BackdoorArts
Senior Member
It's the photographer's version of the age old question of, "Why do hot dogs come in a 10 pack, but rolls come in an 8 pack?", and it's something that's bothered me since I started buying enlargements of concert photos I shot or snuck into my brother's dark room to print my own stuff occasionally back in high school...
Why is it that 35mm (SLR) cameras shoot 4x6, but every standard print and/or frame size is another/different ratio?!
We go on and on and on and on about composition and getting something perfect "straight out of the camera". But the truth is, if we want to print it and hang it on the wall we either need to fix it or edit some of it out. It's maddening!!
I understand that ISO has set standards for paper sizes throughout the world, which greatly facilitates manufacturing processes throughout the world, both for paper and for frames. I also get it that the 35mm standard for film photography was adapted ages ago, and in the transition to digital any upsetting of that standard would have killed the idea early on. And yet, here we sit, decades later and I'm still getting a 4x6 out of my camera, regardless of sensor size, and having to choose what to lose if I want to print it and hang it on my wall. It should be noted that I realize the 8x10 portrait standard came from the use of 4x5 cameras by portrait photographers, but what percentage of photographers use that now - particularly consumer level - and why hasn't the print industry adapted?
Granted, I realize that places like MPIX and Nations will print in native ratios, and that it's possible to custom order 8x12 and 12x16 frames, but even the big print labs don't list 35mm ratios among their standard print sizes - you have to dig to find them. For the average consumer level, DIY photo enthusiast it's still all hot dogs and buns. My standard photo printer will print up to 8 1/2 x 11, which means that I can ALMOST do an 8x12 - but I can't, because no one makes or sells 8x12 paper!! And even if they did, I can't find a frame that will fit that at the local Michael's, Hobby Lobby or other stores that sell a wide variety of frames. Heck, I'm even lucky if I can find more than 2 choices in frames at 8 1/2 x 11. My choice is a world full of 8x10's, which means I will always lose up to 16.7% of a photo I worked so hard to compose while shooting if I want to stick it on my wall.
For example: After posting it on Facebook, a number of local friends asked if they could purchase a copy of a photo of Snow Geese that I shot earlier this month...
...requesting an "8 x 10", given that this is the size everyone knows. Alas, when I go to Photoshop to print, here's what I'm faced with when I go to resize at the non-photo standard...
Heck, even at 8 1/2 x 11 I'm losing a chunk...
Going smaller to 5x7 only helps a little...
And if I can talk them into a bigger print and use the 13 x 9 that seems to be the new "big standard" I still lose something...
...but either have to send it out or buy a new printer (which I have).
Thankfully, with this photo, I was able to work some Photoshop magic and add fill at the top and bottom to make an 8x10 out of it which I can now crop to any available print size I want (thank God for Content Aware fill - though on the bottom it needed to be added in 3 passes, 1/3 more each time)...
...but this is not something I can do with every shot I take, and I shouldn't have to!!
Alas it doesn't seem likely that the companies making paper, printers and frames are going to alter their production to cater to the consumer photographer niche, so if we want to print our own we either need to compromise or alter our work, hunt down custom supplies, build our own frames or some unholy combination of those things.
So here are my questions to you all, since this was meant to be more than just a rant.
For those of you who print your work...
1) What do you do? Do you crop, use oversize paper and cut, or send out? And for those who send out, do you print 8x12 or do you crop anyway to a more common frame size?
2) When you shoot, do you consciously add space to your photos knowing you'll need to crop, composing part of the frame but not all?
For the rest/all of you, don't you think it's about time that camera manufacturers allowed for the photographer to compose in-camera for a particular size? How hard would it be for them to add the ability to place a mask in the viewfinder for particular ratios - 8x10, 5x7, 11x14, etc.?
I have the option on my D800 to shoot in 4x5 mode (30x24 instead of 36x24), and I'm seriously considering using it more often, one to reduce file size, and two to avoid this quandary in the future because I can always crop out from the top and bottom if need be. And while it would be nice to be able to pre-crop for this on all my cameras, how hard would it be for the manufacturer to add a choice in the shooting menu to add viewfinder guides for other ratios, or even one?
