I do not usually print my images, but I recently decided to print a couple of my landscapes in 8x10 format to hang on my wall in frames. I found that when I wanted to crop to 8x10, I lost a significant part of my image as the dimensions are different to the "as shot" dimensions. I am shooting with a Nikon D7000. Does anyone know if the dimensions are wrong for 8x10 format because I am shooting with a crop sensor, or would I have the same issue with a full-frame FX camera?
It has been many years, but I used to make 8x10 prints to hang on the wall out from my old non-digital Nikon 35mm camera, and I don't recall losing any of the image. I could be wrong, because I never did my own developing and may not have noticed any cropping because I would have had to look at the negatives to see the difference.
Whether it's a Nikon DX, FX or 35mm film SLR, the aspect ratio of the image is 2x3 rather than 8x10. It has nothing to do with a cropped sensor. This aspect ratio was the standard for the vast majority of 35mm cameras,too. If you want an 8x10, you'll need to lose area at the sides, whether you're starting from a DSLR image or a 35mm negative or slide. Whoever you had print your 8x10's in the past from film either took their best guess at cropping or it happened indiscriminately in a machine. Now you can control it.
Thanks for your reply Rick. It is interesting to me that the most commonly sold retail frames and mats are the wrong size for standard size images and enlargements. I think every frame my wife and I have purchased in the last 20 years has been either 11x14 or 8x10 as these are two of the most common frame sizes available in retail stores. It seems really strange to me that frame manufacturers would continue to sell frames to the general public that do not fit their 4x6 standard photo's or enlargements (8x12, 12x18 etc.) without cropping. I guess it is good for the custom frame industry
Sun 16-Jun-13 02:10 PM | edited Sun 16-Jun-13 03:28 PM by walkerr
Not every camera is 35mm or a DSLR. Point and shoot digital cameras have different aspect ratios, and the medium format film cameras typically used for professional portrait photography in the past also had/have different aspect ratios. An alternative way of working with the frame sizes you mention is by using a mat.
I had not thought about point and shoot and other camera's having different aspect ratio's. Out of curiosity I just looked at an image I took with a Nikon P&S in Lightroom and it is a 4x3 ratio. It does not need as much cropping as a 4x6 to crop it to an 8x10, but you still lose a little off the edges. I wonder which camera makes a perfect 8x10 photo, maybe a medium format?
Interesting. I won't be buying a medium format or large format camera in the near future, so I will have to make friends with the staff at my local custom frame store as I will be buying some custom mats in the near future
You are expressing a frustration that a lot of DSLR photographers have when we want to mat and frame an image. The framing industry standard is 4x5 aspect ration. Must go back to the time when LF as the common camera. This does make it difficult to frame our images. Some places are now beginning to offer "digital sized" mats and frames. But not many and not much variety.
As Rick suggests you can always buy a larger frame (outside dimension) and have the opening cut to a 2x3 aspect ration. I see a lot of images in 16x20 mat with a 10x15 opening for "digital sized" images. One idea.
Thanks for the reply Ron. I tend to be a logical thinker, probably too much so sometimes. That is why it surprises me that frame manufacturers continue to make frames in formats such as 8x10 and 11x14, that do not fit most of the common formats currently out there. If they do not fit DSLR, 35mm or 4x3 P&S, they are probably not fitting the images taken by 99% of the population. You would think it would be simply a decision of economics for the frame companies to mass produce frames in the most commonly used picture sizes.
I remember when we would watch movies on our televisions in letterbox format with a big black line on either side of the screen because TV's were not built in the same format as the movies. The TV industry moved on and now all modern TV's are sold to fit the aspect ratio of current digital filming standards.
Sun 16-Jun-13 04:02 PM | edited Sun 16-Jun-13 04:08 PM by esantos
Frame aspect ratios do follow some form of logic if you are aware of the history behind it. Film ratios actually followed commercial print standards and/or the film industry. In print the photo sizes had to meet the dimensions of journalistic print standards or a fraction there of. Conversely, while a lot of early movies were filmed using 35mm film the actual display ratio was 4:3 or 1.33:1. This was the area between the sprocket perforations. Your modern HDTV in 16 : 9 (1.78:1) format is close to standard widescreen film at 1.85:1 but still not wide enough for Anamorphic Widescreen at 2.35:1. So now when you watch a widescreen movie you probably will not see the letterboxing unless the film is Anamorphic Widescreen. Today when movies are made many are filmed so that they can be displayed in the native aspect ratio and can also be mastered to display full screen on a widescreen TV. When television was first developed it was designed to match the then standard film aspect ratio of 4:3 (1.33:1 for silent film and 1.37:1 for sound film). Ironically, when TV became popular and accessible to the masses in the 1950's Hollywood decided to introduce widescreen film to attract dwindling audiences glued to their new fangled TVs.
Now, as far as photo frames the reason most are offered at 8x10 is because today most portraits are still presented in that format, and I actually think it is a much more pleasing format than the full 35mm aspect ratio. The stock frames I've seen at my local Hobby Lobby are also typically available in 5x7 as well which again is best suited for portraiture, and then finally 4x6 which is the standard for vacation/snap shots. 4x6 fits 35mm film perfectly.
Ernesto Santos esartprints.comErnesto Santos Photography Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"