Aspect ratios

[new girl on the bloc]

i had some 35mm 8x10 enlargements made a few days ago. (from my pre-digital film days) when i got them back i was quite puzzled and upset to see that there were missing essential parts of the photo. i had the photos redone in 8x12 (costco was cool enough to redo 21 of them at no add'l charge) and was surprised to see things in the photos that i never knew existed!

so i started doing some research on this aspect ratio thing, which up until a few moments ago, i never understood. i read an article explaining it and an endorsement for digital cameras who have the 3:2 ratio; the author saying he'd have nothing else.

my question is this. why is the industry standard for enlargments an 8x10 size when crucial parts of the photo are lost? i cannot see that it makes any sense. all these years, i've been ignorant about this. can anyone explain this to me?

i am looking for acid-free mats and am again surprised to find most of them offered in 8x10 sizes vs. 8x12.

Being a bit of a purist I tend to agree with what Henri Cartier-Bresson says about this ratio stuff:

[Interestingly, Cartier-Bresson never cropped any of his images. Every single photograph he displayed was a full 35mm frame just as it came from one of his Leicas. Cartier-Bresson would file out the negative carriers to specifically show that the print was an uncropped, full-frame enlargement composed entirely in the camera. He wrote. “In order to ‘give a meaning' to the world, one has to feel oneself involved in what he frames through the viewfinder."]

[robertwgross]

First of all, you know that a 35mm film frame is 36x24mm. That is a ratio of 3:2. Don't ask why that became such a standard, but it is. Now we move on. Many DSLR cameras maintain the same ratio, but with a somewhat smaller sensor size. The net result is that the image has the same 3:2 ratio as before.

There are some medium-format and large-format film cameras that use completely different sizes and ratios (and square), but they are not nearly as common as 35mm stuff. One of those large-format sizes was 4x5 inches, and that is the same ratio as the common 8x10 inch print.

However, if you shoot anything with the 3:2 ratio, and if you want to print those on 8x10 paper, then somewhere along the line you have to consider cropping. If you have something that you refuse to crop, then move over to the 8x12 paper. But then you will fall back into the trap when you purchase mattes and frames. As a result, nearly all of my sold prints are in one of two sizes, 8x10 or 11x14, so there are different croppings from each master digital image file.

---Bob Gross---

[dtrayers]

I believe the 8x10 ratio goes way back to when 8x10 and 4x5 view cameras dominated.

[robertwgross]

I know one guy who still lugs around an 8x10 view camera. What a pig that thing is!

On the other hand, his B&W prints are outstanding.

---Bob Gross---

[PacAce]

[Interestingly, Cartier-Bresson never cropped any of his images. Every single photograph he displayed was a full 35mm frame just as it came from one of his Leicas. Cartier-Bresson would file out the negative carriers to specifically show that the print was an uncropped, full-frame enlargement composed entirely in the camera. He wrote. “In order to ‘give a meaning' to the world, one has to feel oneself involved in what he frames through the viewfinder."]



What I don't understand is this obsession with some photographers having to have everything done "in-camera", as if cropping and other editing in post-processing is blasphemous or something. Was it written someplace ages ago by the photography gods that 2:3 aspect ratio is the holy grail of visual proportions and that all photographs need to abide by it? :shock: :? ???

So what of the medium and large format photographs that don't have the 2:3 aspect ratio?

[new girl on the bloc]

i personally don't give a hoot about all this ratio stuff. i only want everything that i photographed to be in the photo, or not, if i decide to crop it out.

thanks for your info robert; it helps! :wink:

[fdi]

I find aspect ratio to be a good bit of hassle. Back in my film days I trained myself to pull back a little and leave room to crop to different print sizes. When I went full digital I got out of that habit for two reasons. I didn’t want to loose the pixels, and I could make my own prints any aspect ratio I wanted. The largest I can print at home is 13x19. As far as I know that size has nothing to do with art or photography and just happens to be the A3 paper size. It is very close to 3:2 and only requires minimal cropping. I could also print plenty of 8x12’s and 10x15’s. I was happy until I started paying for custom framing. I realized I was not the only person with this issue and started my own picture frame company.

Mark Rogers
Frame Destination, Inc.
http://www.framedestination.com
http://www.pbase.com/lila161

[fdi]

I forgot to mention another complication. Many of my photographers are reselling their photos matted. They liked my 10x15 mat but could not use it because the frame size was 16x21, which would force their customers to get a custom frame. Needless to say I now have mats that take 10x15 to 16x20. This also allows people to buy standard frames in styles and colors that I do not offer yet.

Mark Rogers
Frame Destination, Inc.
http://www.framedestination.com
http://www.pbase.com/lila161

[thomascanty]

The first time I asked my local lab for an 8x10 print (because that's all I'd heard of in that size at the time), the guy taking my order just wrote "8x" on the form. I was surprised when I was given an 8x12 when I picked the print up.

Fortunately, there are several Aaron Brothers' (http://www.aaronbros.com/) stores near me, so I had no trouble finding mattes and frames in that size. Their selection of 8x12's isn't quite as good at their 8x10's, but it ain't bad. They've become one of my favorite stores... Too bad they only have stores in a handful of states (including Oregon, new girl!). I don't think you can even order anything from their web site.

[Motorsports Photo]

i personally don't give a hoot about all this ratio stuff. i only want everything that i photographed to be in the photo, or not, if i decide to crop it out.


Yep, now you're getting it. Typically I will set my crop settings in Photoshop as 10.5 x 8. Sometimes the subject is too wide or the top and bottom stuff isnt important so that 8 becomes 7.5 or even 7. SO what if there is a little more white space around the edges.

Aspect ratio? Nope I dont need any more math that calculating customer bills when others are waiting. :D

-Pete

[timmyquest]

You can make a frame whatever ratio you want.

That said...i crop as i see it needs to. So far its worked ok.

[ltdedorc]

New Girl,

I use my local Costco here in So California for a lot of my prints. So it you are not tied to an 8 x 10 size, think about a 12 x 16 ( Aaron Bros common frame size) printed on Costco's 12 x 18 paper. A 12 x 16 aspect ratio is the same as a slide's. All I do is trim off the blank 1 inch on both sides...Harvey :)

[new girl on the bloc]

New Girl,

I use my local Costco here in So California for a lot of my prints. So it you are not tied to an 8 x 10 size, think about a 12 x 16 ( Aaron Bros common frame size) printed on Costco's 12 x 18 paper. A 12 x 16 aspect ratio is the same as a slide's. All I do is trim off the blank 1 inch on both sides...Harvey :)

hey harvey,

thanks for the tip! that sounds like a good idea. :wink: or with Frame Destinations mats that fit an 8x12 photo for a 12x16 frame, that works too!