Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2004-02-11 by flyfishingusa2002
I hope this is not too OT, but what print sizes do you use? US letter size, 8.5in x 11in is fairly close to the ratio of my Canon 10D which is fine, but the resulting format look to retanglular for my taste. What would you recommend? I have a large roll of Photo Rag to cut up. It's 36in wide by 38ft long. Should I be using the standard 8 x 10 format? It looks ok, but I have to crop a lot to get to this ratio. Sierra Gold
2004-02-11 by Mark Hahn
this is a really personal question... but I personally always want to stay with the format that I shoot in, but when buying precut matts it is a lot cheaper to print in a standard size like 5x7" or 8x10". mark --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "flyfishingusa2002" <tflyfish@c...> wrote: > I hope this is not too OT, but what print sizes do you use? US letter > size, 8.5in x 11in is fairly close to the ratio of my Canon 10D which > is fine, but the resulting format look to retanglular for my taste. > What would you recommend? I have a large roll of Photo Rag to cut up.
> It's 36in wide by 38ft long. Should I be using the standard 8 x 10 > format? It looks ok, but I have to crop a lot to get to this ratio. > > Sierra Gold
2004-02-11 by D. Hill
The 10d is a very capable camera - I tend to print with the standard 6x9 and 4x6 from the sensor for normal prints without cropping. Another suggestion would be 9x13.5 - stunning prints that do not need to be cropped or interpolated. Don --- flyfishingusa2002 <tflyfish@...> wrote: > I hope this is not too OT, but what print sizes do > you use? US letter > size, 8.5in x 11in is fairly close to the ratio of > my Canon 10D which > is fine, but the resulting format look to > retanglular for my taste. > What would you recommend? I have a large roll of > Photo Rag to cut up. > It's 36in wide by 38ft long. Should I be using the > standard 8 x 10 > format? It looks ok, but I have to crop a lot to get > to this ratio. > > Sierra Gold > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
2004-02-11 by Paul D. DeRocco
> From: flyfishingusa2002 [mailto:tflyfish@...] > > I hope this is not too OT, but what print sizes do you use? US letter > size, 8.5in x 11in is fairly close to the ratio of my Canon 10D which > is fine, but the resulting format look to retanglular for my taste. > What would you recommend? I have a large roll of Photo Rag to cut up. > It's 36in wide by 38ft long. Should I be using the standard 8 x 10 > format? It looks ok, but I have to crop a lot to get to this ratio. Let the subject of the picture guide you. Crop it on screen until you like the effect, then decide how to print it. If your printer supports roll paper (or you can jerry-rig it to use the roll), leave it on the roll, and cut each print after you print it. I can think of a couple of possible exceptions: if you're doing an exhibition, and you want all your images to share the same aspect ratio, or if you want to use standard mats to keep the price down. But in general, I find that there is no fixed aspect ratio that works well for all pictures. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:pderocco@...
