Aspect ratios and paper annoyance.

[P1505]

Hello.

I’m annoyed and maybe it’s due to work stress but maybe not. I like 4:3, I like the classic photo ratios. I don’t understand why photo paper for inkjets comes in A4 and A3 etc. this leaves me either cropping - something I refuse to do under any circumstance - or with uneven borders. Or having to trim.

What do you all do? I am starting to print my archive, taking it seriously. I want to buy photo boxes and have a consistent size and am really struggling as all the papers are the wrong size and I’m going round in circles trying to find a route. I want to print 4:3 but A3 ish size. Maybe I just accept the uneven borders.

Wow I’m grumpy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

We have 8 1/2" x 11" which does nothing useful for square photographs or 4"x5" negatives.

 

[xkaes]

Lots of shutterbugs feel your pain, but I have a different perspective. As photographers we all crop -- all the time. The first big crop is when we take the picture. First there is the format that the camera has -- that's a crop, and then we select a distance to get the perspective we want -- that's a crop, and then we choose a lens to cut out the stuff we don't want in the shot -- another crop.

And then in the darkroom we either crop to fit the paper, or crop the paper to fit the format, or crop the image to cut out extraneous stuff that detracts.

Crop, crop, crop. I do so much cropping, sometimes I think I'm a farmer. But I have to crop to get just what I want, and only what I want in the picture -- regardless of the shape or size of the negative or the final picture. It might be a 6x6 INCH print or a 2x6 FOOT print.

 

[koraks]

Lots of shutterbugs feel your pain

They do. For instance fairly recently expressed here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/gripe-the-misery-of-3-2-35mm-aspect-ratio.199290/

I don’t understand why photo paper for inkjets comes in A4 and A3 etc.

I'm sure if you root around a bit you'll start to see the logic of the A-series formats.

In the end, it doesn't matter all that much because photography has involved a whole slew of standard aspect ratios, and then we're not even talking about cropping to whatever dimensions are favored by the individual photographer for the individual image.

Btw, doesn't inkjet paper also come in 8x10, 5x7, 4x6 etc? I I'm pretty sure it does, given that I've actually still got some leftover packs of the latter two sizes, at least.

Of course, people complain about the A-series sizes being so common. Then again, if you were to replace the A-series sizes with a photographic range such as 8x10 etc.,other people would start to complain about that.

In the end, it turns out that there actually is happiness in the simple purchase of a decent paper trimmer.

 

[Pieter12]

Boo hoo. Paper is cut to dimensions that make the most of sheets that come out of paper-making machines. No one really cares what you or others want, it's all economics.

 

[P1505]

Lots of shutterbugs feel your pain, but I have a different perspective. As photographers we all crop -- all the time. The first big crop is when we take the picture. First there is the format that the camera has -- that's a crop, and then we select a distance to get the perspective we want -- that's a crop, and then we choose a lens to cut out the stuff we don't want in the shot -- another crop.

And then in the darkroom we either crop to fit the paper, or crop the paper to fit the format, or crop the image to cut out extraneous stuff that detracts.

Crop, crop, crop. I do so much cropping, sometimes I think I'm a farmer. But I have to crop to get just what I want, and only what I want in the picture -- regardless of the shape or size of the negative or the final picture. It might be a 6x6 INCH print or a 2x6 FOOT print.

I never crop once I press the shutter. I choose what to include in the frame of course, but never crop after the fact.

Paper trimmer and custom storage boxes may be my route.

 

[Pieter12]

I never crop once I press the shutter. I choose what to include in the frame of course, but never crop after the fact

A few details that might end up negating each other, but most camera viewfinders are not accurate as to the final image recorded on film, so your image will probably be at least a bit different than what you saw through the camera. I will assume by your statement that you include the rebate on your prints. Otherwise most enlargers force you to crop at least a tiny bit, allowing you to correct to what you saw in-camera.

 

[Mick Fagan]

As you are running a 35mm camera, the film image is 24x36mm, A4 paper size is the closest standard paper for enlarging either via Ilford's A4 darkroom paper, or the multitude of paper suppliers for electronic imaging. 297mm = 8.25 on the long side, while 210mm = 8.75 on the short side, both are reasonably close to each other and if you work on an 8 times enlargement factor over the original 24x36mm frame, then you will be trimming an absolute minimum along one side to make the white borders equal.

I myself use Ilford Multigrade A4 sized paper in 100 sheet boxes for the majority of my darkroom enlarging, I have but don't use an inkjet printer for photographic purposes; but I use A4 for that as well.

Perhaps you should start using 4x5" cameras, after all that enlarges perfectly to 8x10" paper, except it doesn't. The actual size of 4x5" sheet film is not 4x5", it varies slightly. I've just measured some 4x5" sheet film sitting on my desk, 100mm x 125mm, which is not 4x5". Then there is the image area, this is smaller again as some parts of the film are covered by the film retainers; and on it goes....

Yep, you are grumpy!

 

[MattKing]

Custom cup mats for presentation are your friends .
As someone who has no familiarity with the "A" paper dimensions, I had to look up the aspect ration, which appears to be the square root of 2 to 1 - rounded off to 1.414 to 1, or 297 mm wide x 210 mm long (11.69″ x 8.27″).
4:3 would be 1.333 to 1.
Just print with slightly uneven borders - an image size of 252mm x 189mm would work well.

 

[Chan Tran]

Just have the large uneven border then cut them off. Printers don't do well printing out to the edges of the paper any way.

 

[P1505]

Woke up less grumpy

I shoot digital mainly, so no edges to crop off. When I say I don’t crop, I mean once in Photolab honestly I never crop. I can’t be bothered with the extra decisions needed. I try to get it right in camera, if I don’t… oh well.

When I shoot on 120 I trim the edges post conversion, get as close to those edges as I can, maintain 1:1, and crop from the centre out. So again, no decisions on composition being made after I press the shutter.

I’m just surprised that given we all shoot 3;2 or 4:3 etc we still have A4 and A3 paper. I can get 4x6 and 10x8 but nothing larger.

But it’s ok. I’ll print on A3+ and cut off the excess. Photoboxes being ordered today - 100 of them. Should see me out.

 

[Don_ih]

A photobook is printed on pages of equal dimensions, sometimes with unequal borders around the images, if they've been shot using different formats.

If I was to set about a printing project of a larger scale, such as you're suggesting, I'd choose a larger paper size and print the images on that, with unequal borders, centred left to right, a larger border on the bottom, crop no paper, and stack them up. There's nothing wrong with white space around a photo.

Most of my enlargements are on 8x10. Almost none of them actually end up with the entire 8x10 covered.

@Mick Fagan -- 4x5 was 4x5 inches when it was using glass. When the cameras needed to be adapted to use film, they had to put a metal sheath in the plate holder which required the film to be cut a bit smaller than 4x5.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's not only paper but screens if you decide to scan film and display slideshows digitally. 4K TV's and monitors are usually 16:9. So there will be black borders when you show a 3:2 35mm or 4:5 or 6x7 photo.

Of course, if you shoot digitally, you can shoot in 16:9 which I often do to eliminate those black bars and fill the screen up. Since it matches video 16:9 as well, it works all around.

What I don't understand is why camera manufacturers don't make options in the digital cameras to format let's say 8x10, 5x7, and other standard print paper formats. After all they already usually provide 1:1, 3:2, 16:9, and 4:3. What's the big deal adding a couple of more? Or better yet, allow the user to pick whatever format ratio they want for length and width.

 

[guangong]

Being stringent about not cropping is somewhat rediculous. There are many great paintings and drawings in the world where the artist decided during the painting process to crop or add more to the canvas. Not to speak of changing the compositional design by adding, moving, or deleting pictorial elements. Photographers don’t have that freedom, but the negative is only another element in creating a picture, from choice of camera and film to final print. The limitations for creating a great picture using photography is much more challenging…but nevertheless the pursuit is enjoyable.

 

[xkaes]

I never crop once I press the shutter. I choose what to include in the frame of course, but never crop after the fact.

So all of your prints are the exact same aspect ratio as your film format -- sounds very limiting to me.

 

[P1505]

To each their own right? Constraints drive creativity. Limitations and simplifications of processes aid in being more creative - at least for me.

