digital MP filesize vs output

"David J Taylor"
wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
[]
There's a reason that professional photographers don't print right out
of the camera. Use Photoshop Elements or whatever other software you
choose to edit the image to the format you need before you send it out
to print.

.. although as an amateur who took slides, rather than prints, in the
pre-digital age, I still try to get the image right in the camera, and
without post-processing. This minimises the work, as, well, and allows
you to concentrate your post-processing time on images which really need
it.

It also captures better images, _even if one only shoots raw_.

DSLRs have quite decent dynamic ranges, but it still helps to place the main
parts of the image optimally in the histogram, since then you can use the
extremes of the range for better highlight/shadow rendering instead of for
rescuing one's bad exposures.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
"- Bobb -" wrote:
Perhaps this is obvious to everyone here, but to JUST take a photo and
print it on 4x6 - and SEE all of the original photo, what's the trick ?

Very simple: you need a camera with an aspect ratio of 1:1.5.

I've got SIMPLE digital cameras ( Kodak, Sony) and until now didn't want
to print any 4x6's , but now that I do want to do it, I noticed that the
pictures were clipped.

There are three options for photos with non-matching aspect ratios :
- clip/crop those edges, that extend beyond the desired ratio.
- fill in those areas, that don't extend to the desired ratio (aka
letter boxing)
- distort the photo by stretching it to match the new aspect ratio

There simply are no other options to fit a square peg into a round hole.

jue

If anyone took offense I'm sorry.
My point was just that :
If I was a sales rep with Kodak, ( or any paper company) I would make/sell
paper to fit aspect ratio of digital cameras since the majority of people
now use them exclusively.
That's all

David J Taylor wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
[]
There's a reason that professional photographers don't print right
out of the camera. Use Photoshop Elements or whatever other
software you choose to edit the image to the format you need before
you send it out to print.

.. although as an amateur who took slides, rather than prints, in
the
pre-digital age, I still try to get the image right in the camera,
and
without post-processing. This minimises the work, as, well, and
allows you to concentrate your post-processing time on images which
really need it.

If you were printing from a slide you'd still need to crop it to fit
the paper, or tell the lab where to crop, or compose for the paper
knowing full well that part of the image was going to go away.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Keith nuttle wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
- Bobb - wrote:
"Roy G" wrote in message
...
"- Bobb -" wrote in message
...
I've been reading online for a simple answer to this and cannot
find
it: any advice/pointers ?
Hi.

There is no really easy answer.

Your camera takes pictures in 4 x 3 aspect ratio.
The paper is 6 x 4 aspect ratio.
You have to choose which way you want to go.
This is not a new problem, and has applied since the very early
days
of film cameras. Paper ratios practically never match image
ratios.

Roy G
I'm not being a wise-guy , but is there a reason for that ?
I can't imagine that ... way back when , someone said - I've
developed a (digital) camera that uses 4x3 aspect ratio , but
let's
NOT make paper for it ? At CVS they have several Kodak kiosks -
none
have paper for 4x3 . They make money from film,paper .... but do
not
want to make paper to fit every digital camera in the world ???
Strange.

The standard photo print sizes were established long, long before
there was such a thing as a digital camera.

I had these photos developed at CVS and on the sleeve in the store
(
to insert cd to order prints), there IS a check off box for 6x8 (
which would work for the 4x3), but they don't have a price for it
/
use it.
I asked at the time "why is it on the package?" - clerk didn't
know.
I ordered thinking that their computer would scale info. I didn't
know how , but that's what I thought I was getting.
SO I just picked up 75 pictures that have some part of photo
missing.
A lot of scenery so some look dumb- distant trees with no trunks
One
is of a sign and the bottom row of letters from sign is missing,
so
upper part makes no sense...
I can/will use the 3:2 ratio setting on my cameras now, but now
realize I can't print all of the photos I've ever taken AND have
them
look right ? That's very weird.

There's a reason that professional photographers don't print right
out of the camera. Use Photoshop Elements or whatever other
software you choose to edit the image to the format you need before
you send it out to print.


Why do you have to print to the standard sizes? Those standards
were
create based on 70 year old technology.

If you are printing your own or using a pro lab that will print
whatever you tell them to print you don't have to use standard sizes.
The OP is using a drug store (he specifically mentioned "CVS", which
is a pharmacy chain in the Northeast that among other things will
develop film and print digital images), and they will print whatever
they're set up to print.

I print pictures for family and print them on the standard letter
size
photo paper and cut them apart. I have maximized the digital format
so I get the four of the largest size possible of in the digital
ratio on the letter size paper. Depending on margins required by
the
printer you can get -- 5 X 3.8 inch pictures per letter size page

Now try doing that at the drug store.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

- Bobb - wrote:

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
"- Bobb -" wrote:
Perhaps this is obvious to everyone here, but to JUST take a photo and
print it on 4x6 - and SEE all of the original photo, what's the trick ?

