sizes and aspect ratios:

http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleed....htm#frameutil



minutephotos.com Aug 5, 2004 5:29 PM

Thank you very much for your research. I am very happy with my Canon Digital Rebel and will just have to learn how to deal with this. Altough, I still never see myself going to a film camera or back to something like the Sony...

It's not so bad now that I have all this new information and understand what I need to do now.

Thank you all

For your help.

By the way none of my customers where complaning it was just me being lazy:dude:

JimC Aug 5, 2004 6:07 PM

Actually, I think the Europeans have the right idea with their "A" sizes. All of these standard print sizes in Europe have the same aspect ratios.

If we would adopt the same standard, and if manufacturers would design the cameras and printers around it, we wouldn't need to worry about cropping no matter what size we choose to print at.

bennyunknown Aug 5, 2004 11:48 PM

minutephotos.com wrote:
Quote:

Thank you very much for your research. I am very happy with my Canon Digital Rebel and will just have to learn how to deal with this. Altough, I still never see myself going to a film camera or back to something like the Sony...

It's not so bad now that I have all this new information and understand what I need to do now.

Thank you all

For your help.

By the way none of my customers where complaning it was just me being lazy:dude:
Glad we got this all sorted out for ya Bud.



Cheers!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 PM.