Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Proportions of 10D viewfinder compared to 8x10 crop

Reply
Thread Tools

Proportions of 10D viewfinder compared to 8x10 crop

 
 
Jay Stalman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2004
I find that when I compose and frame a shot using the viewfinder of
the 10D which should be proportioned like a 35mm slide/negative, the
proportions are much different than an 8x10 crop. (Which would be a
common size to print) In other words, there are critical parts of the
composition that HAVE to be cut off when trying to constrain the
proportions to 8x10. The 5x7 proportions are much closer, and the 4x6
proportions are almost exact, but that doesn't work for enlargements.
Any advice on getting things to fit? Thnaks a lot.
Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
usenet@imagenoir.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2004
Kibo informs me that http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Jay Stalman) stated that:

>I find that when I compose and frame a shot using the viewfinder of
>the 10D which should be proportioned like a 35mm slide/negative, the
>proportions are much different than an 8x10 crop. (Which would be a
>common size to print) In other words, there are critical parts of the
>composition that HAVE to be cut off when trying to constrain the
>proportions to 8x10. The 5x7 proportions are much closer, and the 4x6
>proportions are almost exact, but that doesn't work for enlargements.
>Any advice on getting things to fit? Thnaks a lot.


The 10D is an SLR, & it uses the same aspect ratio as film SLRs, which
is 2:3. You could try either printing at 8x12, (which is what I do ,
instead of 8x10, or just crop to a 3:4 ratio if you want to print to
8x10 or any other 3:4 ratio size.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2004

"Jay Stalman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> I find that when I compose and frame a shot using the viewfinder of
> the 10D which should be proportioned like a 35mm slide/negative


Actually, the image proportion is the same as a 35mm slide - 1x1.5 so of
course a full-frame print would yield a 8"x12"; it's right on for a 4"x6".
It's just something you have to keep in mind when composing the shot - keep
a little extra room on one side or the other, or both if you know you're
shooting for an 8x10.

Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2004
"Jay Stalman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> I find that when I compose and frame a shot using the viewfinder of
> the 10D which should be proportioned like a 35mm slide/negative, the
> proportions are much different than an 8x10 crop. (Which would be a
> common size to print) In other words, there are critical parts of the
> composition that HAVE to be cut off when trying to constrain the
> proportions to 8x10. The 5x7 proportions are much closer, and the 4x6
> proportions are almost exact, but that doesn't work for enlargements.
> Any advice on getting things to fit? Thnaks a lot.
> Jay


It is proportioned roughly like a 35mm film frame, which is why you can't
print to 8x10 without cropping. Additionally, it only shows approx. 97% of
the frame, so you are left guessing what you've left out...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Littlewood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)> , Jay Stalman
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>I find that when I compose and frame a shot using the viewfinder of
>the 10D which should be proportioned like a 35mm slide/negative, the
>proportions are much different than an 8x10 crop. (Which would be a
>common size to print) In other words, there are critical parts of the
>composition that HAVE to be cut off when trying to constrain the
>proportions to 8x10. The 5x7 proportions are much closer, and the 4x6
>proportions are almost exact, but that doesn't work for enlargements.
>Any advice on getting things to fit? Thnaks a lot.
>Jay


The lack of standardisation in aspect ratios has been driving
photographers nuts for a century or more. The 10x8 or 20x16 print size
(aspect ratio 1.2:1) is of course fine for 10x8 or 5x4 camera films, but
has always been totally unsuitable for 35mm (aspect ratio 1.5:1).

However, I would have thought that the situation was markedly improved
for digital photographers. The 1.5:1 aspect ratio is a close match to
the International A-range of paper sizes, which is almost universal for
inkjet paper.

Of course, this might not be the case for the USA, which has for some
strange reason clung on to its archaic paper sizes long after they have
all but disappeared in Europe. What sizes of inkjet papers are common
over there? I'm sure you will be able to buy A4 paper if you look for
it.
--
David Littlewood
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay Stalman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2004
Thanks for the advice. When you print at 8x12, what size paper do you
use? Paper comes 8x10 or 11x14 or larger. If you frame these, (or
sell them) most off the shelf frames come in 8x10 or 11x14, so you
would need custom framing for all of your prints.
Jay
(E-Mail Removed) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>. ..
> Kibo informs me that (E-Mail Removed) (Jay Stalman) stated that:
>
> >I find that when I compose and frame a shot using the viewfinder of
> >the 10D which should be proportioned like a 35mm slide/negative, the
> >proportions are much different than an 8x10 crop. (Which would be a
> >common size to print) In other words, there are critical parts of the
> >composition that HAVE to be cut off when trying to constrain the
> >proportions to 8x10. The 5x7 proportions are much closer, and the 4x6
> >proportions are almost exact, but that doesn't work for enlargements.
> >Any advice on getting things to fit? Thnaks a lot.

>
> The 10D is an SLR, & it uses the same aspect ratio as film SLRs, which
> is 2:3. You could try either printing at 8x12, (which is what I do ,
> instead of 8x10, or just crop to a 3:4 ratio if you want to print to
> 8x10 or any other 3:4 ratio size.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Self
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2004
Jay Stalman responds:

>Thanks for the advice. When you print at 8x12, what size paper do you
>use? Paper comes 8x10 or 11x14 or larger. If you frame these, (or
>sell them) most off the shelf frames come in 8x10 or 11x14, so you
>would need custom framing for all of your prints.


