Why Non-Correlating Print, Negative and CMOS Sizes?

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?

 

"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>

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Wow!

A QUICKIE JOB??

Damn, I'll never be able to look at my photo again.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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>

 

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.

 

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".

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

that's not an insult at all. and what's with copy/pasting the exact
same quip every time?

 

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?

 

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