Introduction

In my work with law enforcement agencies, I often run into difficulty when trying to explain why an image captured in the 3:2 aspect ratio of Nikon DSLR cameras cannot be printed at 11.0 x 8.5 inches without cropping. Herein is the best approach I have found to date. My apologies for the bit of arithmetic used below, but this is one of those times when a few numbers are required.


What is Aspect Ratio?

Simply stated, aspect Ratio (AR) is the relationship between the longest and the shortest dimensions of an image. This ratio can be easily expressed as the longest dimension of the image divided by its shortest dimension.

Examples:

1) Nikon 35 mm film and FX DSLR cameras all use a sensor that is 36 mm on the long dimension, and 24 mm on the short dimension. The long dimension (in pixels, millimeters, etc.) divided by the short dimension yields 1.5 (36/24 = 1.5). Thus, the AR of the sensor is 1.5 to 1.0 (usually expressed as 1.50:1.00). In other words, the long dimension is 1.5 times the short dimension.


2) The AR of the common 8.5 x 11.0 inch print is 1.29; (11.0/8.5 = 1.29). In this example, the AR is 1.29 to 1.00 (usually expressed as 1.29:1.00), which means that the long side is 1.29 times the length of the short side. While there are other ways to execute the arithmetic, (e.g., dividing the shortest dimension by the longest, resulting in mumbers less than 1.0) this approach keeps all numbers at 1.00 or greater, which seems to be preferable for most people.

There are dozens of different "standard" paper sizes available, from the very small to the very large, national and international. Some of their dimensions are expressed in inches, while other are expressed in millimeters.

Below are several different image and paper sizes, and their aspect ratios calculated using the above approach; long dimension divided by short dimension. For clarity, the 1.00 following the initial number of the ratio is omitted, as it is always 1.00.

4 x 6 inches = 1.50
6 x 9 inches = 1.50
12 x 18 inches = 1.50
24 x 36 inches = 1.50

5 x 7 inches = 1.40
10 x 14 inxhes = 1.40
20 x 28 inches = 1.40

8.5 x 11.0 inches = 1.29
17.0 x 22.0 inches = 1.29
24.0 x 31.1 inches = 1.29

4 x 5 inches = 1.25
8 x 10 inches = 1.25
16 x 20 inches = 1.25

Notice the grouping of different image/paper sizes. Despite their differing dimensions, their aspect ratios are identical.


Key Point!

Case 1: Suppose I have a landscape format image that is currently sized at 8.0 by 10.0 inches, and I want to resize it and print it at 24 x 30 inches. Can I do this without introducing distortion, or by cropping? Look at the aspect ratios: 10.0/8.0 = 1.25, and 30.0/24.0 = 1.25. Thus, the answer is yes, it can be printed at the larger size without distortion or cropping.

Case 2: Suppose I want to resize the 8.0 x 10.0 landscape image and print it at 24.0 x 36.0 inches, without distortion or cropping. Again, 10.0/8.0 = 1.25. But, 36.0/24.0 = 1.50, which means that the 36.0 dimension is 1.50 times the shortest dimension, while the 10.0 inch dimension of the smaller print is only 1.25 times the shortest dimension. Thus, the aspect ratios are different, and some portion of the top and/or bottom of the 8.0 x 10.0 inch print must be cropped off in order to resize and print it at 24.0 x 36.0 inches without distortion.


Graphic Examples

Despite my best efforts to explain aspect ratios numerically (on occasion to experienced graphic designers!), I frequently get the tabula rasa, or deer in the headlights stare. They still don't understand why a 1.5 AR image (Nikon image sensor at 24.0 x 36.0 mm) cannot be printed at 8.0 x 10.0 (AR = 1.25) without cropping off the ends.

Finally, in desperation, I printed up a set of six images to graphically demonstrate what occurs when resizing an initial print of a given aspect ratio to another sized print of a different aspect ratio without cropping. Here is a new set of those images, using a recent law enforcement image as an example.