Regular photo printing paper comes 8x10 or 11x14. Seems to me my last batch of
photo printing inkjet style paper was 8-1/2" x 11". I haven't bothered to look
as we've moved since I last printed any photos, and probably will again...just
don't do it much any more.

The frames are a bit of a problem, but there are several books out there on
making your own. Or you can go one size up and mat the pix.

Charlie Self
"Inanimate objects are classified scientifically into three major categories -
those that don't work, those that break down and those that get lost." Russell
Baker
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2004
Jay Stalman wrote:

> Thanks for the advice. When you print at 8x12, what size paper do you
> use? Paper comes 8x10 or 11x14 or larger. If you frame these, (or
> sell them) most off the shelf frames come in 8x10 or 11x14, so you
> would need custom framing for all of your prints.


Get them printed at a minilab, it should be cheaper and you can
get it printed to the size you want up to the max of the lab. I
never order 8x10, only 8x12 for that size (CAD$3.99 / about US$3.00).


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2004
David Littlewood wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)> , Jay Stalman
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>> I find that when I compose and frame a shot using the viewfinder of
>> the 10D which should be proportioned like a 35mm slide/negative, the
>> proportions are much different than an 8x10 crop. (Which would be a
>> common size to print) In other words, there are critical parts of the
>> composition that HAVE to be cut off when trying to constrain the
>> proportions to 8x10. The 5x7 proportions are much closer, and the 4x6
>> proportions are almost exact, but that doesn't work for enlargements.
>> Any advice on getting things to fit? Thnaks a lot.
>> Jay

>
>
> The lack of standardisation in aspect ratios has been driving
> photographers nuts for a century or more. The 10x8 or 20x16 print size
> (aspect ratio 1.2:1) is of course fine for 10x8 or 5x4 camera films, but
> has always been totally unsuitable for 35mm (aspect ratio 1.5:1).
>
> However, I would have thought that the situation was markedly improved
> for digital photographers. The 1.5:1 aspect ratio is a close match to
> the International A-range of paper sizes, which is almost universal for
> inkjet paper.
>
> Of course, this might not be the case for the USA, which has for some
> strange reason clung on to its archaic paper sizes long after they have
> all but disappeared in Europe. What sizes of inkjet papers are common
> over there? I'm sure you will be able to buy A4 paper if you look for it.


Unfortunately the digital camera makers have squandered the
opportunity to make the sensors the same proportion as ISO-216
paper sizes (European sizes).

Probably part of the race to have high pixel counts v. a across
the board rational system.

Another format that could have been aesthetically pleasing and
useful would be a golden mean ratio.

Cheers,
Alan.





--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2004

"Alan Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news1ARc.3093$(E-Mail Removed)...
> David Littlewood wrote:
>
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)> , Jay Stalman
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> >
> >> I find that when I compose and frame a shot using the viewfinder of
> >> the 10D which should be proportioned like a 35mm slide/negative, the
> >> proportions are much different than an 8x10 crop. (Which would be a
> >> common size to print) In other words, there are critical parts of the
> >> composition that HAVE to be cut off when trying to constrain the
> >> proportions to 8x10. The 5x7 proportions are much closer, and the 4x6
> >> proportions are almost exact, but that doesn't work for enlargements.
> >> Any advice on getting things to fit? Thnaks a lot.
> >> Jay

> >
> >
> > The lack of standardisation in aspect ratios has been driving
> > photographers nuts for a century or more. The 10x8 or 20x16 print size
> > (aspect ratio 1.2:1) is of course fine for 10x8 or 5x4 camera films, but
> > has always been totally unsuitable for 35mm (aspect ratio 1.5:1).
> >
> > However, I would have thought that the situation was markedly improved
> > for digital photographers. The 1.5:1 aspect ratio is a close match to
> > the International A-range of paper sizes, which is almost universal for
> > inkjet paper.
> >
> > Of course, this might not be the case for the USA, which has for some
> > strange reason clung on to its archaic paper sizes long after they have
> > all but disappeared in Europe. What sizes of inkjet papers are common
> > over there? I'm sure you will be able to buy A4 paper if you look for

it.
>
> Unfortunately the digital camera makers have squandered the
> opportunity to make the sensors the same proportion as ISO-216
> paper sizes (European sizes).
>


Odd thing about standards, they aren't standard everywhere.


> Probably part of the race to have high pixel counts v. a across
> the board rational system.
>


More likely a means of convenience in keeping the same ratio as existing
35mm film. Not sure where the 3:4 ratio came from for portable digicams,
though.


> Another format that could have been aesthetically pleasing and
> useful would be a golden mean ratio.
>


What ratio is that?

Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies? Wally Digital Photography 31 02-12-2011 05:27 PM
Small viewfinder compared to film slr geez Digital Photography 4 06-08-2006 08:37 PM
screen proportions fugitive DVD Video 0 03-31-2005 09:27 PM
Metadata : 10d cites 70 mm : is this incorporating 1.6 crop? n Digital Photography 2 10-31-2004 08:54 AM
How do I print a portrait in Photoshop 8x10 Standard Size with constrained proportions? rbaker3 Digital Photography 5 10-15-2003 05:22 AM



Advertisments