Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by thankyou, Jun 19, 2009.

  1. thankyou

    thankyou Guest

    Learned a lot here in the last few days and now the questions begs?

    Why non-correlating “everything” in photography printing?

    The popular analog P/S camera’s negative ratio 4:3 (1.33) never did
    “FIT the old standard printed photo size of 3 x 5 (1.6).

    Now, the popular 4 x 6 print (1.5) fits a 3:2 (1.5) Canon 350D, but
    maybe not some of the other digital cameras (?)

    But, anyway, the photo paper sized don’t hardly match “anything”
    3 x 5 = 1.66
    4 x 6 = 1.5
    5 x 7 = 1.4
    8 x 10 = 1.25
    18 x 24 = 1.3

    What’s up with all that?
     
    thankyou, Jun 19, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. thankyou

    John Navas Guest


    "Most print sizes [were] based on printing from film. Remember that film
    comes in 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 sizes. It was pretty much
    standardized to accommodate the differing sizes of film negatives."
    <http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081204181921AATCeJD>
     
    John Navas, Jun 19, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. thankyou

    thankyou Guest

    Right, good, makes sense. But, still, when I tried to get a handle on
    all this at the photo shops, many looked at me like I was nuts.
    Anyway… That guy was pretty angry.

    Not sure this is the correct forum, but, since we are talking.

    Could you take a look at this photo?
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/traveltv/3641954486/

    It's a depth of field thing, but the subject that is OUT of focus is
    much larger and prominent than the subject that is IN focus. That sort
    of bothers me.

    Does this photo "work" for you? If not, why?

    Thanks again, John
     
    thankyou, Jun 19, 2009
    #3
  4. thankyou

    John Navas Guest

    I like the photo, and the crop, but I'd like it more if the near lion
    was sharper. My suggestion is to try selecting just the near lion,
    sharpen it (with Focus Magic if you have it), invert the selection, and
    gaussian blur the background lion a bit, something like:
    Happy to help.
     
    John Navas, Jun 19, 2009
    #4
  5. thankyou

    thankyou Guest

    No crop (3:2). This was my sample photo I took to the print shop for
    testing. Sort of crazy... they print quickly out of a upright printer
    and charge you $17 bucks.

    The uploaded resolution is 1024 x 1535

    From what I learned here. My 3465 x 2304 master photo "max" enlargment
    should only be:
    10 x 7

    3456ppi / 350 dpi = 9.87
    2304 / 350 = 6.68

    I'll figure out what you wrote and try it. Thanks for the tip.

    J
     
    thankyou, Jun 19, 2009
    #5
  6. thankyou

    thankyou Guest

    Wow!

    A QUICKIE JOB??

    Damn, I'll never be able to look at my photo again.
     
    thankyou, Jun 19, 2009
    #6
  7. thankyou

    John Navas Guest

    My own printing guide:

    Assuming that the image has been taken with a good lens, for printing
    figure at least 130 PPI (pixels per inch) for acceptable results (at
    normal viewing distances), and up to 230 PPI for excellent results.
    With current technology, anything more than 300 PPI is pretty much
    wasted.
    4x6 5x7 8x10 11x14 16x20 20x30
    ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
    Acceptable: 0.4MP 0.6MP 1.4MP 2.6MP 5 MP 10 MP
    Very good: 0.8MP 1.1MP 2.6MP 5 MP 10 MP 19 MP
    Excellent: 1.3MP 1.9MP 4 MP 8 MP 16 MP 32 MP
    Best: 2.2MP 3.2MP 7 MP 14 MP 28 MP 54 MP

    Note that there is much more to the quality of digicam images than
    the raw pixel count. The quality of the lens is an important item
    that is often overlooked -- I'd usually go for 3-4 MP taken with a
    high-quality lens over 5+ MP taken with an inexpensive consumer lens.

    Your original image is 8 MP, which if high quality should be able to
    produce an excellent 11x14 print.
     
    John Navas, Jun 19, 2009
    #7
  8. thankyou

    Guest Guest

    nonsense. 130 ppi is very low, 230 ppi is decent for most purposes and
    300 ppi is generally accepted as tack sharp but higher ppi can be seen
    in good light.
     
    Guest, Jun 19, 2009
    #8
  9. thankyou

    John Navas Guest

    Nonsense yourself -- it depends on the printing process and the viewing
    distance, and what I wrote is correct for high-quality printing at
    normal viewing distances.
     
