Aspect Ratios and Print Sizes

[Kevin Childress]

A couple of different questions here but everything is related to a photo’s native aspect ratio, comparing that ratio to prints sizes, and cropping decisions.

Part 1, Print Sizes Compared to Aspect Ratios: Both of my cameras shoot 4:3 (in the largest file sizes), and I really have no experience with 3:2 images. When I look at a 4:3 and a 3:2 image side-by-side, my brain simply perceives the 4:3 as being the more flexible file size for deriving a wider variety of print sizes. What say you?

Maybe it’s just the slender appearance of the 3:2 aspect that is tricking the eye? On one hand I can see that 3:2 aligns nicely with several print sizes (4x6, 8x12, 12x1. But what about an 8x10 print … isn’t 8x10 a common print size? It looks as if my 4:3 file would get cropped much, much less than a 3:2 to get an 8x10 print

Part 2, Deciding Exactly Which Print Sizes to Offer: This may be a two-part question. I am imagining a scenario where I offered my 4:3 files to be printed. As the creator I certainly want as much of the original 4:3 image to be printed as possible, or as little cropped away as possible. But I understand that in almost all cases, something has to be cropped. So I’m trying to decide which is the best approach to offering multiple print sizes; do I simply offer everything that the printer/manufacturer can produce (a long list of examples is below)? Or should I only offer the print sizes that provides the smallest possible crop? I would likely exclude any print sizes that were 1:1, 16:9, or anything else that was a significant change from my vision of the scene.

: This may be a philisophical point but … although I would like to offer a customer as many options as possible, I believe there may be a point where too many options leads to an over-tasked decision making process. Could that lead to a potential customer getting confused and frustrated and simply walking away?

Any ideas you have on this matter would be appreciated!

4x6
5x5
5x7
6x9
8x8
5x15
8x10
8.5x11
8x12
10x10
9x12
10x13
12x12
10x15
5x30
11x14
10x20
12x18
12x24
16x20
16x24
20x20
20x24
20x30
24x36

[Draken]

Kevin

Are you quoting the print sizes in inches or centimetres?

[Kevin Childress]

ops: - Inches

[InstinctImages]

This has always been a problem. The solution really is to figure out what print size you'll want when you take the image. I hate it when I take a shot and then when I try to crop it I don't have enough leeway for the print size I want - it's frustrating.

[Chris Crowe]

Print sizing is a bit of a jumble. Traditional photo sizes are either 4:5 or 3:2 aspect ratio based on large format film and 35mm film respectively. With home printing now common, you can throw in standard paper sizes - lettter (US) or international (A4, Aetc an aspect ratio of root 2). Then with digital cameras, there is a trend to follow TV aspect ratios (16:9)

The other thing to watch, particularly for large prints is frame sizes and they will probably follow the traditional photo sizes and to a lesser extent standard paper sizes (at least where I am, A4 sized frames are readily available although I'm not sure how many bigger A... sizes would be available).

[™Ken Kruse™]

A timely topic for me as I too have been wondering about how to deal with the issue recently. Something I realized (again) is that when I compose a scene in camera I rarely consider print sizes and/or cropping, because of this I am often stuck with an image that is smaller (not enough margin) than what I really need. Framing/Matting a photo requires you to give up a small piece of real estate to the process, although it is small it can cause a problem by taking 1/8" all the way around. In addition there are wrap around prints available that take considerably more.

I think the photographer is best able to decide which format to use for a given image and should offer a variety of size ranges to suit the chosen format, for example if you decide that the best format is square then you would offer 5x5, 10x10 and 20x20, if on the other hand you decide that 3:2 works better for an image then you should only offer sizes that keep that format; 4x6, 8x12, 10x15 etc....

Kevin, by the looks of your photos I know you have a natural talent to see an image unlike the average person, you are the one who needs to decide what you want your work to look like when it's displayed.

I recently saw a few 10x20 frames on closeout for pennies on the dollar and proceeded to start cropping every photo I had trying to find a few that would work, well needless to say I found a few that looked ok but.......

One last thing, if you choose a specific format, then crop to that format before sending it to print otherwise the processor (probably the computer) will decide where to crop it.

[Peter van Rens]

Indeed, what a frustration. I have a DSLR so 4x6 prints are easy and common. Good for me. However, when you want to frame them, 5x7 and 8x10 are the most common frames at the shops. That is when you discover that your in camera composition efforts do not translate well. I happened on some nice frames (matted for 11x14) at half price and and am now struggling to find something I can successfully crop to fit, much like KKruse.

And despite Canada going metric somewhere around 1976, picture frames and photos are still commonly referred to in English units. I don't know why but maybe 11x14 is easier to say than 27.9x35.5.

[Matthew Winn]

Quote Peter van Rens:

And despite Canada going metric somewhere around 1976, picture frames and photos are still commonly referred to in English units. I don't know why but maybe 11x14 is easier to say than 27.9x35.5.

It's the same in the UK. Effectively, the sizes have become names.

[Chris Crowe]

Quote Matthew Winn:

Quote Peter van Rens:

And despite Canada going metric somewhere around 1976, picture frames and photos are still commonly referred to in English units. I don't know why but maybe 11x14 is easier to say than 27.9x35.5.

It's the same in the UK. Effectively, the sizes have become names.

The UK is a strange mix of metric and imperial - roads are another example. They are designed and built in metric, but distances are signposted in miles and yards.

[Kevin Childress]

Bill, Chris, KKruse, Peter, and Matthew,

Thank you for the reply - some good input and things to consider. Now that I'm really looking through my collection with potential print sizes in mind, I'm really getting a better idea of how I might moderate my approach going forward. Bill said is best,

Quote InstinctImages:

The solution really is to figure out what print size you'll want when you take the image.

In the last couple of months I've been obsessed with not being forced to crop my photos to improve composition, etc. So I've really made much more of an effort to get it right in-camera to begin with. My wife is thrilled with the time it takes me to compose/capture an image!
Combining the idea of, "what print size would I like this to be" should help to regulate the composition process a bit. I see that as a good thing.

My immediate problem is that over the last couple of years, I've apparetnly made some real boneheaded crop decisions. Some of my already processed, all-time favorites have weird aspect ratios that hampen the print options I might get out of them ... good thing I still have those originals!!!

[Draken]

Quote kevin childress:

My immediate problem is that over the last couple of years, I've apparetnly made some real boneheaded crop decisions. Some of my already processed, all-time favorites have weird aspect ratios that hampen the print options I might get out of them ... good thing I still have those originals!!!

I did the same. Now I never crop but I use the scale tool (Lens distortion<Scale) so the photo keeps the size or I crop with sizes that keep the original ratio.

The problem remains with stitched panoramas or portrait oriented stitched photos.

[Galatas ©]

Quote Draken:

I did the same. Now I never crop but I use the scale tool (Lens distortion<Scale) so the photo keeps the size or I crop with sizes that keep the original ratio.

The problem remains with stitched panoramas or portrait oriented stitched photos.

Similarly , I crop 90% of my photos whilst keeping the aspect ratio .
Accurate framing in the camera can be difficult , but isn't essential as long as you leave a margin for error. It's the one time when all those megapixels really matter.

[Chris Crowe]

Thinking about this a bit more, it seems (at least my experience) and particularly with the larger print sizes, the full range of aspect ratios often isn't available for printing.

Perhaps I just don't frequent the right printers.... Now where did I put those scissors