The first example below is a full-frame, uncropped, 1.5 aspect ratio image from my Nikon D3. The five following images are all different aspect ratio versions of the original, and were simply resized to 900 pixels on the longest side (horizontal) without cropping, and the shortest side (vertical) adjusted to fit the desired, new aspect ratio.

Notice the distortions that occur. Some are not quite noticeable, while others are clearly visible. Progressing down the images, the compression in the long dimension becomes increasingly apparent, particularly the front wheel of the motorcycle as it becomes oval shaped. Finally at the bottom 1.0 aspect ratio image (square) the distortion is absurd, as the horizontal dimension of the image has been compressed to two-thirds of its original width.





AR = 1.5: 900 x 599 Pixels; Original from D3.





AR = 1.29: 900 x 698 Pixels; 8.5 x 11.0 Image.





AR = 1.27: 900 x 709 Pixels; 11.0 x 14.0 Image.





AR = 1.25: 900 x 720 Pixels; 4.0 x 5.0 Image.





AR = 1.17: 900 x 769 Pixels; 6.00 x 7.00 Image.





AR = 1.00: 900 x 900 Pixels; 1.0 x 1.0 (Square) Image.



Conclusion

If the aspect ratio of the original image is identical to the aspect ratio of new, desired image size, the enlargement/reduction can occur without distortion or cropping.

If the aspect ratios of the original and desired images are different, cropping and/or distortion must occur.


Hope this helps a bit ...

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)
Attachment #4, (jpg file)
Attachment #5, (jpg file)
Attachment #6, (jpg file)

Hal,

Thanks for the post. When I learned to shot 35mm film I always left room for the crop caused by enlarging. Unfortunately enlargers did not resize to fit the paper.

We must also realize that other countries can use different sized papers that have different aspect ratios. But if you are using the A sized series of papers the aspect ratio is constant between the standard sizes as each next smaller size is 1/2 that of the current size.
A Series Paper Sizes Defined
The A series paper sizes are defined in ISO 216 by the following requirements:

The length divided by the width is 1.4142

The A0 size has an area of 1 square metre.

Each subsequent size A(n) is defined as A(n-1) cut in half parallel to its shorter sides.

The standard length and width of each size is rounded to the nearest millimetre.

Note: For reference the last item is there because the root 2 aspect ratio doesn't always give a whole number.

George
My Nikonian Galleries

George:

Thank you for your comments regarding other "standard" paper sizes.

This original post deliberately discussed "paper" and "image" sizes as an introductory session, keeping the arithmetic to a minimum, for the moment. The main thrust of this post is that resizing an image from one aspect ratio to a different aspect ratio without cropping will lead to distortion, as illustrated in the six accompanying images.

I plan a second, slightly more advanced post to go into details like: European paper sizes, portrait versus landscape format issues, fitting an image of one aspect ratio to a paper of a different aspect ratio, etc.

My thought was to see what reactions/comments this initial, basic post receives, and then proceed with the second one wherein I will discuss the assembled points. Some of my posts get a bit long-winded and tedious, (soporific, if you like), and this one is no exception.

Thanks again for your contribution.

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

I recall from when I studied engineering we were taught that A series of ISO 216 paper standards were stablished to facilitate storage and photo reproduction of drawings and blueprints. The series were tied to a series of line width values ( at that time CAD were very uncommon, just starting) whose ratio was still kept when enlarging or reducing microfilmed drawings. Therefore, whatever the scale you got when manipulating a drawing, when paper was within A series ratios, line witdth values between, say a dimension line and an centreline axis for example, were the same.
It is also obvious that a big A1 drawing can be conveniently folded down to A4 size for storage.
I believe these sizes were transferred to ISO from early German DIN standards. Hence they soon became common standards in Europe.

