My Canon S40 Camera produces pictures which are 12.622 X 9.467 @ 180,000 PPI
My problem is that to fit standard frame sizes, allowing for matting I must
crop the picture
significantly after resizing to the nearest dimensions possible.
Sometimes by cropping the picture some important aspects can be lost.
I have used matting with different border widths (top vs sides) - which
sometimes helps, but I am
not completely happy with the end result.
How do others handle this?
Do you expand the picture to accommodate, and if so how?

"Deillub" <gbullied@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:B1I0c.495$JZ6.106391@news20.bellglobal.com: 

> My Canon S40 Camera produces pictures which are 12.622 X 9.467 @
> 180,000 PPI My problem is that to fit standard frame sizes, allowing
> for matting I must crop the picture
> significantly after resizing to the nearest dimensions possible.
> Sometimes by cropping the picture some important aspects can be lost.
> I have used matting with different border widths (top vs sides) -
> which sometimes helps, but I am
> not completely happy with the end result.
> How do others handle this?
> Do you expand the picture to accommodate, and if so how?
> 
> 
There are a number of "standard" frame sizes, and each has a different 
aspect ration (ratio of width to height). 4x6 = 1:1.5, 5X7 = 1:1.4,  8x10 = 
1:1.25.  Digital camera output is generally 1:1.33, which does not match 
any of the standard frames.  So you only have two options.  You can resize 
the image (unchecking Maintain Aspect ratio) to a ration that matches your 
matte, but this will, of course, deform the image.  Or you can crop to the 
proper aspect ratio, which will mean cropping something out of the image.  
When taking digital photos, it helps to not fill the frame with your 
subject, but leave a little space for cropping before sending to the photo 
finisher.  Also, experiment a bit, as the viewfinder of most of the less 
expensive consumer models does not accurately represent what will show up 
in the image.

Regards,

JoeB

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:03:53 GMT, JoeB <me@anywhere.com> wrote:

>"Deillub" <gbullied@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>news:B1I0c.495$JZ6.106391@news20.bellglobal.com: 
>
>> My Canon S40 Camera produces pictures which are 12.622 X 9.467 @
>> 180,000 PPI My problem is that to fit standard frame sizes, allowing
>> for matting I must crop the picture
>> significantly after resizing to the nearest dimensions possible.
>> Sometimes by cropping the picture some important aspects can be lost.
>> I have used matting with different border widths (top vs sides) -
>> which sometimes helps, but I am
>> not completely happy with the end result.
>> How do others handle this?
>> Do you expand the picture to accommodate, and if so how?
>> 
>> 
>There are a number of "standard" frame sizes, and each has a different 
>aspect ration (ratio of width to height). 4x6 = 1:1.5, 5X7 = 1:1.4,  8x10 = 
>1:1.25.  Digital camera output is generally 1:1.33, which does not match 
>any of the standard frames.  So you only have two options.  You can resize 
>the image (unchecking Maintain Aspect ratio) to a ration that matches your 
>matte, but this will, of course, deform the image.  Or you can crop to the 
>proper aspect ratio, which will mean cropping something out of the image.  
>When taking digital photos, it helps to not fill the frame with your 
>subject, but leave a little space for cropping before sending to the photo 
>finisher.  Also, experiment a bit, as the viewfinder of most of the less 
>expensive consumer models does not accurately represent what will show up 
>in the image.

It still seems strange to me that people complain about non-fitting
digital images when traditional analog film (24x36mm negatives) did
not fit most frames too. All the bigger formats used to crop analog
images on the longer side.

The formats should have been 5x7.5 and 8x12 - but everyone accepted.

Now digital cameras produce images in a 3:4 format that fits on the
computer screen (the digital SLR keeps the traditional aspect ratio of
2:3) and instead of deciding for new paper and frame formats that
would correspond to the image aspect ratio (like 4.5x6, 6x8, 7.5x10,
9x12) they start crying.

Ah, but what do I expect from people who eat "freedom fries" and stick
with their french measuring system :-))

Michael

"Xalinai" <xalinai_Two@xalinai.de> wrote in message
news:4044635d.141469015@news.t-online.de...
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:03:53 GMT, JoeB <me@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> >"Deillub" <gbullied@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> >news:B1I0c.495$JZ6.106391@news20.bellglobal.com:
> >
> It still seems strange to me that people complain about non-fitting
> digital images when traditional analog film (24x36mm negatives) did
> not fit most frames too. All the bigger formats used to crop analog
> images on the longer side.
>
> The formats should have been 5x7.5 and 8x12 - but everyone accepted.
>
> Now digital cameras produce images in a 3:4 format that fits on the
> computer screen (the digital SLR keeps the traditional aspect ratio of
> 2:3) and instead of deciding for new paper and frame formats that
> would correspond to the image aspect ratio (like 4.5x6, 6x8, 7.5x10,
> 9x12) they start crying.
>
> Ah, but what do I expect from people who eat "freedom fries" and stick
> with their french measuring system :-))
>
> Michael

That's because They did not do there own Bathroom /Darkroom  processing.
If it comes back from the chemist as 6 x 4 then 6 x 4 it is.
So how long before we get a different paper size bearing in mind that
the majority of digital camera users print there own.
Trev whose first attempts at resizing to 10 x 8 was to open a new 10 x 8
image and past into it like from enlarger to paper. PSP4.13 long time
ago

"Trev" <trevbowden@claranet.uk.invalid> wrote in 
news:1078225501.5745.0@dyke.uk.clara.net:

> 
> "Xalinai" <xalinai_Two@xalinai.de> wrote in message
> news:4044635d.141469015@news.t-online.de...
>> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:03:53 GMT, JoeB <me@anywhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Deillub" <gbullied@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>> >news:B1I0c.495$JZ6.106391@news20.bellglobal.com:
>> >
>> It still seems strange to me that people complain about non-fitting
>> digital images when traditional analog film (24x36mm negatives) did
>> not fit most frames too. All the bigger formats used to crop analog
>> images on the longer side.
>>
[snip
>>
>> Michael
> 
> That's because They did not do there own Bathroom /Darkroom  processing.
> If it comes back from the chemist as 6 x 4 then 6 x 4 it is.
> So how long before we get a different paper size bearing in mind that
> the majority of digital camera users print there own.
> Trev whose first attempts at resizing to 10 x 8 was to open a new 10 x 8
> image and past into it like from enlarger to paper. PSP4.13 long time
> ago
> 
> 
Trev, I suspect that most digital camera users do not do most of their own 
printing given that most shops can do it cheaper, We probably hear from 
those who do, while most people get their prints back from a shop already 
cropped to "standard" sizes.  If I'm right, then I suspect that, if/when 
photo paper does start coming out in digicam sizes, it will be even more 
expensive than what we buy now because of the smaller demand.

Regards,

JoeB