Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 31, 2004, 7:53 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

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
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 31, 2004, 9:26 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
CastleDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 321
Default


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).







CastleDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2004, 9:50 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

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.
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2004, 10:18 PM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

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




JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2004, 6:05 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

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.




Attached Images
 
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2004, 6:07 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

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




Attached Images
 
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2004, 6:52 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 118
Default

Why is it so important that your prints be 8 by 10?
Red Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2004, 6:57 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

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.




minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2004, 10:42 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Chako's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 301
Default

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.
Chako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2004, 1:14 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

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
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:54 PM.