william_edwards Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I searched around and couldn't find any thing quite like this question and hope you can explain something to me. For the most part my 35mm negs are made into 8x12 prints. The pictures I make are usually full frame macros of insects or flowers and landscapes, with a few portraits. Ofcourse 8x10 frames and mats are much easier to come by then 8x12's, but I just can not seem to find a good place to crop most of my images that looks right to me! I don't hear much about having 8x12's made and I'm wondering if I'm making a mistake not croping in the view finder instead of trying to do it on the table. If images were supposed to be this 8x10 size why don't we have view finders that show only that scale? I guess my question is, am I doing something wrong? Thanks for your help, Bill Edwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_haykin Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 If you are bent on 8x10 composition, then find a way to mark or mask your viewfinder accordingly, or mentally allow for it.Many, if not most shooters allow for a little space around their subjects to allow for various print formats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 If you know in advance your final image will be 8x10, then you should allow room for cropping. But if you getting 8x12's done and are happy with them, no reason to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean corley Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Hi Bill, I always request full frame 8x10 prints which are 10 inches long but about 6.5 or so inches wide instead of cropped 8x10s. I like the look of the slightly longer print. These should fit in a standard frame with a custom mat. You could think about the necessary crop in camera but you miss out on the better looking (IMO) full frame format. I'm interested which others prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardchen Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 I like pics with 2:3 ratio. 4x6, 8x12, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomHildreth Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Sounds like an experience very similar to my own. I have always tried to make full-frame exposures in the view finder. After all, the 34X36mm slide or negative is pretty small, so why not try and use all of it? I learned the answer to this question a few years ago when I responded to suggestions that I print some of my covered bridge photos for sale at a local craft shop. As you have discovered, if you are printing a full-frame 35mm negative for an 8X10 framed photo, the result most often is a 6.5" X 10" print. Precut inexpensive mats do not exist in this size. I had to pay a shop $6.00 per mat, which ruined my chances for a reasonable profit. If I remember correctly, I considered making 8X12" prints to get away from this problem. The trouble was I would have had to spend a great deal more for larger photo paper, paper waste due to trimming would have been greater, and 8X12" mats didn't exist, either. Not that it made a difference, but I was able to locate a few economical 8X12" frames at discount stores. The only way I know to get beyond this aspect ratio problem is to invest the time acquiring framing/matting skills (and equipment). Sorry I wasn't much help-hopefully others can offer you some effective advice. I'm interested in reading it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn McCreery Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 The Greeks thought that a rectangle with the ratio of the lengths of the sides equal to the Golden Ratio ( (1+sqrt(5))/2) = 1.618...) was the most aesthetically pleasing. They built the Parthenon and other buildings using this ratio. According to this reasoning, an 8x10 print should really be (rounding off) 8 x 12.9 or 6.2 x 10. An 8 x12 is therefore reasonably close to this ideal! I have made a few B&W prints by cutting 11 x 14 in. paper in half resulting in two 7 x 14 in. prints which have approximately the Golden Ratio of side lengths. Unfortunately, this forces me to cut my own mats, which never look as good as the pre-cut ones. Although my prints with this ratio look great, for example, for horizontal landscapes, I think that the best ratio is subject related. A vertical close-up portrait of a persons face would look peculiar printed this way (as it would printed 8 x 12). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomHildreth Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Ahh, I seem to be running at one typo per submission. I meant, of course, 24X36mm in my post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank uhlig Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Dear William, I am saying this tongue in cheek, so, please bear with my gripe: Simply do it like the newspaper do their ads nowadays: fatten the 2:3 aspect ratio to 4:5 for 8 by 10 inch prints in photoshop. Your insects will look fatter in one principal direction, and you will be able to use the cheaper 8 by 10 premade frames. Who knows what those pesky insects look like, anyway. Even a pic of Schwarzy's was stretched in our local newspaper, giving him a tall stretched head and a gazelle type look on our front page. What a disgrace ... to journalism ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 One irritating fact is that photo paper is not available in 8x12 sizes either (B&W, I mean). You can get color enlargements for cheap in that size; I assume they use roll paper and just cut it longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh_sakols Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 I buy 10 x14 matts with an 8x12 opening at Light Impressions - I don't care to crop my 35 mm images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_edwards Posted October 8, 2003 Author Share Posted October 8, 2003 Thanks everybody, for your replies. It makes me feel better about myself knowing there are others out there that like the full frame 8x12 look. And I'll try to find the Light Impressions Co. that sell mats for 8x12s. Thanks again, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaginator Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Unfortunately, I have many images that can't afford to be cropped. Most of them were taken with a 50mm lens and I couldn't get any more in the frame (when your subject is at infinity, moving back doesn't help) My solution is to make my own frames/mats (I want to do this anyway for some odd size prints) Anyway, the original decision about how to compose the shot depends on the subject/scene. If 35mm format wasn't so small, I'd shoot everything wider view and crop later, but then you might as well be using APS film (even smaller) I disagree about making the image fit the frame (the term is aspect ratio... try another search for this) Some subjects (like Half Dome) need to be "accurate" and look odd when "stretched". You need to make the choice when you take the shot. One small benefit to 8 by 10 is that many lenses tend to "vignette" towards the edges (get darker), so cropping a bit off each side (longest dimension) helps get rid of the most noticable part (towards the corners) I'm glad you brought this up because even though I know better, it's hard to break the habit of composing full frame... now i'll have to practice what I preach (thanks for reminding me)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaginator Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 I found an interesting solution to the aurora pic I posted... the dark area at the bottom... by adding more black to the bottom (increasing the vertical dimension) I get the aspect ratio I want (2:3) and it actually makes the image work better (I did this before, but don't have the file anymore... the one I posted was original shot) Anyway, there are other shots I took with a wide angle lens (28mm) that can't be cropped... usually horizontal compositions, but in this case, a vertical. I hate to lose any of it... top or bottom, so I'm stuck with 8 by 12 for this one.