Back to Hal's point, it si rather obvious that if you resize changing aspect ratio, either you crop or you got a distortion.
Remember also the transition from 4:3 to 16_9 (edited as it shows an emoticon instead) TV screens. In Spain now it seems almost all TV stations standardised to 16_9 but we saw a lot of cropped and distorted films and series for a long while. Totally unacceptable to me...

Regards,

Jordi
-Barcelonian-

Jordi
-Barcelonian-

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Some people are really challenged by this, others not. I tend to think geometrically (but had a hard time with calculus).

For those that can't grasp it, I tend to show the cropped image to illustrate the point (A picture IS worth a thousand words, which by extension, may indicate my words aren't worth much!)

Unless my client needs a picture of a specific size and aspect ratio, I will just produce the best image at some standard aspect ratio. If they have a frame they want to use, and the aspect ratio is not exact, I assume that's why God invented matting.

Also, keep in mind, that a 5:4 (8x10 image, 1.25) printed in 8X10 paper with a 1/4" margin will no longer be 1.25 but 1.27, and that continues to change as your paper size and/or margin size changes (with a 1/5 inch margin, it goes to 1.33)

I usually just determine the image size that I want and then select the paper size it will fit on, setting margins and trimming as required. For inclusion in a publication, it's important to know the space that the image is intended to fill. When someone intends to display the image electronically, insisting that they do not adjust the aspect ratio (fill the screen) in important.

So Hal, where can I buy that motorcycle in the last image? I have just enough room in my garage for that, but not for the one in the top image?

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

Mick:

Thanks for dropping in ... always nice to hear from you.

The officer informs me that you purchase the full size motorcycle, throw it in your washing machine using hot water, and then in the dryer using the "cotton towels" heat setting. The shrinkage occurs in steps, and you may have to repeat the process several times to achieve the desired size.

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

Jordi:

Thank you for your comments. In my years in the computer industry, where "standards" are everything, I marveled that systems worked at all, due to the exponentially growing number of hardware and software standards.

The collection of national and international "standard" paper sizes, while not as complex as the computer industry, does require a bit of study.

Mick raises a good point: When printing an 8.0 by 10.0 inch image ( 1.25 aspect raatio) on 8.0 x 10.0 inch paper, one has two choices:

1) Print it borderless, cropping and distortion free, if your printer permits.

2) Resize it to 7.5 by 9.5 inches (1.27 aspect ratio), leaving a 0.25 inch border on all sides. This requires cropping or distortion. Cropping, if acceptable, will eliminate distortion. Simply resizing without cropping may not be noticeable, as the aspect ratios differ by just 0.02. The most obvious sign of resizing with distortion is circular objects like wheels (see motor cycle images above) become increasingly oval shaped as distortion increases.

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

Hal:
Thanks for replying. I daresay that computer industry is so fast evolving that establishing systems must be almost a purposeless task. Paper standards did had a meaning in the times when mechanical industry or building did use a lot of drawings on paper and microfilmed support. Probably that's why they made us learn them at engineering colleges. Now with extensive use of CAD systems and 3D modelling probably its importance is reduced even for those industries.

Back to your point, as I tend to see "geometrically" I can't accept distortion at all, as It would draw my attention much easily than any other element in the image. Same goes for TV screens. Therefore I would go for the crop option, or eventually leaving a blank border, keeping aspect ratio by all means. But that's just my view, maybe others have another opinion.

I tend to hang images mounted on foam 10 mm thick that I can cut to measure. If I frame it I seldom use standard frames, as it is easy ho have them made to measure here.

Kind regards,
Jordi
-Barcelonian-

Jordi
-Barcelonian-

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Jordi:

Thanks for your additional comments. Yes, during my fifty-plus years in the computer industry, we grappled constantly with the rapidly evolving standards: hardware standards, software standards, hardware/software interface standards, code set standards, data communication standards ... the list is endless.

