newbie question : picture dimension vs print dimension

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rene Wong, Sep 28, 2003.

  1. Rene Wong

    Rene Wong Guest

    Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
    (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
    standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that every
    time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some sort
    of cropping done?

    Rene
     
    Rene Wong, Sep 28, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rene Wong

    gr Guest

    "Rene Wong" <> wrote
    $...
    > Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
    > (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
    > standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that

    every
    > time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some

    sort
    > of cropping done?


    Yup. It's probably better to crop the picture yourself, before you print.

    However, many of the better digicams have optional 3:2 aspect ratios you can
    shoot in, which perfectly fit your 4x6 prints.
     
    gr, Sep 28, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rene Wong

    Tom Thackrey Guest

    On 28-Sep-2003, "Rene Wong" <> wrote:

    > Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
    > (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
    > standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that
    > every
    > time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some
    > sort
    > of cropping done?
    >
    > Rene


    Yes, just like film.


    --
    Tom Thackrey
    www.creative-light.com
     
    Tom Thackrey, Sep 28, 2003
    #3
  4. Rene Wong

    CSM1 Guest

    "Rene Wong" <> wrote in message
    news:lBDdb.146162$...
    > Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
    > (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
    > standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that

    every
    > time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some

    sort
    > of cropping done?
    >
    > Rene
    >
    >


    Yes.

    The 35mm format is exactly 1:1.5 ratio or 4 X 6.
    Digital cameras are mostly 1:1.33 ratio or 3 X 4 the same as current
    television screens.

    Prints:
    4 X 6 = 1:1.5 ratio same as 35mm (That is why the 4 X 6 print is so
    popular).
    5 X 7 = 1:1.4 ratio
    8 X 10 = 1:1.25 ratio

    For the 1:1.33 ratio of digital cameras to fit these photo sizes, all images
    must be cropped .

    --
    CSM1
    http://www.carlmcmillan.com
    --
     
    CSM1, Sep 28, 2003
    #4
  5. "Rene Wong" <> wrote in message
    news:lBDdb.146162$...
    > Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
    > (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
    > standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that

    every
    > time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some

    sort
    > of cropping done?
    >
    > Rene
    >
    >

    Yes. It's no different than printing them yourself.
    There is one possible benefit to not cropping. You may be able to print more
    images per sheet if you can live with a non-standard length or width and
    still retain the full frame. But if you mix, for example, 5 X 7's and 5 X
    6.125, your collection may look like a scrap book instead of a standard
    album.
    Welcome aboard Rene.
    Mark_
     
    mark_digital©, Sep 28, 2003
    #5
  6. On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 17:38:58 GMT, Tom Thackrey wrote

    >
    > On 28-Sep-2003, "Rene Wong" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or
    >> multiples of it (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't
    >> seem to correlate with standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or
    >> 8 x 10. Does this mean that every
    >> time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be
    >> some sort
    >> of cropping done?
    >>
    >> Rene

    >
    > Yes, just like film.


    Well....I'd say it's not just like film.

    Admittedly, it took many years for bog-standard commercial developers
    to go to a standard of 4x6 prints, but allowing for minor edge-
    cropping, that does give a full-frame print from a 35mm neg. (2 1/4
    square was another matter, but I can't speak from experience with that
    format.)

    I shot 35mm slides for years -- good discipline, since what you take is
    what you show -- and I'm finding it difficult to adjust to the square-
    ish format of digital.

    Compositionally, I still *think* in terms of strong
    horizontals/verticals; given my druthers, I'd prefer to shoot what I
    intend to print, rather than shoot something with the prior intent of
    cropping before printing.

    --
    Cheers,
    Harvey

    For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.
     
    Harvey Van Sickle, Sep 28, 2003
    #6
  7. Harvey, you should enjoy the very strong horizontals and verticals
    afforded by digital stitching: panoramas on steroids. Have you shot any?

    dave

    Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
    snip
    >
    > Compositionally, I still *think* in terms of strong
    > horizontals/verticals; given my druthers, I'd prefer to shoot what I
    > intend to print, rather than shoot something with the prior intent of
    > cropping before printing.
    >
     
    Bay Area Dave, Sep 29, 2003
    #7
  8. Rene Wong

    Don Stauffer Guest

    There are two (actually probably three) types of 'dimensions' of a
    digital image. One is in number of pixels.

    Really, digital images have no physical dimensions, per say. They can
    be displayed or printed any physical size.

