Print sizes

[Nwcid]

I am just beginning to print out some of my work. I am running into problems when it comes print sizes.

The original size of my images is basically 2x3. So when I shoot and digitally display there is no issue. Now that I want to print, common frame sizes like 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 have a very different crop then the image that was shot.

When you are shooting, knowing that you will be cropping to these sizes, how do you handle it? Do you just leave lots of space?

 

[tirediron]

It's good (IMO) to shoot a bit loose and allow room to crop in post, but you should develop your eye such that you can "see" the final crop as you're composing the image.

 

[KmH]

What you are referring to is the aspect ratio of the image and the frame.
3:2 aspect ratio is the shape of a full frame or APS-C size image sensor. In other words the long side is 1.5x the length of the short side - 3/2 = 1.5

8x10 is a 5:4 aspect ratio. the long side is 1.25x longer than the short side.

Most print labs offer the most print sizes in the 3:2 aspect ratio, but it is not always easy to find pre-made 3:2 aspect ratio frames.
I always cropped for content and ordered custom size prints and the hardware for custom sized frames I assembled myself.
Buy Metal, Wood, & Canvas Picture Frames | American Frame 1973
American Frame How To | American Frame 1973
How to Mount Photographs to Mat Board for Framing
How to Mount and Frame a Fine Art Photograph – Award Winning Inspiring Landscapes and Visions by David Dilworth

The vast majority of my framed prints have a museum quality acid free mat (or 2 or 3) between the frame glazing and the print. You don't want the print to touch the glazing. if you don't use a mat they make spacers that are out of sight that keep the print away from the glazing.
I also mostly hinge mounted my prints so the mount board (also acid free initially) could be changed years later. Mount board material becomes acidic over time from absorbing contaminants from the air. How fast that happens depends where the print is displayed/hung.
To accommodate hing mounting most of my prints had a white or blank border to let the print 'float' behind the mat as the framing/mat/mount moved due to temperature & humidity changes where the work hung.
Most print labs are happy to make custom size prints. You just have to accurately describe to them what it is you want.

In other words I mounted my prints using methods museums use to ensure the print has a long life.

As far as in the viewfinder of a DSLR for landscape/horizontal framing:

 

[ac12]

Yup, just as we have been doing since the 35mm film days of yesteryear, leave room to crop.
And shoot with a cropping border that won't distract from your subject.
Even then there was difference in ratios between 4x5, 8x10 and 16x20 vs. 5x7 and 11x14.
The problem is many times you don't know which size print and thus print ratio will be selected for the final print.

My solutions was to CUT the print to fit the image (physical cropping), then mount the print onto a standard size matt board.
Example, a 4x8 print would be mounted onto a 8x10 or 11x14 matt board, which then fit into a standard size frame.

 

[adamhiram]

Agreed, always shoot a little wide and leave room to crop if there is a chance you’ll want to print in any aspect ratio other than the camera’s native one. I spent my first 2 years shooting with the idea to “get it right in camera, never crop,” and I can’t tell you how may headaches that caused. It’s a nice goal and a good learning tool, but at 20+ megapixels, it’s easier to just leave some room when you think yo might need it.

 

[mrca]

I like both square, 1:1, or 4:5 ratios for portraits. Knowing that I shoot the appropriate shot in the particular format. One of my favorite features of the d850 is you can select the aspect ratio, I have it set so holding the video button and turning the wheel scrolls between them and in the viewfinder, surrounding area is translucent. Can see the composition in that ratio. Benefit is full sensor, is 46 mp, 4x5 is 36 and 1:1 is 30. Saves memory space as well as helping compose to the ultimate aspect ratio and little if any cropping in post. For portraits, head and shoulders and headshots, I think the 4x5 is more pleasing, hence my use of the 6x7 format in mf film. I also like the square. 3:2 for me is fine for environmental shots including a background that explains or supports the subject, but I end up chopping of a good chunk of frame for other portraits in post. As for matting, I cut my own custom mats. Not a difficult skill so I can crop to maximize every shot, I am not stuck with a standard window size with pre cut mats. I also tend to do museum type hinge mounting to the back of the mat with 2 pieces of tape at the top of the print. On heavier papers, I have pre made corners to mount to the back board but you can form your own out of left over photo paper since it is archival. AFter the print is place in the corners, the print can be removed and a layer of archival tape can be put across the corner to give added strength then the print carefully placed back in the corners. Be sure not to make the print fit tight in the corners to allow expansion and contraction. As to print size and mat borders, the borders don't have to be equal, often the lower border is traditionally larger, a heavier look to support the image so if the image isn't the exact size of the frame, not a problem. Again, cutting my own mats allows for my choice there as well. A good quality mat cutter will pay for itself over have a frame shop mat and frame your work in a few photos. I agree with the above poster, I like a plain white mat, I don't want any distraction from the photo.

 

[Dave Colangelo]

Shoot to get enough in frame that the outcome will have the field of view you want then....

Something I learned getting in to dark room printing recently,

Get a mat cutter and print what ever size/aspect ratio you so please please (then cut custom mats to fit).

I had this notion for a while that I needed to print in the standard sizes available (4x5, 8x10 etc etc) and crop to fit these sizes but this is no rule saying this other than connivence of framing. You can always print with extra room on the paper then cut the excess away. Custom mats are pricy which tends to scare people off but you can get a nice 36inch throw mat cutter for <$100 which is the cost of 3 large-ish custom mats these days. Lets say you have a 16x9 or even 16x7 pano image and you print it on standard 8.5 x 11 paper just cut the excess out, or even frame it with the exes (some people are into that look).