Very simple: you need a camera with an aspect ratio of 1:1.5.

I've got SIMPLE digital cameras ( Kodak, Sony) and until now didn't want
to print any 4x6's , but now that I do want to do it, I noticed that the
pictures were clipped.

There are three options for photos with non-matching aspect ratios :
- clip/crop those edges, that extend beyond the desired ratio.
- fill in those areas, that don't extend to the desired ratio (aka
letter boxing)
- distort the photo by stretching it to match the new aspect ratio

There simply are no other options to fit a square peg into a round hole.

jue

If anyone took offense I'm sorry.
My point was just that :
If I was a sales rep with Kodak, ( or any paper company) I would
make/sell paper to fit aspect ratio of digital cameras since the
majority of people now use them exclusively.
That's all

Paper sizes have never made any sense. Really.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"- Bobb -" wrote in message ...

"Roy G" wrote in message
...

"- Bobb -" wrote in message
...
I've been reading online for a simple answer to this and cannot find
it: any advice/pointers ?

Hi.

There is no really easy answer.

Your camera takes pictures in 4 x 3 aspect ratio.
The paper is 6 x 4 aspect ratio.
You have to choose which way you want to go.
This is not a new problem, and has applied since the very early days of
film cameras. Paper ratios practically never match image ratios.

Roy G

I'm not being a wise-guy , but is there a reason for that ?
I can't imagine that ... way back when , someone said - I've developed a
(digital) camera that uses 4x3 aspect ratio , but let's NOT make paper for
it ? At CVS they have several Kodak kiosks - none have paper for 4x3 .
They make money from film,paper .... but do not want to make paper to fit
every digital camera in the world ??? Strange.

I had these photos developed at CVS and on the sleeve in the store ( to
insert cd to order prints), there IS a check off box for 6x8 ( which would
work for the 4x3), but they don't have a price for it / use it.
I asked at the time "why is it on the package?" - clerk didn't know.
I ordered thinking that their computer would scale info. I didn't know how
, but that's what I thought I was getting.
SO I just picked up 75 pictures that have some part of photo missing. A
lot of scenery so some look dumb- distant trees with no trunks One is of a
sign and the bottom row of letters from sign is missing, so upper part
makes no sense...
I can/will use the 3:2 ratio setting on my cameras now, but now realize I
can't print all of the photos I've ever taken AND have them look right ?
That's very weird.


Almost any photo editing programme will allow you to add the necessary border
at the sides so as to make the overall images correspond with the 3:2 aspect ratio
on the CVS printer. All of which will then be printed allowing you to trim off the
borders afterwards. In Paint Shop Pro you'd simply enlarge the canvas
by multiplying the height of the image by 1.5 and setting that as the width,
instead of 1.3 as it is in the 4:3 original. Remembering to centre the image.


michael adams

....

J. Clarke wrote:

printer you can get -- 5 X 3.8 inch pictures per letter size page

Now try doing that at the drug store.


The only guaranteed cure at the drug store is to use Photoshop
or other software to matte the image out to the aspect ratio they want.

You are stuck with blank bars, or you can buy a paper cutter.

Doug McDonald

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:29:18 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
[]
There's a reason that professional photographers don't print right out
of the camera. Use Photoshop Elements or whatever other software you
choose to edit the image to the format you need before you send it out
to print.

.. although as an amateur who took slides, rather than prints, in the
pre-digital age, I still try to get the image right in the camera, and
without post-processing. This minimises the work, as, well, and allows
you to concentrate your post-processing time on images which really need
it.

Cheers,
David


Get and learn to use any of the DSLR-competing/surpassing Canon P&S Powershot
cameras that are supported by CHDK. Then you can load any of the user-defined
CHDK cropping masks and alignment grids, or easily design your own. Allowing you
to continue to compose right in your digital camera for any aspect ratio
desired.

See: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

For the dozens of presently available CHDK composition masks and alignment
grids, see:

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Grids

If you design a good one of your own, do share.

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"David J Taylor"
[]
.. although as an amateur who took slides, rather than prints, in the
pre-digital age, I still try to get the image right in the camera,
and without post-processing. This minimises the work, as, well, and
allows you to concentrate your post-processing time on images which
really need it.

It also captures better images, _even if one only shoots raw_.

DSLRs have quite decent dynamic ranges, but it still helps to place
the main parts of the image optimally in the histogram, since then
you can use the extremes of the range for better highlight/shadow
rendering instead of for rescuing one's bad exposures.

Good point!

David

J. Clarke wrote:
[]
If you were printing from a slide you'd still need to crop it to fit
the paper, or tell the lab where to crop, or compose for the paper
knowing full well that part of the image was going to go away.

The shop I would most likely use offers 6 x 4 inch and 9 x 6 inch. No
need to crop from a 3:2 aspect ratio slide.

http://www.jpics.co.uk/prints.htm

Cheers,
David