While some members may be vigorously opposed to some "standard" photo paper sizes (e.g., 8.5 x 11.0 inches) I go through several 250 sheet boxes of Ilford Smooth Gloss, 8.5 x 11.0 inch, 290 gsm (grams per square meter) paper every year for my proofing needs. This paper has become my personal "standard" proofing paper for several reasons.

1) It will take an 8.0 x 10.0 inch image leaving a 0.25 inch border on the long side, and a 0.50 inch border on the short side, which leaves plenty of room for matting and framing when needed.

2) When I wish to print a full-frame 3:2 aspect ratio image, I size the long dimension to 10.0 inches, and retain the aspect ratio which makes the short dimension 6.65 inches, again leaving plenty of room for matting and framing when needed. I know, it should be 10.0 x 6.67, but PS CS5 insists on making it 10.0 x 6.65.

3) Thus, I maintain a single paper size (8.5 x 11.0) for all my proofing needs, and can size images of any aspect ratio to fit it with a few mouse clicks.

4) The "Itoya" Company makes inexpensive vinyl "ART Profolio" folios in several "standard" sizes, including 8.5 x 11.0 inches, in both landscape and portrait formats. These make excellent portfolios for carrying prints around to informal show and tell sessions. Yes, the margins may be different based on image size and aspect ratio, but for informal, easy to carry portfolios, they are excellent. And, I can maintain a single, constant, "standard" paper size of 8.5 x 11.0 inches for all my proofs.

From the opposite perspective, if I want to print an 8.0 x 10.0 inch image on 8.0 x 10.0 inch paper, I must have a printer that will print edge to edge borderless in both dimensions, something not all printers can do. When possible, this leaves no room for matting and framing without losing some of the image.

I also use several 25 sheet boxes a year of Epson's Velvet Fine Art in the 17.0 x 22.0 inch size, which is exactly four times the 8.5 x 11.0 size. With this paper, I can print a 16.0 x 20 inch image, leaving a 0.5 inch border on the long sides, and a 1.0 inch border on the short sides. Again, adequate room for matting and framing without intruding on the image.

While it is true, the 8.5 x 11.0 inch size may have its origins in the typewriter/copier industry, I know a lot of photographers who use lots of 8.5 x 11.0 inch and 17.0 x 22.0 inch photo paper, for reasons mentioned above.

I work with an exceptional framer here, and all of my framed work is custom, by definition. Just because an image may be one of the acceptable "standard" sizes, does not, by definition, mean that the matted/frame version will retain the same aspect ratio. Yes, some people are aware of this.

Example:

A 16.0 x 20.0 inch print has an aspect ratio of 1.25 (20.0/16.0 = 1.25). Sometimes, it will look better with a 3.0 inch matte, all the way around, which brings the matted dimensions to 22.0 x 26.0, an aspect ratio of 1.18.

Other times, a smaller matte of 2.5 inches all around looks better, brings it to 21.0 x 25.0, an aspect ratio of 1.19.

Finally, sometimes it looks better to keep the aspect ratio of the matte equal to that of the print. Thus, a 16.0 x 20.0 inch print with a 3.0 inch matte on the long sides will have 3.75 inch matte on the short sides, resulting in a matted size of 27.5 x 22.0 inches, thus retaining the print's aspect ratio of 1.25 (27.5/22.0 = 1.25).

In summary, perhaps the term "standard", like "accurate color" is relative, and best left to individual perception and judgement.

Thanks again for joining us.

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

Well, as the old saying goes, the nice thing about "Standards" is there are so many to choose from.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery

8.5" x11" was never a photo industry "standard". It was bond paper size. It is a printing manufacturer's standard for cut paper whether you are talking about use in a copy machine, inkjet or laser printer. I have never wrestled with formatting to fit a 8.5" x 11" piece of paper because first of all, I have never bought paper that size. If I anticipate printing images that size I will load a 10in wide roll of paper and print 8"x10"s.