    However, most people would say that if you print a picture with fewer
    than 200-300 pixels per inch, you will notice poor resolution and
    pixelization. So in effect the number of pixels does limit the physical
    size that make sense to print.

    As far as aspect ratio, there is nothing magic about them. Forget the
    aspect ratio of popular print sizes. For instance, while 4 x 6 prints
    DO match the aspect ratio of 35mm film, the 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 do not. If
    you order an 8 x 10 print of a 35mm image, the printer will crop for
    you.

    BTW, the third 'dimension' I mentioned is file size. However, various
    formats compress images different ways, and different amounts, so there
    is actually very little correlation between image size in pixels and the
    resultant file size.

    Rene Wong wrote:
    >
    > Digital pictures seem to have dimensions of 640 x 480, or multiples of it
    > (2048 x 1536 etc.), but these dimensions don't seem to correlate with
    > standard size prints of 4 x 6, or 5,7 or 8 x 10. Does this mean that every
    > time I get my pictures developed or printed, that there has to be some sort
    > of cropping done?
    >
    > Rene


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Sep 29, 2003
    #8
  9. On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:21:24 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote that Harvey
    wrote,


    >> Compositionally, I still *think* in terms of strong
    >> horizontals/verticals; given my druthers, I'd prefer to shoot
    >> what I intend to print, rather than shoot something with the
    >> prior intent of cropping before printing.



    > Harvey, you should enjoy the very strong horizontals and verticals
    > afforded by digital stitching: panoramas on steroids. Have you
    > shot any?


    I haven't yet; I'll certainly try it out, though.

    Digital is pretty new for me -- I'm just getting the feel of my first
    digital (a point-and-shoot, dipping-toes-in-water affair which I picked
    up to play with before exploring more expensive kit). I'm certainly
    not yet comfortable with the proportions of digital in terms of how I
    view potential compositions.

    (FWIW, the reason for going with a P&S to fool around with is because
    with all technical kit -- photography, computers, etc. -- I lean
    towards the approach of starting with basic-to-intermediate stuff so
    that I can discover what features are missing that I want to have; I
    then selectively upgrade. I've never been hot on starting with an all-
    singing-dancing outfit -- even if I can afford it -- that has so many
    features that I can't get my head around, and will never, ever use. I
    realise that the mileage of others differs a lot on this approach.)

    --
    Cheers,
    Harvey

    For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.
     
    Harvey Van Sickle, Sep 29, 2003
    #9
  10. plus it's nice to be able to toss the camera in your pocket and still be
    able to get some decent shots!

    dave

    Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

    > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:21:24 GMT, Bay Area Dave wrote that Harvey
    > wrote,
    >
    >
    >
    >>>Compositionally, I still *think* in terms of strong
    >>>horizontals/verticals; given my druthers, I'd prefer to shoot
    >>>what I intend to print, rather than shoot something with the
    >>>prior intent of cropping before printing.

    >
    >
    >
    >>Harvey, you should enjoy the very strong horizontals and verticals
    >>afforded by digital stitching: panoramas on steroids. Have you
    >>shot any?

    >
    >
    > I haven't yet; I'll certainly try it out, though.
    >
    > Digital is pretty new for me -- I'm just getting the feel of my first
    > digital (a point-and-shoot, dipping-toes-in-water affair which I picked
    > up to play with before exploring more expensive kit). I'm certainly
    > not yet comfortable with the proportions of digital in terms of how I
    > view potential compositions.
    >
    > (FWIW, the reason for going with a P&S to fool around with is because
    > with all technical kit -- photography, computers, etc. -- I lean
    > towards the approach of starting with basic-to-intermediate stuff so
    > that I can discover what features are missing that I want to have; I
    > then selectively upgrade. I've never been hot on starting with an all-
    > singing-dancing outfit -- even if I can afford it -- that has so many
    > features that I can't get my head around, and will never, ever use. I
    > realise that the mileage of others differs a lot on this approach.)
    >
     
    Bay Area Dave, Sep 30, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. No Spam
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,032
    No Spam
    Jun 7, 2004
  2. Bun Mui
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    889
    Phantom
    Sep 13, 2004
  3. Lee
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,211
  4. Strangiato

    digital picture to a4? (Newbie question).

    Strangiato, Nov 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    317
    Strangiato
    Nov 17, 2003
  5. JMF
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,698
Loading...

Share This Page