2004-02-11 by jackperk
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@y...> wrote: > this is a really personal question... but I personally always want to > stay with the format that I shoot in, but when buying precut matts it > is a lot cheaper to print in a standard size like 5x7" or 8x10". > > That assumes that you do no cropping. And there aren't many prints that I do not crop in the process. Jack
2004-02-12 by Mark Hahn
As I said, it's a personal choice, so I'm not arguing one way or the other, but for me, even with cropping I almost always stay with the format that I shoot in. That is because I frame to that format and plan on using the full frame. The only exception is 6x6, mainly because I don't think in square. When I was young and inexperienced I used to crop a lot and would crop to any aspect ratio that "fixed" my poorly framed shots... but now I am much more careful what I shoot, maybe because I've dealt with a lot of low rez digitals, scans and tiny film formats like Minox so I got in the habit of having to make every bit of my frame count and just work with each format. Just a different approach... not that I am "full-frame or nothing" nazi, but I just find that it it's how I work best with most images. The real bummer is that no one is offering paper in "legal size;" which would be perfect for a 8x12" print on my hp 7660. mark --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jackperk" <jackperk@y...> wrote: > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" > <markhahn2000@y...> wrote: > > this is a really personal question... but I personally always want to > > stay with the format that I shoot in, but when buying precut matts it > > is a lot cheaper to print in a standard size like 5x7" or 8x10". > > > > > > That assumes that you do no cropping. And there aren't many prints that I do not
> crop in the process. > > Jack
2004-02-12 by Truman Prevatt
I let the image dictate the print size. I try as best possible to frame the image so I don't have to crop. Not every image is suited to an 8x10 or 11x14 or an 8 x12 format and the image can be distracting if you try to force a format that's not right for the image. Some images are better suited to a 6x12, a 7x13 or even a 10x10. I do frame it so that I only need to crop in one dimension since the more you crop the poorer the final print - got that from my wet darkroom days and 35mm. Truman Mark Hahn wrote: > As I said, it's a personal choice, so I'm not arguing one way or the > other, but for me, even with cropping I almost always stay with the > format that I shoot in. That is because I frame to that format and > plan on using the full frame. The only exception is 6x6, mainly > because I don't think in square. When I was young and inexperienced > I used to crop a lot and would crop to any aspect ratio that "fixed" > my poorly framed shots... but now I am much more careful what I > shoot, maybe because I've dealt with a lot of low rez digitals, scans > and tiny film formats like Minox so I got in the habit of having to > make every bit of my frame count and just work with each format. > Just a different approach... not that I am "full-frame or nothing" > nazi, but I just find that it it's how I work best with most images. > > The real bummer is that no one is offering paper in "legal size;" > which would be perfect for a 8x12" print on my hp 7660. > > mark > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-02-12 by Sam McCandless
At 1:19 AM +0000 2/12/04, Mark Hahn wrote: >[snip] >The real bummer is that no one is offering paper in "legal size;" >which would be perfect for a 8x12" print on my hp 7660. > >mark 13" x 19" sheets, cut in half, yield two 9.5" x 13" sheets, which I guess might do if 13 x 19 sheets can be found and you have a large enough sheet trimmer. But I believe awkwardly large (for us) sheets are more frequently available. And that (job) printers, who might be able to buy the paper for less as well as handle it more conveniently, will cut them down for very little (in stacks) and with less waste. Some job printers will also do UPS shipping for you, and that might be a good way to check them out and get them started thinking of you as a customer. -- Sam
2004-02-12 by flyfishingusa2002
You see my point is that most paper sizes have been determined by history and not the ideal photo format which is pleasing to the eye. Is 8x10 considered to be the ideal ratio? Sierra Gold --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless <samcc@v...> wrote: > At 1:19 AM +0000 2/12/04, Mark Hahn wrote: > >[snip] > >The real bummer is that no one is offering paper in "legal size;" > >which would be perfect for a 8x12" print on my hp 7660. > > > >mark > > 13" x 19" sheets, cut in half, yield two 9.5" x 13" sheets, which I > guess might do if 13 x 19 sheets can be found and you have a large > enough sheet trimmer. But I believe awkwardly large (for us) sheets > are more frequently available. And that (job) printers, who might be > able to buy the paper for less as well as handle it more > conveniently, will cut them down for very little (in stacks) and with > less waste. Some job printers will also do UPS shipping for you, and
> that might be a good way to check them out and get them started > thinking of you as a customer. > -- > Sam