Another reason, I do not try to format an image to that size is because that size is not a standard in the framing world. Before posting this, I when to the Michael's website and I could not find a single frame that took the size 8.5"x11" image into consideration. Their frames are designed for 8x10 images.

Some would say...."well a person can get it customed framed". Well that comes at a great deal of expense for such a small image. This is not to say my larger prints are at a "standard" size because typically they aren't, but people who buy my large prints aren't going to Michaels to try to find a frame off the shelf to put it in.

Even if I was stuck with 8.5"x11" paper, I will format the image for 8x10 and cut down. Distort a picture to fit a 8.5x11 inch piece of paper? You must be joking. In 35 years of doing serious printing (Traditional Darkroom or Digital), I have NEVER considered distorting an image to fit any size paper let alone 8.5 x 11 paper.

You have always had to do some cropping to fit 35mm film on a piece of "standard" photo paper. This is not new. Cropping to fit a piece of paper is not an evil thing to do. Even when I shot Hassleblads with 6cmx6cm frame size, I shot taking into consideration that I would have to do some heavy cropping when printing an 8x10, 16x20, etc.

I will never let the standard size set for copy or bond paper dictate how I will crop an image just so I can fit it on that piece of paper. Conversely, I will not let the format of my camera dictate what size paper of paper I will print it on. I just shoot loose that I can crop to a standard size if I need to.

Again, 8.5 x 11 is certainly not a standard of the photography world. It was first deemed the standard size by bond paper manufactures and copying machines were designed to use this size paper or legal (8.5x14) paper. Then once computers were develop and computer printers, computer printers were designed to this bond paper size because it is this size that is found in an Office environment. Kodak, once the largest photography paper manufacturer, NEVER had 8.5x11 photo paper for use in the darkroom.

Mel
An Opinionated Old Curmudgeon from Virginia


Website - www.meltalley.com
Blog - http://blog.meltalley.com
Facebook - www.facebook.com/mel.talley
Twitter - @meltalley

8.5" x11" was never a photo industry "standard". It was bond paper size.

I think readers should note the use of the past tense here. The nice thing about standards is that there are, and were, so many of them. The so-called 8x10" standard dates back to when sheet film was king and even then it was only one of several choices. Look at the the most common U.S. print sizes for the last 40 years: 3.5x5, 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 -- all different aspect ratios. It's not until you hit 16x20 that you find a common aspect ratio between two sizes. Roll and cartridge film aspect ratios? Different still.

Things have changed and no doubt will change again. When buying photo paper, 8.5" x 11" is a U.S. standard size and has been for a number of years. For example, take a look at this list of sizes from Red River and note what's listed as "standard:"

Or, if you prefer, do a search at B&H. You'll see that they stock 319 choices in 8.5x11" and only 17 in 8x10". Outside of the U.S., sales of "A" sizes dominate over "R" sizes.

It is a printing manufacturer's standard for cut paper whether you are talking about use in a copy machine, inkjet or laser printer.

Both inkjet and laser printers are now regularly used to print photographs. In fact, they are used far more often than traditional darkroom papers. Again, this has been true for a number of years.

I have never wrestled with formatting to fit a 8.5" x 11" piece of paper because first of all, I have never bought paper that size.

I see little difference in trying to "wrestle" a 3:2 aspect ratio on to an 8x10" or an 8.5x11" print. The first may be more "traditional," but I don't see it as better in any way. Instead, I let the subject determine the print shape. You certainly have a right to be an "Opinionated Old Curmudgeon" and to express your opinion. But once you start making proclamations about what is and isn't "true photography," in my opinion that goes beyond the pale.

If you want to photograph a man spinning, give some thought to why he spins. Understanding for a photographer is as important as the equipment he uses. - Margaret Bourke-White

Michael:

Thank you for your comprehensive, well researched addition to this thread. In the face of your research, it seems clear that, for whatever reasons, 8.5 x 11.0 inch ink jet photo paper is becoming/has become a "standard" size.

We are in complete agreement: the world of standards is a constantly changing environment in many disciplines, including photography.

I tried to make the point that I have adopted the 8.5 x 11.0 inch format as my own, personal, "standard", proofing paper, giving several reasons for my choice. I did not mean to imply that it should be everybody's "standard", or that it should replace any of the traditional "standard" sizes.

Thanks again ... your comments are greatly appreciated.

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

Hal,
Very "interesting problem", I run into the a similar problem when explaining why a certain size picture that looked "soo" big on someone else's monitor wouldn't print at A2 size!

>>In my work with law enforcement agencies, I often run into difficulty when trying to explain why an image captured in the 3:2 aspect ratio of Nikon DSLR cameras cannot be printed at 11.0 x 8.5 inches without cropping. Herein is the best approach I have found to date. My apologies for the bit of arithmetic used below, but this is one of those things when a few numbers are required.

Fault is entirely yours sir; why would you show them any other aspect ratio than the one you are going to give them?

>>In the face of your research, it seems clear that, for whatever reasons, 8.5 x 11.0 inch ink jet photo paper is becoming/has become a "standard" size

I agree and disagree....
A quick google search showed that the US letter sizes are used only in United States, Canada, Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia, Venezuela, Philippines, and Chile......

For rest of us the closest standard is A4 size.... but I completely agree with the premise of you argument.

Regards
Dinil



Struck by Light - Blog & Gallery
Visible Range - Photography & Beyond

Dinil:

Thanks for joining the discussion.

You said: "Fault is entirely yours sir; why would you show them any other aspect ratio than the one you are going to give them?"

Frequently, as is the case here, I am providing new images that are intended to replace older images in various promotion/recruiting posters and brochures of various sizes. The overall dimensions of the publications will remain fixed, as will the text. They have used a variety of aspect ratios in the past ( 1.25, 1.5, etc.) in the publications and, cost always being a factor, are somewhat reluctant to change them as it would require new text and layout. Ergo, I must work to fit the 1.5 aspect ratios out of the camera to assorted aspect ratios in the publications, while trying to maintain reasonable compositional guidelines. Sometimes, it is a stretch, and compromise is always the operative word.

This law enforcement agency, like all the others I have worked with over the years, has been most cooperative in granting me access to facilites, vehicles, aircraft, personnel, etc. And, permission to share images here on the Nikonian site. I would not feel right in simply giving them "... the one you are going to give them."

That's why.

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

Hal,
My comment had nothing to do with not giving them access and nor was I suggesting anything to that effect.
It was about not showing "unfinished" work - but after reading your response, I now understand you have the problem of using the same image in varying aspect ratios for different publications.

In that situation what I might do is to carry a couple of prints with few correspondingly sized cardboard cutout frames to quickly show people the effects of different aspect ratios on an image.

When someone asks you why "that bit" of the image is not visible on a differently cropped version, just overlay the cardboard frame and tell them "this is why"

Regards
Dinil



Struck by Light - Blog & Gallery
Visible Range - Photography & Beyond

Hal

Thanks for the great illustration of these concepts.

My wife is one of those that just doesn't get this concept. She is continually frustrated by a desire for specific sizes from an uncropped or cropped images.

Recently I got a request from a client who had seen a print in a gallery and wanted a different sized version of the same print in order to fit a specific frame size. I went back to the original image to see if it could be recropped to fit the desired size - and there were unwanted elements that prevented that approach. The solution was to print the image and present it with a custom mat to fit the frame.

We deal with these issues and understand the problems. Many clients struggle with the concepts.

I know Perrone is using the new 8x10 crop in the new D800 because a very high percentage of his work needs is sold with those proportions. For him, the ability to choose an alternative native image is a big time saver.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Eric:

Thank you for joining the discussion. I always appreciate you perspective and comments.