Images look good in all different aspect ratios. I have shot 6x6 negatives then printed them heavily cropped in a kind of "wide-screen" look because the foreground and sky were not really as interesting as what was in the center of the image. I have also shot wide landscapes and ended up printing or displaying a square center section of them. So long as your capture includes at least the minimum area you want to print you will then realize printing its self is a whole new art.

 

[viathelens]

Hi. Really good advice from all above. I generally use two sizes to print. I buyer-cut mats in bulk in "vanilla" or white (vanilla for color prints and white for black and white prints). I normally print at 10 x 15 and put the print into a 16 x 20 frame. The mat is equal all around. This approach makes it easy for me to print and mat quickly if needed. I do sometimes experiment with other sizes and do have a mat cutter but it's been awhile since I've had to haul it out. If I do need a specific size mat cut there is a shop in town with a computer mat cutter and that does a much better job than I could ever do on my mat cutter. The other size I use, mostly for wildlife, is 11 x 14 since I often find I need to crop off the sides to get in a bit closer to the animal.

 

[AlanKlein]

Cut the mat to fit the camera format. That way you can compose to the camera format. If you frame wide in the camera, and try to match the standard mat of let's say 8x10, you could miss the shot by cutting legs off or just missing or adding something you need in the shot.

I guess since I'm old and shot slides for years, I always framed in the camera. I still do that today if I'm shooting 4:3 digital or 6x7 (film). Lately I've been making slide shows for UHDTV so I set the digital camera at 16:9 to match the TV ratio of 16:9. At first I found it hard to frame a good shot. But it's gotten easy so now I have no problem with shooting 16:9 in the camera. The added benefit is it match the 16:9 video clips.

Frankly, with digital, I don't know why some camera manufacturer doesn't include standard print frame sizes like 8x10, 5x7, 4:5 in the camera that you can select. After all, they already provide 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. I think it would be a great selling feature. It's only a software add. So what's the big deal?

 

[ac12]

Yup, just as we have been doing since the 35mm film days of yesteryear, leave room to crop.
And shoot with a cropping border that won't distract from your subject.
Even then there was difference in ratios between 4x5, 8x10 and 16x20 vs. 5x7 and 11x14.
The problem is many times you don't know which size print and thus print ratio will be selected for the final print.

My solutions was to CUT the print to fit the image (physical cropping), then mount the print onto a standard size matt board.
Example, a 4x8 print would be mounted onto a 8x10 or 11x14 matt board, which then fit into a standard size frame.

BTW, if you surface mount the print (dry mount, spray mount, etc.), you don't have to cut the matt board. Just buy a standard size matt board. Easy and cheap if you use spray adhesive mounting. The only trick is deciding on the placement of the print and aligning the print.

 

[Derrel]

I print to whatever aspect ratio the image needs...proscribing the final print aspect ratio is a surefire way to end up with substandard images.

Higher-end Nikons allow 2:3 or 4:5 in-camera aspect ratios; if one composes and shoots to a specific aspect ratio, then it makes sense to print to that aspect ratio. However, most people with Nikon d-slrs will shoot in the default 2:3 aspect ratio, but...the final printed images might be 2:3, or 4:3, or 4:5, or 1:1 in aspect...it allllllll depends on the PICTURE under consideration.

I think it makes sense to make the best-possible picture, regardless of aspect ratio. "Forcing" a picture to fit to a pre-determined aspect ratio does not make sense in many situations, if the goal is the highest degree of artistic impact. If a shot is for a specific layout, or for publication, then the aspect ratio is often very critical.

 

[greybeard]

I print to whatever aspect ratio the image needs...proscribing the final print aspect ratio is a surefire way to end up with substandard images.

Higher-end Nikons allow 2:3 or 4:5 in-camera aspect ratios; if one composes and shoots to a specific aspect ratio, then it makes sense to print to that aspect ratio. However, most people with Nikon d-slrs will shoot in the default 2:3 aspect ratio, but...the final printed images might be 2:3, or 4:3, or 4:5, or 1:1 in aspect...it allllllll depends on the PICTURE under consideration.

I think it makes sense to make the best-possible picture, regardless of aspect ratio. "Forcing" a picture to fit to a pre-determined aspect ratio does not make sense in many situations, if the goal is the highest degree of artistic impact. If a shot is for a specific layout, or for publication, then the aspect ratio is often very critical.

This is what I do. When I have a shot I think is good enough to print, I have it printed and custom framed to whatever suites the picture. Sometimes they come out square.

 

[AlanKlein]

I print to whatever aspect ratio the image needs...proscribing the final print aspect ratio is a surefire way to end up with substandard images.

Higher-end Nikons allow 2:3 or 4:5 in-camera aspect ratios; if one composes and shoots to a specific aspect ratio, then it makes sense to print to that aspect ratio. However, most people with Nikon d-slrs will shoot in the default 2:3 aspect ratio, but...the final printed images might be 2:3, or 4:3, or 4:5, or 1:1 in aspect...it allllllll depends on the PICTURE under consideration.

I think it makes sense to make the best-possible picture, regardless of aspect ratio. "Forcing" a picture to fit to a pre-determined aspect ratio does not make sense in many situations, if the goal is the highest degree of artistic impact. If a shot is for a specific layout, or for publication, then the aspect ratio is often very critical.

I agree we should shoot for the best artistic result. The problem is, the camera has to be set at a particular aspect ratio. My eye, maybe not yours, gets forced into seeing and framing based on the full view in the viewfinder - the full aspect ratio that was selected. It makes it harder to see past that ratio.

 

[Derrel]

Nothing wrong with composing and photographing using the entirety of the capture area!