Canon 10D and Image Size

Hello everyone...My father had a Minolta Dimage 7 which he could

shoot with, load his pics into ACDSee, and print 8x10 images without

any adjustments neccessary. He has since upgraded to a Canon 10D

and the same does not hold true. All of the pictures taken with the

camera come out roughly at 11x17 when loaded into ACDSee or

Photoshop. He can print 8x10 by hooking the camera directly to the

printer but he'd rather be able to adjust the images. Also, image

size cannot be adjusted to 8x10 in photoshop with constrained

proportions becuase the pics are not exactly 11x17 so the best you

can get is maybe 6.6x10. I can make the image 8x10 with cropping in

photoshop but is there a way the camera can be set so that it saves

the image in an 8x10 format. By the way, image quality is set to

Large fine mode. I appreciate your help, since as a Minotla film

shooter I can't offer him any support.

There is no way to set the camera up to save the image in 8x10. There is another (pricy)

solution. Get an 8x10 replacement viewfinder screen.

http://www.brightscreen.com/forsale.html

 

--Consumers who already own the Canon D30, D60, 10D, D Rebel,

Fuji S1, S2 & S3, Nikon D100, D70 or Kodak 14N cameras can send camera bodies

to be fitted with a new screen & 8x10 crop for $ 200.00 + $ 32.00 return

SHI standard FedEx delivery charges or + $ 52.00 Overnight return.

I have no experience printing at home but I know that when I had a 10D and shot RAW the images after being saved as Tiff's were 8" X 12". Even in Large/Fine if he is printing at a lab he should be saving to TIFF anyway.

Wow I hope 8x12 is a quality print from jpeg large fine. I just shot a wedding yesterday with my new 10-d on that setting. Only because I have yet to get completely familiar with the RAW process. Printing from jpeg and making adjustments then uploading to an online lab should I just not resize and send as is? Or resize for print and save at maximum 12 file sizing...?

thanks

The aspect ratio for standard 35mm results in 4 x 6, 6 x 9 and 8 x 12 enlargements. Most DSLRs--the 10D included--are designed around the same aspect ratio as 35. Full frame prints--4 x 6 or 8 x 12--have been the standard at most minilabs since the early 90s. The aspect ratio for 4 x 5, 5 x 7 & 8 x 10 are leftovers from large format days of the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's a shame they don't make 8 x 12 inkjet paper as I prefer the full frame aspect ratio and hate cropping my hard work (or wasting a 11 x 14 sheet).

 

Anywho, he'll have to manually crop his images if he wants 8 x 10. If he resizes via Photoshop's "Image Size" dialog box the images will look distorted. I display the ruler, line up the marquee tool and crop. It's very fast...

"The aspect ratio for 4 x 5, 5 x 7 & 8 x 10 are leftovers from large format days of the 19th and early 20th centuries."

 

Actually, I don't think so.

I think it has more to do with paper than film sizes - and the 4:5 ratio really is easier to look at than 2:3 ratio.

 

Photography did not just suddenly go from sheet film to 35mm - 35mm has been around for a long time, as has the square format 6x6 - and another 2:3 ratio, 6x9 (or 2.25 x 2.75) - long before the 90's.

 

I personally think 4:5 ratio is more pleasant to look at - especially when there is matt board around it.

 

Having a little more film than you will print is particularly nice for smaller image formats with often hand held cameras, because what you see in the viewfinder is quite small - it's nice to have a little movement room on the print side to reframe a little when making the print. Less necessary with view cameras because they are on a tripod and have a nice viewing area to get the framing right when you pull the trigger.

 

Full frame prints have always been available from good labs, not just since the 90's - it's just most people want a 4:5 ratio print, particulary if going 8x - it's easier to look at 8x10 than 8x12.

Puppy Face is correct about the origins of full plate, quarter plate and other larger format sizes. Of course, paper was cut to match, since glass plate negatives were contact printed.

 

http://www.geh.org/fm/toronto/htmlsrc/toronto_sum00002.html#R854.00001

"I personally think 4:5 ratio is more pleasant to look at - especially when there is matt board around it. "

 

Of course, that's a matter of taste and you're welcome to crop away. I love the 2:3 ratio but find the 4:5 ratio boring and avoid it whenever possible. I really love the 9:16 aspect ratio of HDTV and my Appe Cinema Display. Of course, that only works well for horizontals and I use it for digital slide shows.

If you want prints or images with an aspect ratio different than 1.5:1, which is what the 10D images are, use the crop tool in Photoshop and select the "Constrained Aspect Ratio" setting and plug in 1.25:1 for 10x8, etc, etc.

I just print anything with a 12" dimension on A3 paper. I like the extra white space...it looks more like a matted print. I've never been wedded to any particular aspect ratio either. It's easiest to compose for 2:3 with the 10D but a lot of my photos end up 3:4 or 4:7. I seldom print square with rectangular format cameras but I enjoy composing for the square with my old Rolleiflex TLR.

 

Eventually I'd love to have a digital camera with a square sensor and user-selectable aspect ratios.

 

-Dave-