O.K. I get it: 4x6 isn't 8x10...Now what?

<p><img src="<a href=" alt="" /><img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h238/stillhunter73/JoshDad1a.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" />" alt="Josh And Dad" /> <a href="http://s65.photobucket.com/albums/h238/stillhunter73/?action=view&current=JoshDad1a.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h238/stillhunter73/JoshDad1a.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a></p>

<p>Sorry for posting the photo twice. The photo of the lighthouse was just fine in it's own right; plenty of room on the left side of the image to meet an 8x10 requirement.<br>

I was not thinking about 8x10 anything when I took some photos of the lad & his father, then composited them in the areas that were suitable. The problem occurred when that was expected to become an 8x10 in print.<br>

Looking back, I should have cropped the photo first, then free transformed the fathers face to the new area. I've figured enough out to be able to do that. As I stated before, there are times (a habit that I'm yet to break) where I've left similarly important information at the side or corner of a frame. The biggest thing I wanted to know was how, in terms of technique, I can help myself be more mindful of this during the capture; rather than in recovery. I got that I have options with grid lines, as well as a few other ideas. I also wanted to know if there are times that matrix metering accounts for too much of the background brightness as a result of opening up the frame of composition when specifically shooting with excess room for cropping. That's really all I wanted to get a feel for.<br /> I wasn't looking for a camera to automate this task, although If I had a D3 I would run the 4:5 format when doing family photos simply because they are the ones that push so hard for 8x10's.</p>

<p>I don't know much about the D3, what is the idea behind the 5:4 ratio? It can't be to print 8x10 easily.</p>

<p>Let me preface my comment by writing that I am an amateur, not a professional; I do not sell my photos, so I have no idea what constraints professionals may have.</p>

<p>"8x10 is just a paper size, not a law" (nor is 5x7 or 11x14). But these dimensions are not just a paper size; they are also standard frame sizes. One of my good friends use to own a frame shop. One day I used some of his equipment to mount some 11x14 prints I had made and then cut them to a non-standard size (yes, I did "get more" and compose in the darkroom; I thought they looked better in a non-standard size). He commented, "Brooks, you are a frame shop owner's dream. Every job will be a custom job (implying custom pricing)." Since then I have made all my prints a standard size.</p>

<p>With digital, viewed on a computer screen, the constraints are more relaxed. However, if people want to display the images in digital frames, you are back to rigid constraints on the aspect ratio.</p>

<p>Thomas, that has been an apparent misconception of mine after listening to a friend who is planning to buy one.</p>

<p>I wish more mats and frames were available in 8x12 instead of 8x10. sometimes you lose a lot cropping to 8x10, and I just find the ratio more pleasing to look at.</p>

<p>This is a big problem for me. Editors often want 9x11 300 ppi verticals. Cropping a 3:2 aspect ratio to 5:4 ruins many an image. You can guess on the original composition but you won't always get it right. This was one of the reasons I preferred medium format before digital came along. If trying to produce a custom print though, I find 3:2 easy enough to work with. As mentioned above, just cut the mat to fit the frame. It's generally a problem if someone requests a file of particular dimensions, though.</p>

<p>Mats are available in any size you want to cut them, both inside and out.</p>

<p>Full frame (8X12, 11X16, 16X24, 20X30) printing is available many places. Framing is not a problem because you can have a mat cut to what ever size you need, and you can even have it cut for a standard size frame. As for every order being custom from a frame shop, that can be true, but if you are using a frame shop every order should be custom anyway, even the standard sizes. Frames are mostly sold by the inch, not by the shape. You pay more for fancy moulding that plain moulding, etc. If you do a search online you can easily find custom frames that are cut for you and shipped to you either assembled or unassembled depending on the frame type and the company you use. If you are in the USA, I use <a href="http://www.americanframe.com">www.americanframe.com</a> a good bit, and have never had any problem with odd sizes as long as the mat is less than 40 inches. They are much less expensive than using a frame shop, and smaller sizes like 8X12 are pretty easy to do yourself. Bigger can be a pain without the proper mounting equipment, but you can always have a pro do it, and order the frame from someone else.</p>

<p>Chawn,</p>

<p>Forgot to mention, purchasing a mat cutter may also work best for you. I bought mine at a local A.C. Moore for $149.99, and it will cut 16x20 or smaller, any size you want, any shape you want (once you tackle the learning curve of custom shapes)...there are plenty of art supply surplus stores where you can get a 32X40 sheet of matteboard for as little as $10...if you make 4 16x20's, it's $2.50 a mat...8X10's even less per mat.</p>

<p>This allows you to be creative while also conforming to customer's standards...Many a time I have a customer order an 11x14, and I will suggest a non-conventional crop they they adore. I cut the matteboard to 11X14, bevel the custom size, and voila, "custom framed art" for far less than anywhere would charge you. My cost stays low, my prices can be lower. Lovely situation to be in!</p>

<p>Take an Xacto knife and carve frame lines in your D300 for the 5:4 aspect ratio.</p>

<p>(just kidding!)</p>

<p>Once you solve the 4:5 problem then you have to deal with 5:7 and 11:14 aspect ratios. I find it easier to educate my clients in advance that unless they tell what aspect ratio they need I will be composing 2:3 aspect ratio photos. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Chawn,</p>

<p>I think the easiest thing would to be changing the order of putting those multiple exposure type shots around a little bit. You sort of mentioned it, in your last post. Since you know the final result will need to be a standard 8X10 or such, you should probably crop the background shot or resize it to match the 8X10 BEFORE putting the other elements into the space. That's the nice thing about a digital image, you CAN resize it to any size you want to type into the box in the software. If you feel this reshaping is degrading the image, then the only thing is to shoot wider than you need, and crop later, to fit the final result.<br>

I don't take pictures for a living, so I haven't used anything big of fancy. A lot of times, I just use GIMP, which is free, and I have a demo trial copy of Xara Extreme 4, which looks pretty good. I have no idea if they will work with RAW or not.</p>

<p>Personally, I have the opposite problem. I always end up with MORE background than I want. It must be novice thing.</p>

<p> </p>