I know I'm WAY over thinking this. But it just surprises the heck out of me that camera companies haven't moved to provide something to help the photographer since the printing companies obviously haven't - and they'd love you to buy the bigger printers and paper and cut away (which is the only recommendation I've found anywhere on the net in researching this).
Why is it that 35mm (SLR) cameras shoot 4x6, but every standard print and/or frame size is another/different ratio?!
We go on and on and on and on about composition and getting something perfect "straight out of the camera". But the truth is, if we want to print it and hang it on the wall we either need to fix it or edit some of it out. It's maddening!!
I understand that ISO has set standards for paper sizes throughout the world, which greatly facilitates manufacturing processes throughout the world, both for paper and for frames. I also get it that the 35mm standard for film photography was adapted ages ago, and in the transition to digital any upsetting of that standard would have killed the idea early on. And yet, here we sit, decades later and I'm still getting a 4x6 out of my camera, regardless of sensor size, and having to choose what to lose if I want to print it and hang it on my wall. It should be noted that I realize the 8x10 portrait standard came from the use of 4x5 cameras by portrait photographers, but what percentage of photographers use that now - particularly consumer level - and why hasn't the print industry adapted?
Granted, I realize that places like MPIX and Nations will print in native ratios, and that it's possible to custom order 8x12 and 12x16 frames, but even the big print labs don't list 35mm ratios among their standard print sizes - you have to dig to find them. For the average consumer level, DIY photo enthusiast it's still all hot dogs and buns. My standard photo printer will print up to 8 1/2 x 11, which means that I can ALMOST do an 8x12 - but I can't, because no one makes or sells 8x12 paper!! And even if they did, I can't find a frame that will fit that at the local Michael's, Hobby Lobby or other stores that sell a wide variety of frames. Heck, I'm even lucky if I can find more than 2 choices in frames at 8 1/2 x 11. My choice is a world full of 8x10's, which means I will always lose up to 16.7% of a photo I worked so hard to compose while shooting if I want to stick it on my wall.
For example: After posting it on Facebook, a number of local friends asked if they could purchase a copy of a photo of Snow Geese that I shot earlier this month...
...requesting an "8 x 10", given that this is the size everyone knows. Alas, when I go to Photoshop to print, here's what I'm faced with when I go to resize at the non-photo standard...
Heck, even at 8 1/2 x 11 I'm losing a chunk...
Going smaller to 5x7 only helps a little...
And if I can talk them into a bigger print and use the 13 x 9 that seems to be the new "big standard" I still lose something...
...but either have to send it out or buy a new printer (which I have).
Thankfully, with this photo, I was able to work some Photoshop magic and add fill at the top and bottom to make an 8x10 out of it which I can now crop to any available print size I want (thank God for Content Aware fill - though on the bottom it needed to be added in 3 passes, 1/3 more each time)...
...but this is not something I can do with every shot I take, and I shouldn't have to!!
Alas it doesn't seem likely that the companies making paper, printers and frames are going to alter their production to cater to the consumer photographer niche, so if we want to print our own we either need to compromise or alter our work, hunt down custom supplies, build our own frames or some unholy combination of those things.
So here are my questions to you all, since this was meant to be more than just a rant.
For those of you who print your work...
1) What do you do? Do you crop, use oversize paper and cut, or send out? And for those who send out, do you print 8x12 or do you crop anyway to a more common frame size?
2) When you shoot, do you consciously add space to your photos knowing you'll need to crop, composing part of the frame but not all?
For the rest/all of you, don't you think it's about time that camera manufacturers allowed for the photographer to compose in-camera for a particular size? How hard would it be for them to add the ability to place a mask in the viewfinder for particular ratios - 8x10, 5x7, 11x14, etc.?
I have the option on my D800 to shoot in 4x5 mode (30x24 instead of 36x24), and I'm seriously considering using it more often, one to reduce file size, and two to avoid this quandary in the future because I can always crop out from the top and bottom if need be. And while it would be nice to be able to pre-crop for this on all my cameras, how hard would it be for the manufacturer to add a choice in the shooting menu to add viewfinder guides for other ratios, or even one?
I know I'm WAY over thinking this. But it just surprises the heck out of me that camera companies haven't moved to provide something to help the photographer since the printing companies obviously haven't - and they'd love you to buy the bigger printers and paper and cut away (which is the only recommendation I've found anywhere on the net in researching this).
Last edited:
