Print CROP ?!? 4x6

[sharan_jay]

<p>I just ordered couple of prints online from online website. <br>

Prints came out quite fine , good quality. <br>

one issue I have faced with these prints is they cropped my pictures in prints ?!?<br>

Later on I realized on that website that, before you add to cart your prints, you can modify the crop and then preview the final image.</p>

<p>Questions: If I am taking pictures in 4000x3000 pixels with 1:8 used compression why can't my images come full 4x6 print , why they have to be cropped ?</p>

<p>If not, is there something I should do before I print ?</p>

<p>Thanks Experts !</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Your images have an aspect ratio of 4:3 a 4x6 print is 2:3. So something has to give. So you have to crop them to fit the new aspect ratio, or shrink or stretch them to fit.</p>

<p>Edit: Pretty much any image editor can let you do this, if running windows, download Irfanview, it's free and have fun learning to use it.</p>

<p> </p>

[sharan_jay]

<p>ok.<br>

Is there a way to convert the aspect ratio to 2:3 in Nikon S8100 ( yes, it's a P & S ) :)<br>

I am going to look in manual, but so far I have not found 2:3 option unless i decrease megapixel and increase compression.</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>I am not familiar with your camera, but I can tell you that the "compression" setting has absolutely nothing to do with the aspect ratio issue you asked about. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_compression . </p>

<p>At worst, lossy compression may impact the accuracy of the RGB values at each pixel, but neither lossy nor lossless compression changes the aspect ratio.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[howard_m]

<p>you'd be much better off ordering 5x7's. That size is much much closer to your 1.33 ratio.</p>

<p>Or get used to the idea that you need to crop either in printing or as you setup the shot</p>

<p>Your idea that compression plays a part in this is completely wrong.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>The aspect ratio of a camera is fixed in the most part. You can change the aspect ratio of an image in an editor, and you usually need to to make standard sized prints. 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20. Only two of these sizes have the same ratio, for any others you have to crop your images differently for each print size, just a fact of life, as it has been for decades. Before 4x6 became the standard size for 35mm colour prints in the 1970's, the smaller size was 4x5.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Only 4:3 and 16:9 (for HDTV)</p>

<p>3264 x 2448 (8M)4000 x 3000 (12M)2592 x 1944 (5M)2048 x 1536 (3M)1024 x 768 (PC)640 x 480 (VGA)3968 x 2232 (16:9)</p>

<p>http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/pd/productID.233975100/ThemeID.18145600/Currency.USD?CID=SEM-0910-Google_nikon_s8100</p>

[richardsperry]

I wouldn't crop my stuff to the new ratio.

 

I would expand to it. And then just print that instead.

 

It will have bands above and below the photo, but the whole photo will be printed.

[jim_momary]

<p>If you do not want 5x7's and decide to stick with 4x6's, then you could try the below.<br>

It's not a perfect solution, and takes practice.<br>

Jim</p><div></div>

[sharan_jay]

<p>yep, grasped this fact of aspect ratio and prints today.<br>

thanks to you all responses and some of this online stuff i have found - where it tells wat size prints you can take with typical aspect ratios.<br>

<a href="http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel_aspect.asp?mp=12">http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel_aspect.asp?mp=12</a><br>

<a href="http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp?width=4000&height=3000">http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp?width=4000&height=3000</a></p>

<p>Something good a quickie to keep in mind is this , based on what I have learnt about aspect ratio and print size relation:<br>

Basically: switch the numbers (so the width is the first dimension) and then reduce the numbers down to their lowest values.<br>

ex: 4x6 will be aspect 3:2<br>

8x10 will be aspect of 5:4 etc.<br>

5x7 will be aspect of 7x5 which is another fraction of ~ 1.5:1</p>

 

[bob_sunley]

<p>The groundglass on my view camera back has nice labeled pencil lines showing various print sizes drawn on it for just that purpose. It was often done to SLR viewing screens too.</p>

<p> </p>

[howard_m]

<p>ex: 4x6 will be aspect 3:2<br /> 8x10 will be aspect of 5:4 etc.<br /> 5x7 will be aspect of 7x5 which is another fraction of ~ 1.5:1</p>

<p>Um, not by any normal math. <br>

7:5 is 1.4:1<br>

whereas 4x6 is 3:2 which is truly 1.5x1</p>

<p>The point of the whole posting is that 1.5 isn't good enough since it must be cropped to meet your 4000x3000 (1.33:1) ratio. Decimals matter.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>And to make it slightly more complex, the aspect ratios are slightly different if you print on a fixed size paper with white borders. Also when borderless prints are printed, the image is bled over the edges so you lose some pixels on all four sides. How much depends on the printers settings, so, leave yourself some extra room when cropping an image for printing borderless prints. </p>

[James G. Dainis]

Print sizes are given in height by width - 8x10, 5x7, 4x6 etc.