2004-02-12 by Roger L Sopher
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 14:28, flyfishingusa2002 wrote: > You see my point is that most paper sizes have been determined by > history and not the ideal photo format which is pleasing to the eye. > Is 8x10 considered to be the ideal ratio? > According to the ancient Greeks a rectangle with sides of the ratio of 1.618 (phi, the "golden ratio") is the most pleasing to the eye. Still taught today in fine arts courses (and algebra...) Roger
2004-02-12 by John Stacy
So for those of us that flunked algebra, that works out to 8 x 12.94 ??? John
----- Original Message ----- From: Roger L Sopher To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Print sizes On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 14:28, flyfishingusa2002 wrote: > You see my point is that most paper sizes have been determined by > history and not the ideal photo format which is pleasing to the eye. > Is 8x10 considered to be the ideal ratio? > According to the ancient Greeks a rectangle with sides of the ratio of 1.618 (phi, the "golden ratio") is the most pleasing to the eye. Still taught today in fine arts courses (and algebra...) Roger [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-02-12 by Roger L Sopher
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 15:14, John Stacy wrote: > So for those of us that flunked algebra, that works out to 8 x 12.94 > ??? If you are into verticals :-) The "Golden Mean" or phi is expressed as phi + 1 = phi * phi which ends up being a quadratic equation... Any more than that makes my head hurt. I struggled with math 50 years ago and it hasn't become any easier with age :-( Thank God for calculators and computers. Roger [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-02-12 by Mark Hahn
With my 7660 I would like to stick to paper that has been tested. At least the hp stuff has been tested by Wilhelm. Hp does sell "Premium Photo Glossy" in 11x17" and after spending a long frustrating run around with their automated phone servers I got confirmation that the Premium Photo paper is identical to the Premium Plus Photo paper except for the weight. He did say that it was not designed for the printer so if I cut it down to legal size and used it in the 7660 that I would be voiding my warranty (and didn't like my joke, "Yeah, and how are you going to prove that?" :) Yaaahooo, 8x12"s this weekend with no clogs :) mark --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless <samcc@v...> wrote: > At 1:19 AM +0000 2/12/04, Mark Hahn wrote: > >[snip] > >The real bummer is that no one is offering paper in "legal size;" > >which would be perfect for a 8x12" print on my hp 7660. > > > >mark > > 13" x 19" sheets, cut in half, yield two 9.5" x 13" sheets, which I > guess might do if 13 x 19 sheets can be found and you have a large > enough sheet trimmer. But I believe awkwardly large (for us) sheets > are more frequently available. And that (job) printers, who might be > able to buy the paper for less as well as handle it more > conveniently, will cut them down for very little (in stacks) and with > less waste. Some job printers will also do UPS shipping for you, and
> that might be a good way to check them out and get them started > thinking of you as a customer. > -- > Sam
2004-02-12 by Truman Prevatt
Check http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRatio.html Probably more than you would ever want to know. Truman Roger L Sopher wrote: > On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 15:14, John Stacy wrote: > > > So for those of us that flunked algebra, that works out to 8 x 12.94 > > ??? > > If you are into verticals :-) > > > The "Golden Mean" or phi is expressed as phi + 1 = phi * phi which ends > up being a quadratic equation... Any more than that makes my head hurt. > I struggled with math 50 years ago and it hasn't become any easier with > age :-( > > Thank God for calculators and computers. > > Roger > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2004-02-13 by Roger L Sopher
On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 16:06, Truman Prevatt wrote: > Check http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRatio.html > > Probably more than you would ever want to know. Amen, brother! Easier is http://www.vashti.net/mceinc/golden.htm Probably should stop this before Martin sends a rocket... Roger
2004-02-13 by Steve Kale
Yet phi is even more peculiar...the relative dimensions of the human body, the shape of a sunflower etc etc, all yield an intriguing ratio... Equating to a number called phi... For a relaxing read, try the novel the ³The Da Vinci Code²
From: Roger L Sopher <rlsopher@...> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:10:10 -0700 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Print sizes On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 16:06, Truman Prevatt wrote: > Check http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRatio.html > > Probably more than you would ever want to know. Amen, brother! Easier is http://www.vashti.net/mceinc/golden.htm Probably should stop this before Martin sends a rocket... Roger [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]