    John Navas, Jun 19, 2009
    #9
  10. thankyou

    Bob Williams Guest

    Some people LIKE the shallow depth of field effect, because it keeps
    mundane backgrounds from distracting the eye from the central image.
    In fact, one reason that many people CHOOSE a DSLR over a good P/S, is
    because it is much harder to get a shallow depth of field with small
    sensor cameras like most P/S on the market.
    I, personally, do not want my camera to provide the shallow DOF for me.
    I like my entire image to be as crisp as possible.
    Then, if I want to blur certain parts of the background, I do so in
    Photoshop.
    I think it is purely a matter of aesthetics and personal preferences.
    Bob Williams.
     
    Bob Williams, Jun 19, 2009
    #10
  11. thankyou

    John Navas Guest

    Because they'ye been sold a bill of goods, since a good compact digital
    can produce depth of field sufficiently shallow for most purposes.
    <http://profile.imageshack.us/user/jnavas/images/detail/#384/p1030671bb9ca2.jpg>
     
    John Navas, Jun 19, 2009
    #11
  12. thankyou

    Guest Guest

    yes it does.
    then what you consider quality work is not very high. it's *very* easy
    to see the difference between 150 ppi and 250-300 ppi.
     
    Guest, Jun 19, 2009
    #12
  13. thankyou

    tony cooper Guest


    You're new at this. *All* edits and improvements are offered as
    "quickie jobs". Even if the guy spent hours of work on it, he'll
    claim it was "just a quickie I tossed off". It's a pre-emptive
    defense to "there's a spot over the left eye you missed".
     
    tony cooper, Jun 19, 2009
    #13
  14. thankyou

    tony cooper Guest

    My own rule is 240 to 300. Never below 240 for printing. Always at
    300 unless I'm trying to hold down the file size as some condition for
    submission.

    People say that anything over 300 is wasted, but I've yet to see a
    convincing argument that proves this. Of course, I've never seen
    convincing argument that anything over 300 improves, either.
     
    tony cooper, Jun 19, 2009
    #14
  15. thankyou

    Guest Guest

    it depends on the image and viewing conditions.

    <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi/>

    Laser printers used to be 300 dots per inch (dpi), but evolved to 600
    and even 1200 dpi. Why? People could see ragged edges on letters on 300
    dpi laser printers. At 600 dpi edges appear smoother. Some can tell the
    difference between 600 and 1200 dpi printers if the paper quality is
    high.

    <http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#printpixels>

    Examine the closely spaced grass blades: you need at least 400 dpi to
    resolve the details. There are improvements in the image all the way up
    to 600 dpi. Some have stated that 200 dpi is sufficient to get all the
    detail in a photographic print. That is clearly not the case here.
    Examination of an 8x10 print on a sharp 35mm image shows similar
    results.
     
    Guest, Jun 19, 2009
    #15
  16. thankyou

    John Navas Guest

    34 minutes between posts, less the time it took me to notice his.
    Next time take a moment to check instead of a fast knee jerk pot shot.
    I don't appreciate being called a liar.
     
    John Navas, Jun 19, 2009
    #16
  17. thankyou

    John Navas Guest

    With that insult you concede the debate. Thanks for saving me the time.
    And feel free to rant on without me -- I'm giving you the last word.
     
    John Navas, Jun 19, 2009
    #17
  18. thankyou

    Guest Guest

    that's not an insult at all. and what's with copy/pasting the exact
    same quip every time?
     
    Guest, Jun 19, 2009
    #18
  19. thankyou

    thankyou Guest

    Still, I like to deliver the full answer (when I'm in a position to
    know something) in context with links and (quick) references. Yes, it
    may be "lost" on the reader, a "waste" a lot of time and ultimately
    end up with way too many words for anyone to read, but, it helps me
    understand what I know and practice never hurts when learning to
    explain something.

    Having said the above, I don't reply too much online, but I'm am
    always amazed at the generosity of the people that continually spend
    time sharing what they know, despite the tough reviewers.

    About the "canned" replies: Hey, if you wrote something "good" or
    useful, why invent the wheel?
     
    thankyou, Jun 20, 2009
    #19
  20. thankyou

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Before that, print sizes were based on cut-film and plates. To the
    list above you can add:

    1/4 plate 3-1/4 x 4-1/4
    1/2 plate 4-1/4 x 6-1/2
    4" x 5"
    8" x 10"
    16" x 20" (yeah - these were contact prints!)
    .... and many more.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Jun 20, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.