In reality, several photographic concepts require the use of a few numbers in their explanation. I suspect this is a problem for those who profess: "I was never good at math.". Fortunately, most of the basic concepts can be adequately explained with simple addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

This time, I decided to try a graphic approach, as seen above, supported by minimal use of numbers to convey the concept of aspect ratios. Thank you for confirming that it is helpful.

Agreed: custom mats to fit an image into one of the "standard" frame sizes is the simplest solution to the problem.

For decades now, I have been shooting with the finished image aspect ratio in mind when composing in my 1.5 aspect ratio Nikon cameras. This usually involves leaving room on one or both ends to crop to a 1.25 aspect ratio (4x5, 8x10, 16x20, etc.). The obvious goal in this exercise is to throw away as few pixels as possible during cropping.

Thanks again for you continued support.

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

Hal,

Thanks for this post. You have covered off on a number of issues that had not really occurred to me, particularly in relation to end user requirements.

I was most impressed by the way you reduced the size of the motor cycle. I wonder whether that technique could be adapted to reduce the size of my stomach. Dieting is such a boring process, and I don't find the washing machine/dryer method to be anymore appealing.

Regards,

John

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

John:

Thanks for joining us. Nice to hear from you again.

Yes, in the absence of end users of our images we are free to produce any aspect ratio that appeals to us. For images of mine that hang in a local gallery such is the case. For images where client aspect ratio requirements are involved, it is rarely the case. When composing images during client shooting sessions, I try to keep this in mind. The worst of all worlds occurs when the client really likes an image, and then wants to use it in several different publications at several different crops and aspect ratios. Sometimes I am successful in rising to this challenge ... other times I am not.

I'm sure you noticed how much slimmer the motorcycle officer looked in the final 1:1 aspect ratio image than he did in the original at 3:2 in the original version. Try it ... you might be surprised.

Agreed: the washer/dryer cycle leaves much to be desired. It takes forever to get the soapy taste out of one's mouth.

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

Well done Hal, again.

I am thinking that perhaps it would have been better to illustrate the issue with a picture of a doughnut instead of a motorbike. Law enforcement personnel are very familiar with this staple and any distortion on the x or y axis would have been immediately more visible.

I am just kidding!

Peter

Well, your idea is not bad', Peter.
Bear in mind that any circle which is not parallel to the sensor plane will appear distorted in the picture, whether the aspect ratio is respected or not, due to perspective effect.
This could be used for a tolerance on an acceptable aspect ratio variation to avoid cropping.
But if you present a flat doughnut and modify the aspect ratio, it is likely that distortion is not acceptable, provided our brain expects a round doughnut.
And I'm not kidding

Regards,

Jordi
-Barcelonian-

Jordi
-Barcelonian-

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Peter and Jordi:

Thank you for your delightful exchange regarding donuts and law enforcement officers' perception of their aspect ratios.

Peter, would you like to explain the connection between law enforcement officers and donuts to the group?

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

>Peter, would you like to explain the connection between law
>enforcement officers and donuts to the group?

That's an interesting point, actually. Nikonians is international in nature and I'm not sure how universal this thought is. I know that in my neck of the woods (Canada/North America) it is not uncommon to joke that law enforcement professionals (police officers) spend a lot of time in doughnut shops eating doughnuts. Of course this is light ribbing and not meant to be insulting in any way - I have the highest respect for those on duty. I would guess however that this kind of ribbing is common only in certain cultures and global regions.

I think this thought is rather spread across the globe.
Only they may eat things other than donuts (Tapas in the case of Spain)
With most respect for law enforcement professionals, there's been also here some ribbing about them spending time at cofee shops or bars
Jordi
-Barcelonian-

Jordi
-Barcelonian-

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The story I heard, and I'm going back 35-40 years now, is that Dunkin Donuts (the largest and oldest eat-in donut specialty chain in the USA) gave donuts away free (or maybe heavily discounted) to police officers in tacit exchange for a presence at their outlets.