 

Digital image sizes are given in width by height - 4000x3000, 3000x2000, 640x480 etc.

 

I think they just do that to confuse people.

[bob_sunley]

<p>Film negatives have their own sizes, and 6x6cm 120 film format negs are not 6x6 cm either, they vary by camera model. :(<br>

Nope, just a fact of life.</p>

 

[jcuknz]

<p>If you aim to print 6x4s then adjust your camera to shoot them ... it probably can do that .. use the 3:2 format like DSLRs do most of the time. Then you have to learn to change the position of the camera between landscapes and portraits, something which is less critical when shooting 4:3.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>This has been an issue for many years and as others have noted photographers have often marked the groundlglass on their cameras to show the area of an 8x10, etc. Since we now have gridlines that can be turned on and off int he viewfinder of many DSLRs I'm surprised cropping lines that can turn on and off haven't been made available. Another issue is that even though some high-end camera bodies offer 100 percent viewfinder accuracy (the finder is supposed to show exactly what is captured on the chip or film), there has always been a hair lost around the edges either to slide mounts or lining up the paper under the enlarger to trying to print borderless on an inkjet printer. Some people are purists about cropping in the camera. But the practical solution is to intentionally shoot a little loose so you can do final cropping when you print. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I've been suggesting that camera mfr's have format selection to match print sizes. Many already have the regular 4:3, 16:9, 1:1, 3:2. How much more in software would it take to add 5:7, 8:10, etc.?</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Alan, I don't think that's a decision I would want to make in the camera. If you're shooting strictly for yourself or maybe in a fine art environment you can dictate at what sizes your photos will be printed. But if you're shooting for customers -- or even giving prints to family and friends -- they are typically the ones who decide what print size to order. 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 are all slightly different crops and any given photo might very possibly be printed in all three sizes. A portrait for example -- 8x10 or even larger for the wall, 5x7 for the desk, 4x6 for a photo album. Safest bet it to shoot at whatever the camera's normal setting is and have the maximum amount of image area available so that you keep your options open. Just my opinion.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I understand your point and it's a good one. But if they're going to the trouble of having these other in-camera formats like 3:2, 1:1, 16:9, why not include some paper sizes and let the photographer decide. After all, my P&S camera shoots in 4:3. While I don't others might want to change the in camera to 3:2. Although they could crop to that later. Same reason as the prints. Just to give people options that don't cost anything for the mfrs except to include them in their firmware. Frankly, I think this would be a great selling point that many snapshot people would jump at. I suppose one of the mfrs is reading my post and soon you will see one of them provide the print size selection. </p>

<p>I can see the ad now; "By the Klein F-300 and frame your shots in the camera to fit the frame you want to put it in. Want an 8x10? No sweat. One click of the wheel and you're set. No more fiddling around with cropping for those people who only use computers for email. While you're having a beer admiring that 8x10 on the wall, your friends are up to 1am trying to figure out how to set the program crop to match the frame."</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>If you use Lightroom, in-camera cropping becomes pointless. As the image below shows, you can set up custom crops and pick using all the pixels as a starting point. I wouldn't want to lose that opportunity in the camera, even though I crop 90% of my photos to a 4x3 aspect ratio.</p><div></div>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Cropping to a different format from what you shot doesn't always work. If you shot 4:3 and try to change it in post to fit your HDTV in 16:9, you're going to chop off feet and heads. Better to have set the format to 16:9 in camera and framed the shot originally for better composition. </p>

<p>While changing let's say 4:3 to 8x10 is not as radical, if you shoot like me which is too try to frame the picture to what I see in the viewfinder, I sometimes lose good composition by cropping afterwards. </p>

<p>I guess that's left over from shooting film especially slides which were then projected as is. There was no cropping. You got what you shot. I still shoot the same way out of habit. But I also believe that you compose better trying to compose in camera. You pay attention more to perspective and arrangement. If you shoot "wide" hoping to arrange the elements later, you can lose perspective and balance if not downright chop off key components by cropping later.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> If you shot 4:3 and try to change it in post to fit your HDTV in 16:9, you're going to chop off feet and heads.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if you don't learn how to think about your photos. It's entirely possible to compose for the final format. It's also a regular occurrence that you can't get close enough for an uncropped photo. There's nothing wrong from learning to see what is going to happen and then cropping. This is especially true for anyone who shoots for publication. I shoot a magazine cover regularly, I know the crop. I just shoot for it. </p>

[robert_hall2]

<p>Why don't you crop the images yourself before you submit them to the photo finisher? The free Irfanview will let you crop as will FastStone Image Viewer, also free. </p>

[ander39]

Make sure the correct 4x6 thermal labels printer is selected, set Scale to Actual Size, click More settings, make sure the orientation is set to Portrait, set the Paper Size to 100x150mm or a 4x6" option. Click Print.