Enlarging and Cropping

[Conan]

Hi all. I just had 3 photos of mine enlarged at walmart, and when I got them back the left sides of all 3 were cropped. 2 were landscapes and the other portrait format, going from 35mm negs. to 8x10. Quality of prints was fine, but I'm curious: must they be cropped that much? It misframed and cropped important parts of the 2 landscapes. Kyle

 

[Digital Matt]

A 35mm negative is a 2:3 ratio, which is not the same as an 8x10 ratio. A 35mm negative enlarges to 8x12". You'll have to instruct the photo lab on how you want them cropped, or have them scanned, crop them yourself in software, and then have them printed.

 

[Sideburns]

I love when people ask this.
This is not to insult you, but if people thought of this for a few seconds on their own...there would be far less complaints to places like walmart or other photo finishers.

your regular print would be 4x6....now...if you double it....that's 8x12.
Now what happens when you do 8x10? They just chop off a random 2" and call it a day...

crop them before bringing them in, or tell them how you want them cropped.

 

[Conan]

Thanks folks. I assumed afterwards it was simply a numerical issue. Even before I took them up I wondered how the hell they make them the same aspect ratio. Simple case of not thinking. Kyle

 

[Alpha]

8x12 also happens to be the standard size for portfolio shots for modeling agencies, IIRC.

 

[manfromh]

Ask for white edges (frame?). Then nothing is cropped out, and if you dont like white edges, you can cut them off yourself (carefully). Estonian labs always specify (on their websites) that a small part of the image might be cropped off, and if a costumer doesnt like this then the costumer should ask for white edges.

 

[nealjpage]

If you don't mind me hijacking for a sec, Conan:

I assume that the 8x10 size is a hold-over from the large format days, isn't it? I'm no math major, but I think a 4x5 negative is enlarged four times to fit an 8x10 with no cropping, right?

Anyways, if 35mm became the dominate form of media used by most people, why didn't the standard size print change to 8x12?

 

[frXnz kafka]

If you don't mind me hijacking for a sec, Conan:

I assume that the 8x10 size is a hold-over from the large format days, isn't it? I'm no math major, but I think a 4x5 negative is enlarged four times to fit an 8x10 with no cropping, right?

Anyways, if 35mm became the dominate form of media used by most people, why didn't the standard size print change to 8x12?

Medium format film (6x7, at least) enlarges to 8x10 too.

 

[Digital Matt]

Medium format film (6x7, at least) enlarges to 8x10 too.

No it does not. It's closer to 8.5 x 10.

 

[frXnz kafka]

No it does not. It's closer to 8.5 x 10.

Close enough

 

[ann]

changing paper sizes probably didn't occur as who would have thought that 35mm film would take over the world, and then it was too late and a whole framing world whould have to adjust which would never happen.

 

[Conan]

No worries on hi-jacks. I was thinking the same thing. Starting to find that film is like keeping score in bowling- the math isn't as simple as adding 10 pins for a strike, and the enlargement ain't as easy as multiplying by 2. Kyle

 

[Digital Matt]

Close enough

Yeah, sure, if you don't mind losing a 1/2 inch of your shot, it's no problem. Leave it up to chance and let the lab tech do it for you.