(a cheap private security force, if you think about it, a shrewd business decision, and a classic symbiotic relationship)

The police officers were on duty or on short breaks and they had a need for a "meal" or quick sugar fix while exercising their duty, often late at night when other fast food is not (or was not way back then) generally available (this is before the 24 hour McDonald's drive-through type operations that we see today).

Even today, if you are on the road and you are hungry and it is late at night or very early in the morning, donuts may be the only option in any given area. So even during the day, with many other options, we are all creatures of habit .

Thinking further here, I typically see a lot of officers in Royal Farms stores now, which are also open at odd hours, but have a much more varied menu (but including donuts ). This a huge national USA chain/franchise convenience store and gas station operation, usually with at least casual eat-in facilities. And they have very good fried chicken! So this police officer/donut thing may not have fully stood the test of time

These donut shops are open at odd hours and the idea was that they were particularly susceptible to robbery and other similar problems. Dunkin Donuts is a franchise operation so even if this was the real story, it may have been a local "custom" in my town with some or all local franchisees and not a national corporate policy.

I have no idea if that is true or not but this branch of the thread made me think about that old story.

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

Good discussion

While I understand aspect ratio very well, one of the great frustrations I have is that many of my favorite images just don't look right (to me) except when printed full frame (3:2). And in the USA, living with our "standards" I find the relative lack of 3:2 print and framing options frustrating. I also happen to like the 3:2 aspect ratio for many subjects, except for portraiture where 5:4 seems more pleasing to me, especially in portrait orientation.

No one else would know what was missing from the crop. But I do . And in many cases the images captured something that I could not foresee in my composition. In particular I'm thinking about a 3 bolt lightning strike I really like.

I should revisit that image with the idea of stretching in mind. While stretching could cause some problems with the geometric wheels of the motorcycle maybe I'll be luckier. I am well aware of Photoshop's stretching ability but often forget about applying that bit of post processing, or I'm reluctant to do so without reason, if that makes any sense.

I was unaware of the brute mathematics of the European A system since I don't pay much attention to it, given the lack of paper and framing generally available here in the USA. At some levels it makes a lot of sense since everything fits the same package and therefore final cropping is more easily anticipated. On the other hand, here in the USA we seem to have a bewildering array of aspect ratios to choose from, for better or worse. Choice can be good...

Of course, that bewildering array is not available in any particular general "size", which can be quite frustrating. For example, 8x12 prints can be made, privately or commercially, but the choice of reasonably priced off the shelf 8x12 frames and pre-cut mats is quite limited at best.

In life, Double edged swords are everywhere

_________________________________
Neil
Nikonians Team
My Gallery

Neil:

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. Your insights are always appreciated.

I also find that some images look "best" when printed at the 3:2 aspect ratio. When proofing these images, I print them at 10.0 x 6.65 on my personal "standard" 8.5 x 11.0 inch paper.

For intermediate size versions, I use a lot of Epson's 13.0 x 19.0 paper, which lets me print at 12.0 x 18.0 (3:2 aspect ratio) with a nice 0.5 inch border on all four sides.

For larger 3:2 aspect ratio versions, I print at 14.0 x 21.0 on Epson's 17.0 x 22.0 paper, which results in a 1.5 inch border on the long sides, and a 0.5 in border on the short sides, allowing plenty of room for trimming, matting, and framing.

Beyond this, I go to 24.0 inch wide rolls on my Epson P7900 printer, where I can print at almost 24.0 x 36.0 inches for 3:2 aspect ratio images, leaving a small border for matting and framing.

Agreed: the choices are a "bewildering array" and "double edged swords are everywhere." Adaptability and a spirit of compromise seem to be the necessary attributes to cope with this issue.

Thanks again,

Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

One thing I like about Red River Paper, aside from the paper itself, is that they offer most of thier papers in a 17x25 sheet. Perfect for printing a 16X24 print with a 17" or wider printer.

Mick
http://www.mickklassphoto.com
or
Visit my nikonians gallery