Would a photo that has

[lorenbrothers]

tea, let me see if this will make it somewhat easier to work with?

The online photo places seem to only think in one standard aspect ratio which is 4:3. You can't fight it unless you go to a custom print shop.

I do most of my work in 16:9 (or even longer) so it just drives me nuts also. (Oh, I don't even own video camera or a HDTV btw wayne ...) They always want to chop the ends off my landscapes! But there is a work-around that imitates a crop but makes the on-line shops happy:

By looking at your photo it appears that you want to get some off the top and bottom of your original, right?

1. Pick a resolution of 200dpi (that provides for good printing quality in most cases) for your original.

2. See what your photo editor tells you what the print size will be for that resolution (dpi). That will be your maximum size ... period. If the WxH is larger than what you need increase your dpi until width matches the desired size.

3. Don't crop. Go into your editor and just 'mask off' the sections on the top and/or bottom (and sides if desired) of your original until the 'apparent' image size inside the mask is what you desire. Your original image ratio of 4:3 is retained but just with a white (or whatever color you choose) border on the top and bottom.

4. Order the print, which will come in 4:3 ratio of course, and just find a good old-fashioned paper cutter and whack the masked portions off.

5. Voila! You've got your print just like you want it. Matt and frame as desired. Easy peasy.

Hope this helps.

 

[lorenbrothers]

...or just order it in the original 4:3 with no masking ... and just use the paper cutter on it! :distracted:
(this is the method I use: the K.I.S.S principle)

 

[WayneF]

The online photo places seem to only think in one standard aspect ratio which is 4:3. You can't fight it unless you go to a custom print shop.

I can't see how that 4:3 conclusion is possible? The problem is that print paper comes in many sizes, about anything except 4:3.
Most paper sizes do not match our camera pictures, so cropping to fit is necessary. Your method of leaving white space for 16:9 is one way, but for borderless printing, we have to crop the image (if we want a choice about what gets cropped).

Compact cameras do take 4:3 pictures, but this shape does not fit the paper sizes.
DSLR cameras take 3:2 picture, which does fit 6x4 paper.

For example, here is a list of print sizes available at mpix.com (offers a wide choice). They also offer an option to "print full image" which is your method of leaving white space instead of cropping it.

Wallets 2.5x3.5
3.5 x 5
4 x 4
4 x 5
4 x 6
5 x 5
5 x 7
6 x 9
8 x 8
5 x 15
8 x 10
8.5 x 11
8 x 12
10 x 10
9 x 12 This one is 3:4. None of the others are.
10 x 13
12 x 12
10 x 15
5 x 30
11 x 14
10 x 20
12 x 18
12 x 24
16 x 20
16 x 24
20 x 20
20 x 24
20 x 30
24 x 36

Of these, the common (popular) aspect ratios are:

3:2 for 6x4 or 12x8
4:5 for 8x10 or 16x20
5:7 for 5x7 or 2.5x3.5 wallet

DSLR are 3:2, and compact cameras are 4:3.

 

[lorenbrothers]

lets see... your list of various sizes is valid but anything other than a standard ratio (nowadays they call it 4:3 or 800x600 or whatever and that's it ... with old 35mm film it was 3:2 or 35mmx24mm) will be cropped by online printers so I don't see the point. Back in the good old days with a darkroom and an enlarger we used masking slides to set special aspect ratios and if that wasn't quite right we got out the cutter!

My point still stands to the OP: set your dpi, adjust to fit the desired width (or height), and order the print. Use a paper cutter (or a pair of pinking shears if that's all you have) and make it the size you desire. It's simple ... really not complicated ... and answers his original question in easy to understand terms.

I'm sticking with it

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

800X600 is a screen resolution and not a photo or print size. The standard resolution for most computers was 800x600 until around 2000. Some web designers still use that as a standard although they are wasting a lot of screen space now when they do.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

...or just order it in the original 4:3 with no masking ... and just use the paper cutter on it! :distracted:
(this is the method I use: the K.I.S.S principle)

I think I see your problem. You are used to shooting a Canon Bridge camera and the large size there is a 4:3 That is not the case with DX or FX Nikons. Large size in the DX and FX Nikons is 6,000 x 4,000

So please do not confuse the OP with information that is not correct.

 

[WayneF]

lets see... your list of various sizes is valid but anything other than a standard ratio (nowadays they call it 4:3 or 800x600 or whatever and that's it ... with old 35mm film it was 3:2 or 35mmx24mm) will be cropped by online printers so I don't see the point.

The very big point is that any image that does NOT match whichever selected standard paper shape will be cropped to fit the selected paper shape. For the crop to be our choice, we always have to crop (shape) the image to fit the selected paper shape (and about every size of paper is a different shape, 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, etc. These are also SHAPES, each one different). If we select a 5x7 paper, we better crop the image to be 5:7 shape first. Otherwise, we see surprises. Square peg in round hole kind of thing, the shapes must match.

You are thinking of it backwards. Especially since there is really is no paper size to match a 4:3 image shape (4:3 is from compact cameras). Guessing that your images were always 4:3, but no paper size matches that. We must crop the image to fit the selected paper shape. If we don't, the paper will. So it was an issue, but you were cropping away from 4:3, not to it.

 

[Rick M]

If you download the ROES system from nations you can superimpose the image on any size paper you select and see what will be cut off. They have more sizes/choices/ratios than any other printer I've seen. I use them for all of my show prints and frequently override the resolution warning. To be honest, I'm more concerned about the sharpness of the image, that's going to be more of a problem than resolution. I'd stick with a smaller size, otherwise the lack of sharpness will be exaggerated.

 

[lorenbrothers]

I'm pretty sure I wasn't confusing anybody, so I'm confused as to why you all have sent out a lynching party?
My whole point was, and still is, that the OP doesn't have to crop his photographs to suit the vagrant fancies of the printer. There is absolutely no need to do it. I really can't believe you guys are actually telling me I'm wrong. It is just plain and utterly silly.

Last you'll hear from me on this thread, geez louise LOL

 

[WayneF]

It's just that if you want to fill a photo frame with a specific paper size, you do have to fit the conventions.

If you can accept some unfilled white space (planning to trim it to some other size), you don't.

My complaint was not that, it was instead the 4:3 thing.

 

[tea2085]

I downloaded the ROES system and all is well and am ging to go for an 8x10 metal print. Thanks guys for all your helpfulness. Paul