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaginator Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Here's one that could easily be cropped... in fact it looks better with some off the top and bottom. After looking through my images, I see many that can't be cropped... too late now (hindsight is 20/20)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_senesac Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Just because consumer framing materials are historically rooted in a set of 4x5 aspect ratio sizes does not mean one always needs to adjust to that to save a few bucks. Why waste all that 35mm image data for such. Buy custom mats and frames. Welcome to 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_marcus1 Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 Considering that 35mm is the most popular film format on the planet, I'm continually amazed at how difficult it is to find frames and mats for 8x12 prints. Standard "snapshot" prints have long been 4x6 (or the similar 3.5x5), and there are all kinds of frames to accommodate them. But art supply dealers aren't willing to stock frames and mats to accommodate full-frame enlargements. That's probably because for many years commercial labs offered enlargements only in cropped 8x10 or 11x14 sizes. <p>I probably compose 80% of my pictures using the full 1:1.5 frame, with the remaining 20% cropped because it makes the composition stronger. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using the full 35mm frame. The insistence on 8x10 or 11x14 dimensions for frames and pre-cut mats has more to do with history and marketing than with aesthetics. <p>It is possible but definitely not easy to find mats pre-cut to 8x12. When I see them at a photo store or an art supply store, I buy up as many as they've got. It's also possible (and somewhat easier) to make 8x12 prints on a narrow-carriage photo printer. Since photo-quality paper doesn't seem to come in 8.5x14 "legal" size, I buy 13x19 Epson Heavyweight Matte. I cut that down to 8.5x13, define this as a custom size, and make 8x12 prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_vill Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 When I shot film I would usually print in full 2:3 ratio size (i.e. 10x15 or scale as needed), then cut a matte to crop as needed. My solution here was to buy a Logan matte cutter (about a hundred bucks), which allows you an additional creative step. Now that I shoot with digi (and absolutely love it, by the way!), the frame ratio is still 2:3; and now I have the option of doing all sorts of cropping with greater ease. But, I still use my matte cutter when preparing for presentation. Okay, so here is what I'm trying to get at: Sometimes you can produce a great composition with the full frame. Sometimes you just can't. For example, sometimes a square composition would just be more powerful than a 2:3 ratio. I guess the better photographers (compared to an amateur like me), have a greater talent for making an interesting or powerful composition regardless of the frame ratio. So until that skill develops, don't be afraid to crop as needed and use your own matte cutter to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_kimble Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Glenn. why dont you cut those 11X14's the other way, 7X11, this is much closer to the 1.6 than your 7X14 which is actually 2.0! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegasllew Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 I'm kind of curious, as an amateur (particularly relative to this august group), why one would, on one hand, spend thousands of dollars on lenses that yield superb resolution to the edges/corners, and on the other expect to crop anywhere from 10-25+ percent of the created image. Maybe it's my eye as a glasses-wearing, macrophotographer wannabe with consumer cameras that don't yield much better than 92-95 percent of the image in the viewfinder, but I sure feel the need to fill the frame and hate to lose carefully achieved resolution to cropping and compensatory enlargement. How do others feel? And, by the way, the intent with the "golden ratio" was to achieve it, not close to it. A ratio of 1.7 is not nearly as "perfect" to the eye as 1.6. You can create tension by departing from the ratio which may be good or bad depending upon your intent (but don't do it unintentionally!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomHildreth Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 This has been a great subject, Bill. Many seem to be wrestling with the aspect ratio issue. Even those with DSLRs have to address the problem. Why the 1:1.5 aspect ratio is not common today in frames and mats larger than 4X6" is a mystery to me. This "should" have happened about 10 years ago-I think we are looking a some sort of marketing flaw. If so, it's one that should be exploited. Lets get together, form a company with a new-age name, and contract all the labor out to someplace where it is sufficiently cheap that we can become wealthy-or at least afford to upgrade our camera systems. I suggest China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erick_lamontagne Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I think it's a mistery to everyone why there aren't more 3:2 frames available. I went to several frame shops and many didn't have a single 8X12 frame and others only had a few. I never found pre-cut 8X12 mats. The best place for me to find 8X12 frame is actually the photo shop. As far as composition, I always do it with full-frame in mind but if I find a 8X10 ratio composition while editing, I'll jump on it, only because I'll have more framing option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qtluong Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Light Impressions carries matts that are precut to fit 8x12 and 12x18. Myself, I fit my <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/fine-art-prints.html"> printing sizes</a> to the format of the film I shoot (35mm and 5x7, which are both similar), instead of cropping because the format of the film does satisfy me better. Cutters are meant to be applied to paper, not to film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_edwards Posted October 16, 2003 Author Share Posted October 16, 2003 We've recieved two references to Light Impressions for 8X12 mats but I haven't been able to find them on the internet. A little help in this regard would be appreciated. Also, thanks again for all the contributing answers. Bill Edwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h4 Posted October 18, 2003 Share Posted October 18, 2003 I've been using framesbymail.com to get custom frames (nice price). You might want to take a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now