Aspect Ratio frustrations

[Stephen]

There seems to be little standardisation in the photo industry when it comes to cameras and print media. The same was true with film of course and there were all sorts of issues with using 35mm and getting 10x8 prints.

But lets stick to digital, I use an APS sensor camera which has a 3:2 ratio. I can get a full frame 6x4 print because thats the same aspect ratio. However a compact digicam or cameras using a 4:3 aspect ratio sensor can't do this and therefore to avoid white spaces on a 6x4 print have to crop the frame, how naff is that?

I tend to print larger images for clients though in the course of my work, and this is usually a full A4 sheet. Again the paper manufacturers don't seem to make a paper sheet that fits the 3:2 ratio exactly On an A4 sheet I end up with two white borders or have to crop the ends off the frame so I can get a borderless print. Why can't Epsom etc. produce a paper that is the exact size for the image produced? Why do they insist on producing A4, when clearly for photo printing purposes it is inadequate.

Clients are just as bad, I get requested to do 7x5" or 10x8" prints. I've had one this week for a portrait, they need it 10x8 so it matches all the others in the reception area. Yet if I crop the frame to 10x8 I lose half of a very important breast pocket badge. The only solution was to take the photos with more space round the subject, and infact I've been able to do this, but the photo was not the first choice.

We seem to have a legacy situation when it comes to aspect ratios and nothing seems to be easy when producing images to fit paper sizes so as to avoid cropping. Surely it can't be that difficult.

Now I know someone is going to explain the reason behind behind it all, but that is not the answer, I know the historical reasons behind some of it all, but I'm not interested. All I want is some sort of standardisation and consistency among manufacturers both in the hardware and paper industry, and for starters a paper that is 3:2 ratio that is in the A4 area would do just fine.

[Autumn]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

Have you tried asking the manufacturers Stephen? I agree it is frustrating because if you have your images printed by eg Klick they automatically stretch your image to fit the paper (unless you prepare your images on the pc and upload them and state that you want them as is) thus losing heads and tops of steeples.

[Stephen]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

Have you tried asking the manufacturers Stephen? I agree it is frustrating because if you have your images printed by eg Klick they automatically stretch your image to fit the paper (unless you prepare your images on the pc and upload them and state that you want them as is) thus losing heads and tops of steeples.

Ask them what Audrey?
It'd be like bashing your head against a wall anyway, the fact is though that when it comes to photo printing paper, to change the paper size to accommodate a particular aspect ratio should not be too difficult.

They would probably argue that there would be too many variations in size needed and therefore the cost would rise because they wouldn't need to produce quite so many, and therefore to produce A4 its suitable for different A/R cameras blah blah blah

[Autumn]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

I agree with you, but you have already voiced your concerns, just copy and paste it to as many photo paper manufacturers as you can think of and let's all see the result. You aren't the only one who is frustrated. You could start a blog!

[devilgas]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

i think you've answered your own question stephen.

when shooting photos, i try to frame with a print in mind. 10x8 is by far the worst to work to. for A4 size, i use 12x8 (3:2 AR). 15x10 again is no issue as it's the same 3:2. 7x5 is a minor inconvenience as some cropping is required.
i don't tend to produce 10x8, instead going for 10x7 as less cropping is involved. if a client specifically wants 10x8, and i know that before the shoot, then the shots are composed knowing that 1/6 of the longest edge will get culled. half the battle is with those that make frames. ever tried getting a 10x7 frame? they're all / mostly 10x8 thus exacerbating the issue.

now, if we had new standard frame sizes based on the 3:2 ratio then the legacy stuff would get dumped over time. throw in the 4:3 and we're back to odd sizes again. think my old oly 5060 shot in both 3:2 and 4:3 AR's

so, this brings it back to the 'tog having to adjust to the print size rather than the other way around. it is a pain, but something we've had to deal with for years.

as for the quest for standardisation....that could be applied to most things. take mobiles for instance. 3 samsung phones in the house, 3 different chargers. the adaptor for the palm is different to the adaptor for image tank 1, which is different to image tank 2 etc etc.

[Ian]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

I've raised this issue loads of times, for example: http://dpnow.com/vintage/Features/Wh...ect_ratio.html.

Or: http://dpnow.com/3134.html

I have done the annual What Digital Camera commercial photo printint services test feature and I make a point of noting which services offer print sizes that minimise cropping of the original image. To be honest, all the better services now cope with this.

But the fact is that printer paper manufacturers have happily produced photo paper in A4 size, which matches no known camera aspect ratio, while completely ignoring 4:3 aspect ratio cameras that are now the huge majority in service. 16:9 widescreen shooting is beginning to be popular and Epson has started to produce paper to this format, so why not 4:3 (6x4.5 inches, for example)?

And of course the photo frame manufacturers don't seem to be any more aware of the change in the market since digital cameras arrived on the scene.

Ian

[Stephen]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

But the fact is that printer paper manufacturers have happily produced photo paper in A4 size, which matches no known camera aspect ratio, while completely ignoring 4:3 aspect ratio cameras that are now the huge majority in service. 16:9 widescreen shooting is beginning to be popular and Epson has started to produce paper to this format, so why not 4:3 (6x4.5 inches, for example)?

And of course the photo frame manufacturers don't seem to be any more aware of the change in the market since digital cameras arrived on the scene.

