Proportions of 10D viewfinder compared to 8x10 crop

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jay Stalman, Aug 5, 2004.

  1. Jay Stalman

    Jay Stalman Guest

    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
     
    Jay Stalman, Aug 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jay Stalman

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that (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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Aug 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jay Stalman

    Mark B. Guest

    "Jay Stalman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Mark B., Aug 5, 2004
    #3
  4. Jay Stalman

    Skip M Guest

    "Jay Stalman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Skip M, Aug 5, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>, Jay Stalman
    <> 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
     
    David Littlewood, Aug 5, 2004
    #5
  6. Jay Stalman

    Jay Stalman Guest

    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
    wrote in message news:<>...
    > Kibo informs me that (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.
     
    Jay Stalman, Aug 5, 2004
    #6
  7. Jay Stalman

    Charlie Self Guest

    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
     
    Charlie Self, Aug 5, 2004
    #7
  8. Jay Stalman

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.--
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 9, 2004
    #8
  9. Jay Stalman

    Alan Browne Guest

    David Littlewood wrote:

    > In article <>, Jay Stalman
    > <> 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.--
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 9, 2004
    #9
  10. Jay Stalman

    Mark B. Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:p1ARc.3093$...
    > David Littlewood wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>, Jay Stalman
    > > <> 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
     
    Mark B., Aug 9, 2004
    #10
  11. Jay Stalman

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that "Mark B." <> stated that:

    >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.


    My guess would be that the still image sensors evolved from camcorder
    sensors, which need to match the 4:3 ratio of TV screens, plus it
    matches standard computer screens.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Aug 9, 2004
    #11
  12. Jay Stalman

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that (Jay Stalman) stated that:

    >Thanks for the advice.


    No problem, glad I could help. :)

    > When you print at 8x12, what size paper do you
    >use?


    I generally get anything that big or larger printed at a lab, rather
    than doing it myself, as I only have crappy little Epson for proofs.

    > 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.


    If I were wanting to sell inkjet prints, rather than lab prints, I'd buy
    one of the large format Epsons that use 'UltraChrome' pigment ink,
    rather than a consumer model like mine. The ink used in the cheaper
    models fades too quickly for me to feel comfortable about charging money
    for such prints.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Aug 9, 2004
    #12
  13. "Mark B." <> writes:

    >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.


    Originally, a lot of digicam sensors came from the video world, even
    though that's not ideal (video CCDs are usually designed for interlaced
    field capture, not frame capture). 4:3 is universal for the older TV
    standard.

    Also, most computer monitors are still 4:3, so that still makes a lot of
    sense for cameras even when a CCD is designed from the ground up for
    still cameras.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 9, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <p1ARc.3093$>, Alan Browne
    <> writes
    >David Littlewood wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Jay
    >>Stalman <> 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.
    >

    Alan, it's a matter of taste, of course, but I find phi (the golden
    ratio; 1.618:1) is a bit too elongated for normal use. Makes nice
    "widescreen" shots of course*.

    I wonder to what extent this preference is conditioned by familiarity. I
    have go so used to the ISO 1.414:1 shape that any other paper size looks
    "wrong" to me now; US letter size and 10x8 prints are irritatingly
    "square" to my eyes. Perhaps the ancient Greeks would have found golden
    ratio paper just right and A4 paper too squat.

    *It is also (IMO) a better ratio for subject placement than the "rule of
    thirds" which most elementary books parrot - "the rule of 38:62" is a
    bit of a mouthful though.

    David
    --
    David Littlewood
     
    David Littlewood, Aug 9, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <>, Mark B.
    <> writes
    >
    >
    >
    >> Another format that could have been aesthetically pleasing and
    >> useful would be a golden mean ratio.
    >>

    >
    >What ratio is that?
    >
    >Mark
    >
    >

    1.618:1

    It is the ratio which, if you divide a line into A and B in that ratio,
    the ratio of the whole to the larger part (A) is equal to the ratio of
    the larger part to the smaller part (B).

    Thus: (A+B)/A = A/B

    The Greeks were very fond of this ratio. It crops up in all sorts of
    unexpected areas in nature.
    --
    David Littlewood
     
    David Littlewood, Aug 9, 2004
    #15
  16. David Littlewood <> writes:

    >1.618:1


    >It is the ratio which, if you divide a line into A and B in that ratio,
    >the ratio of the whole to the larger part (A) is equal to the ratio of
    >the larger part to the smaller part (B).


    Another way of saying the same thing: if you start out with a piece of
    paper whose aspect ratio is the golden ratio, and cut the largest
    possible square piece off one end, the smaller piece left over has the
    same aspect ratio as the original piece. You can repeat, and you'll get
    a series of squares and a series of golden-ratio rectangles.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Aug 10, 2004
    #16
  17. Jay Stalman

    Kevin Guest

    also it's the only number that becomes its own reciprocal by subtracting 1

    1/1.618 = .618


    "David Littlewood" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, Mark B.
    > <> writes
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >> Another format that could have been aesthetically pleasing and
    > >> useful would be a golden mean ratio.
    > >>

    > >
    > >What ratio is that?
    > >
    > >Mark
    > >
    > >

    > 1.618:1
    >
    > It is the ratio which, if you divide a line into A and B in that ratio,
    > the ratio of the whole to the larger part (A) is equal to the ratio of
    > the larger part to the smaller part (B).
    >
    > Thus: (A+B)/A = A/B
    >
    > The Greeks were very fond of this ratio. It crops up in all sorts of
    > unexpected areas in nature.
    > --
    > David Littlewood
     
    Kevin, Aug 10, 2004
    #17
    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. rbaker3
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    9,131
    Robert E. Williams
    Oct 15, 2003
  2. fugitive

    screen proportions

    fugitive, Mar 31, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    875
    fugitive
    Mar 31, 2005
  3. geez

    Small viewfinder compared to film slr

    geez, Jun 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    426
  4. Photoshop help -- constraining proportions

    , Jul 31, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    412
    George Kerby
    Aug 1, 2006
  5. Wally
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,015
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 12, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page