Minilabs crops images?

[pablo_matsumoto]

Hi. I have started being interested in photography a couple months

ago after buying a SRL.

I started also to be particulary care in framing my subjects (not

croping heads, etc). I thought that I was doing something wrong

because some of my pictures were not properly framed, but when I saw

the negatives, I realized that the print did not cover all the image

in the negative (the sides were cropped).

 

I asked the store and they told me that "almost all" minilabs crops

the images in the sides, so the solution was to frame wider than

necessary so as to avoid cropping subjets.

 

I would like to know whether is true what he has said, why this thing

happens and if there is a better solution. One of the main advantages

of SRL is the ability of framing properly, so I cannot understand why

there is not a better solution.

 

I cannot afford going to pro-labs, and as a matter of fact, I really

don't think is it worth to do it to process my grandmother birthday

or something like that.

 

The lab I use is an official 1h FujiFilm lab.

 

Thank you..

[art_haykin]

What the man said is true. If you want full frame prints, you'll simply have to pay more for them.

[EricM]

Yeppers, around 5%, kinda sucks doesn't it?

[staticlag]

You must have a good SLR if you can just tell from memory that your images are cropped in prints. Most consumer level SLRs dont show you everything they put on neg (more like 90% or less).

<p>

Yeah, its a problem, just make sure you compensate next time. The good thing is though, that if you get a good lab, they can print entire neg in enlargements and you end up with pics that are 8x12. The only problem then is finding a frame :)

<p>

Good luck.

<p>

-Dan

[christopher_bibbs]

If you pay extra to have your negatives scanned, you can see what you really captured vs. the prints. Then you can get prints made of the really critical shots and have them cropped the way you want.

[hans_beckert]

Most cameras allow for this in the viewfinder by showing only what typically will be printed, about 93% of the image. What camera do you use?

[mason_p]

If you don't do a lot of low light stuff you should consider using slide film. I tried one roll and became a convert. I think my favorite film is elite chrome 100 (e100g in a different box). It's also frighteningly cheap for the quality. I can buy it for $2 a roll at B and H and get developed in the same chemicals as a prolab for $5.

 

If you need print film you could consider ofoto.com or snapfish.com. I will be sending a few rolls to ofoto to test them out. Ofoto develops and scans your film (1024x1536 pixels)and sends back the negs for $4. Then they post your photos online and you order prints of the good ones. The scans are fairly low-res so for enlargments bigger than 5x7 you will have to take the negs somwere else.

 

I've heard good things about the A&I mailers, $12 for 4x6 prints and $6 for slides but no expereince.

 

My $0.02 advice is, shoot a roll of slides or you'll always wonder...

[James G. Dainis]

A 4×6 inch photo is the same ratio as the 24×36mm frame. If the image is enlarged slightly more than the 4×6 paper to allow for slop, the top and edges should both end up cropped a bit. An 8×10 inch photo would have one inch cropped off each side, an 8×12 photo should have nothing cropped off. A 5×7 photo would have about 1/4 inch cropped off each side. I don't know how you are getting cropping of the sides and not the tops on 4×6 inch prints. Are you sure they are 4×6 inch? Not 3½×5 inch prints?<P>

And let's forget about the viewfinder. The man said he sees cropping off of what he has on the negatives. <P>

"<I>I realized that the print did not cover all the image in the negative (the sides were cropped).</I>"

[stephen hazelton]

It is a major irritation, when using a format with exactly 2:3 ratio, and printing to paper that size, that you can't get the whole thing printed. I once had a distant shot of a train. The lab could get the locomotive in the picture, or the caboose, but not both at the same time. Arrrrrgghh!

 

If any particular picture is especially important, I suppose a pro lab could print the whole thing for you.

 

The main problem of course is that the mask on the machine simply isn't big enough to get the whole negative. You can have exactly this same problem with negative holders on your own enlarger. If you get slide film, and have the slides mounted, beware: The mounts normally cover up part of the frame also.

 

Another thing that COULD be an issue: I don't know if the negative exactly measures 24x36mm. The image area could actually be slightly bigger (would make sense for the camera to be designed that way).

 

You might try a different minilab; not that one is better, but different machines might vary slightly in this regard.

[mason_p]

"If you get slide film, and have the slides mounted, beware: The

mounts normally cover up part of the frame also."

 

Slide mounts give you an image that measures approximately 23x34mm which is 91% of the 24x36mm transparancy. My camera shows 95% of the image so its very close. What kind of camera do you have, Pablo, and what percent of the image does it show?

[staticlag]

<i>"One of the main advantages of SRL is the ability of framing properly, so I cannot understand why there is not a better solution."</i>

<p>

He may state that he observes the image is cropped from the negative, but he is concerned with framing. Image framing deals with what you can see through viewfinder. :)

 

<p>

-Dan

[James G. Dainis]

My take on it from his post is, he thought he was not framing properly through the viewfinder but after checking the negatives he realized the problem was with the cropping of the negatives not his framing.

[imaginator]

35mm film is a ratio of 2:3 (or you can also say 1:1.5) Many popular print sizes are more like 4:5 (or 1:1.25) This means the longest dimension will have to get cropped. You can get frames to hold your full frame photos, like 8 by 12 inches (instead of common 8 by 10) but they are less common or will cost more. You can also compose a wider view and expect to crop.

[david_bedell]

I find 8x12 frames to be fairly common.

 

I hate this whole cropping business that has been pushed on 35mm consumers, well, forever. 8x10 is a large-format contact print size. It should have nothing to do with 35mm printmaking, except in odd cases. Same goes for 5x7 and 11x14.

[glen peterson]

Until I got a film scanner, I did not realize exatly how much minilabs do crop. Even on 4x6. I also found that all the very dark prints/framing problems that made these prints less than I thought they would be when taking, were not entirely my fault.

[mark_uhde]

SLR, and it's true. It will be minimised if the print is 3:2 ratio, but still present (4x6, 6x9, 8x12 are all 3:2). Borders will also usually help (depending on how they're done - image inside them (good), or as some "art borders" from certain services are, border ON TOP OF the image (REALLY bad, makes problem much worse)).