Ian

This is my point exactly. The commercial print services, don't usually have any problems at all accommodating non "standard" print sizes. Dave mentions 10x7 or 12x8 Its no problem for the printers as they use rolls of paper and simply use a roll 10" or 8" or even 7" wide to do these sizes. The likes of Photobox do seem to offer a range of sizes though to accommodate different camera formats

Its, as you acknowledge, the printer paper manufacturers that seem to have the problem. 6x4" is usually not a problem, though I rarely print to that size myself and with my printer its a real pain to reset things for that size. It seems to me that this size is for those who have these small portable 6x4 dedicated printers. Its the A4 format that causes the problems, and as it is a problem, I can't see why they can't change things to produce a 3:2 ratio paper say 9x6 or 12x8

[Ian]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

This is my point exactly. The commercial print services, don't usually have any problems at all accommodating non "standard" print sizes. Dave mentions 10x7 or 12x8 Its no problem for the printers as they use rolls of paper and simply use a roll 10" or 8" or even 7" wide to do these sizes. The likes of Photobox do seem to offer a range of sizes though to accommodate different camera formats

Its, as you acknowledge, the printer paper manufacturers that seem to have the problem. 6x4" is usually not a problem, though I rarely print to that size myself and with my printer its a real pain to reset things for that size. It seems to me that this size is for those who have these small portable 6x4 dedicated printers. Its the A4 format that causes the problems, and as it is a problem, I can't see why they can't change things to produce a 3:2 ratio paper say 9x6 or 12x8

6x8 is an idea 4:3 aspect ratio format for medium size enlargements from most compact digital cameras and it's an old traditional photo paper size, but instead of the paper manufacturers increasing its availability, it's actually rarer than ever. Maybe we need to start a campaign for sensible paper sizes to fit the main aspect ratios in cameras today: 3:2, 4:3 and 16:9.

Ian

[Stephen]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

6x8 is an idea 4:3 aspect ratio format for medium size enlargements from most compact digital cameras and it's an old traditional photo paper size, but instead of the paper manufacturers increasing its availability, it's actually rarer than ever. Maybe we need to start a campaign for sensible paper sizes to fit the main aspect ratios in cameras today: 3:2, 4:3 and 16:9.

Ian

I'd be happy to support such a campaign. But really how does one go about doing such a thing, as without the weight of the printer paper buying public our requests will surely fall on deaf ears

[lumix]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

I'd be happy to support such a campaign. But really how does one go about doing such a thing, as without the weight of the printer paper buying public our requests will surely fall on deaf ears

Well it's like this I'm afraid. There is no such thing as standard sizes, and there never will be. Life is like that. Buy a pot of paint and you have to buy more than you really need. What's left in the can is of no use by the time you have a need for it. Cant even buy a square yard of sand these days, it's all changed to metric sizes. As far as paper sizes go, who do you blame. Camera manufactures are just as bad, they have never kept to a standard aspect ratio, so why should paper manufactures have to fall in line with them. In the printing trade the same situation exist. The guillotine is there cropper and mounds of waste paper is created on a daily basis. It's the same old story. Get Joe public to pay for more than they need and make a fat profit on what is put in the waste bin. I wish you luck with your campaign, but I for sure will not be holding my breath.

[Ian]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

Well it's like this I'm afraid. There is no such thing as standard sizes, and there never will be. Life is like that. Buy a pot of paint and you have to buy more than you really need. What's left in the can is of no use by the time you have a need for it. Cant even buy a square yard of sand these days, it's all changed to metric sizes. As far as paper sizes go, who do you blame. Camera manufactures are just as bad, they have never kept to a standard aspect ratio, so why should paper manufactures have to fall in line with them. In the printing trade the same situation exist. The guillotine is there cropper and mounds of waste paper is created on a daily basis. It's the same old story. Get Joe public to pay for more than they need and make a fat profit on what is put in the waste bin. I wish you luck with your campaign, but I for sure will not be holding my breath.

Can't fully agree with you there, Ron. 3:2 in 35mm film and most DSLRs (and even some compacts) is a fact. 4:3 in practically all compact digital cameras, including the hundreds of millions of camera phones, means these two formats are practically ubiquitous.

Panasonic and Epson have seen the light to a degree and are supporting 16:9 images by providing compatible papers for their printers, so why not properly supporting the other formats?

Ian

[Pops]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

Stephen....is there not a guild of professional photographers or some other such organisation with the clout to lobby paper manufacturers?

and could the editors of photograph magazines be contacted and bought together with the same objective.

For certain no changes will ever be made without constant pressure from a huge number of interested parties and/or their representatives.

Remember...from little acorns

[Stephen]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

Stephen....is there not a guild of professional photographers or some other such organisation with the clout to lobby paper manufacturers?

and could the editors of photograph magazines be contacted and bought together with the same objective.

For certain no changes will ever be made without constant pressure from a huge number of interested parties and/or their representatives.

Remember...from little acorns

Oh there is Pops, though I'm not a member of any. Its a fair point though and I like the idea of magazine editors applying some pressure to bear. Someone like Ian too who has a special interest in the printer business must surely have contacts in the industry that can be lobbied

[paul.r.w]

Re: Aspect Ratio frustrations

I think they're trying to pas the buck to you Ian!