I compose in a certain way no matter what I’m shooting, I have my grid. I like it.

 

[xkaes]

Constraints drive creativity.

More power to you. In my world, freedom provides creativity. Straight-jackets? No thanks.

 

[MattKing]

To each their own right? Constraints drive creativity. Limitations and simplifications of processes aid in being more creative - at least for me.

I compose in a certain way no matter what I’m shooting, I have my grid. I like it.

Given that, perhaps it would be worth your while to have some custom paper cutting done for you.
Or alternatively, do what many of us do - compose in camera for the presentation options, not to fill the viewfinder.
I spent years composing to 4x5 and 5x7 aspect ratios, because those were the ratios that I could use to obtain inexpensive high quality machine enlargements from - critical to making money from sales to customers.
I always try to compose toward the final result, not to what will fill the edges of the finder.
And sometimes that means output that fits nothing that is a "standard" size. For example, from the centre of a single 6x4.5 frame:

 

[wiltw]

1. Sometimes the best capture of the original scene does NOT fit well within the frame of the film format used for capture of the image, but a take the photo within the limitations mandated by the film format
2. Sometimes the best capture of the film format does not fit well within the available paper formats

For #1, we need to crop the image during postprocessing (printing) to best fit the scene (such as to eliminate distracting elements in the full scene) in printing to a custom size and format and trimming the paper as needed.
For #2, we print the full image to a size/magnification to fit the paper and trim the paper as needed

While the OP topic fits within the context of #2, in some cases we resort to BOTH #1 with #2, to make the absolute best photo.

And then there is the reality that we have quite a few different camera formats, all with different aspect ratios from each other, and our sensitized paper matches only a small number of the camera aspect ratios.

 

[xkaes]

And then there is the reality that we have quite a few different camera formats, all with different aspect ratios from each other, and our sensitized paper matches only a small number of the camera aspect ratios.

That's why basically everyone crops -- in one way or another. For example, if you use a 35mm full frame format, and don't crop the image, your pictures would need to be 8x12" or 6.6x10". How about 11x16.6" or 9.3x14"? Even then, you crop the paper. I've made a few 8x12" prints by cropping 11x14" paper, but that's OK -- I don't mind cropping -- either the image, the paper, and usually both!!!

 

[Chan Tran]

I don't see printing smaller than the paper size and trim off the excess as a waste. I do see cropping from the film format or digital sensor format is a waste of film or sensor capability. However, composition is more important. So the fact that paper sizes don't match the size of prints I want doesn't bother me at all.

 

[Pieter12]

I don't see printing smaller than the paper size and trim off the excess as a waste. I do see cropping from the film format or digital sensor format is a waste of film or sensor capability. However, composition is more important. So the fact that paper sizes don't match the size of prints I want doesn't bother me at all.

Sometimes a scene doesn’t match the aspect ratio of the camera I am using. I certainly won’t let that stop me from taking the photo and cropping to my heart’s delight. I am pretty impressed, though, by all those who are so blessed and skilled that they never crop anything, anytime.

 

[wiltw]

I illustrate a shot taken with a 4:3 aspect ratio camera

and then the 3:1 ratio canvas that is on my living room wall in 20"h x 60"w proportions

 

[Jim Jones]

Wiltw's photos above are fine examples of why final cropping in the camera's viewfinder is an artificial limitation imposed upon the creative photographer. We may have a specific use in mind for every photo we capture at the moment of clicking the shutter, but we should also consider the possibility of future situations where different cropping is more appropriate or even necessary. Of course we have laws to protect us from the stupidity and cupidity of others. Such laws are essential in a rational society, and should routinely be obeyed. However, the traditions and rules of photography have evolved more to make us efficient, not to prevent us from becoming better photographers. Testing these boundaries has often led to significant advances in the art and technique of photography. Blind adherence to inflexible guidelines is a terrible strait-jacket to inflict upon creative people!

 

[P1505]

I think I said it before but we are all different. I choose specifically to not crop - to be clear as people sometimes like to dig into the weeds here what I mean is I do not crop after I have taken the shot aside from removing the borders of the film in the scan.

I do this for two reasons, I have never found a crop I prefer to my original photo. And I like creative constraints.

But we are all different and that’s ok