Exposure conundrum

Mick Fagan · Feb 24, 2009

Q.G. to print full borderless prints onto an 8"x10" sheet of paper, you will have to crop one end of a 35mm negative. Usually one will crop the feet, not the head, although

Basically the proportions of a 5"x7" piece of paper are reasonably close to a 35mm negative, proportion wise. The 8"x10" paper is different.

Actually A4 B&W paper from Ilford is very close to the 35mm proportions and enlarges with virtually no cropping.

Mick.

Q.G. · Feb 24, 2009

Yes.
I still don't understand.

The young bride in the example bought some images. She liked one well enough to want a larger version of it.
And then the photographer says it can't be done, because paper happens to come in certain sizes, so she has to make do with a different image.

No matter how i try, i simply cannot understand.
I don't understand how people let paper confection sizes determine what will be in the image and what will not.

Strikes me as something extremely silly. Extremely unprofessional.
And that's an understatement extreme in size too.

ricksplace · Feb 24, 2009

MANY years ago, Eaton's had a photofinishing service. Black and white photos were processed and delivered in a little album with front and back covers, and deckel edges on the prints. I still have one of those little albums, with the pictures in it upside down. (or the covers were upside down, depending on your point of view...)

BobNewYork · Feb 24, 2009

QG - when the aspect ratio, (length vs width) of a negative differs from that of the print size cropping is inevitable. In the case of the bride a 5x7 print included the shoes. An 8x10 print, being a "squatter" aspect ratio will entail either cutting off her shoes - or her head! The alternative would be a 7.15 x 10 print - which would maintain the same length by width ratio, and thereby include both head and shoes. It's not silly and unprofessional - it's just physics.

Q.G. · Feb 24, 2009

No, Bob.

The decision to alter the image, just because if you don't you would 'waste' a bit of paper is not physics.

It is silly. And unprofessional.

mudman · Feb 24, 2009

And I can hear the woman now: "why are there white borders? I did NOT ask for borders."

Allan Swindles · Feb 24, 2009

O.G. isn't altogether wrong. If you are going to use 35mm to shoot weddings and offer 10/8 prints, then allowance should be made in the framing of the subject in the first instance.

Q.G. · Feb 24, 2009

I like to think that i'm alltogether not wrong, Allan.

Allan Swindles · Feb 24, 2009

It's been a few years since I was in the trade but 35mm has always caused problems, particularly with machine colour prints. On the one hand, people were being told to 'fill the frame' on the other they could not understand that the machines had to cope with films from a wide range of cameras and believe it or not, they are not all exactly 24x36mm., hence the film carriers on the printers were very slightly smaller, resulting in very slight cut off all around the frame - but not many folk would be prepared to pay for hand prints.

BobNewYork · Feb 24, 2009

I think silly and unprofessional is a little harsh Q.G. If the neg in question were printed on an 8x10 sheet the borders would appear only on the longer sides. In a frame - which bride's normally have such enlargements done for - really would look silly and unprofessional. Such an image would print well at 11x14 - but tell the customer that and you're accused of trying to rip them off. Trust me - been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt.

Q.G. · Feb 25, 2009

So we have established that some of us are in the paper filling business, not in the image making business.

So it was silly.
Silly of the customer (isn't it, John?) to want an image to appear as it should, not realizing that that would be against the basic tenets of the "hey, paper is only that big! What do you expect us to do?!" school of photography.

Sorry Bob.
It still is very silly and unprofessional.

Mick Fagan · Feb 25, 2009

Q.G., yes it is silly and unprofessional.

However what virtually everyone is alluding to, is the fact that with the way the photofinishing business worked at the lowest possible price point, things like that always happened.

It's almost as silly as someone not trying to see the point when they come to pick up their $1.20 colour 8"x10" machine prints and complaining that the quality isn't good enough.

The quality at that price is marvelous, but people are generally attuned to the lowest price possible, yet at the same time, wishing to have the best possible quality, this is normal human nature, but unrealistic.

Mick.

BobNewYork · Feb 25, 2009

There are indeed those who are in the paper filling business - it's called commercial photography. When a client orders an 8x10 it is invariably because they have an 8x10 frame - not a 7.15x10 frame. Perhaps every client should await the prints before having custom frames made for each image. I can think of little more offputting than a 0.85" white stripe down two sides of a framed and displayed print. As I said, this particular client should have been better advised and told that an 11x14 would have been more appropriate for the image in question; or perhaps helped to select another image better suited to the 8x10 format. While an artistic approach is definitely not precluded from wedding photography, I defy anyone to take a protracted, considered and artistic approach to capturing Aunt Mabel on the dance floor with Grandma. We may absolutely insist on our own aesthetic strictures only when we are our own clients. We may advise our clients and we may assist them; but we should never be so arrogant as to believe that our personal aesthetic tastes are superior to their own.

Has anyone told a publisher that he must change the format of his front cover because the banner will detract from the photograph he has paid you to produce? Ever tried telling an art director that the format strictures of their print ads are inappropriate for your type of photography. Now that would be arrogant, silly and unprofessional.

Q.G. · Feb 25, 2009

Anything, as long as you can think the customer's wrong, right?

In John's example of a silly customer, the client liked an image enough to want a larger version of it.

You say that the client should know that, because it's more convenient, and most of all cheaper, that she can't get a larger version of it, except an altered one.
(So here's a thought: how about removing all advertising from such shops that even suggests that the shop is anything but a cheap paper filling business? Away with all those stickers and banners that suggest that "quality" is something they achive, or even care about.)
Why would she believe she could? Or rather why does it come as an unpleasant surprise that she can't?
It's because she is a stupid whining customer?

And after all, she merely thought she wanted a larger version of the imnage she so liked, but in reality only wanted to fill her 8x10 frame.

So it's obviously intolerably arrogant of her to demand that she get a larger version of the picture she liked so much.
Who does she think she is! Not even Penn, or Leibowitz, or Demarchelier, or ... got their pictures published in Vogue, Elle, or whatever magazine without being edited, cropped, put text on, etc. So there!

Silly and unprofessional still, Bob.

BobNewYork · Feb 25, 2009

Your right Q.G. - let's all do it your way and the world would be a much better place.

mudman · Feb 25, 2009

Q.G. - Some Department Store photo studios are set up in such a manner that they will crop no matter what your preference is.

Anscojohn · Feb 25, 2009

Q.G. said:
Yes.
I still don't understand.

The young bride in the example bought some images. She liked one well enough to want a larger version of it.
And then the photographer says it can't be done, because paper happens to come in certain sizes, so she has to make do with a different image.

Strikes me as something extremely silly. Extremely unprofessional.
And that's an understatement extreme in size too.

******
Yes. It was not a professional who did the shoot; it was a friend. But, had she been interested in full frame prints on the larger paper, it would have been fine. But she insisted they had to be full 8x10s--not the 5x7 proportions on an 8x10 paper.

I remember feeling very sorry for the husband.

John Koehrer · Feb 26, 2009

Something about mountains & mole hills comes to mind.
Whether as a pro or paper filler there are some limitations with the technology you are forced(?) to use. Making custom prints is just a tad bit more costly than having Wally world print them.
If the customer realizes that for $100 she gets X and for $1000 she can have Y and they are different products it might be better. But I doubt it, there are some people who cannot be satisfied.

BobNewYork · Feb 26, 2009

If the customer realizes that for $100 she gets X and for $1000 she can have Y and they are different products it might be better. But I doubt it, there are some people who cannot be satisfied.

It is also the case that you would normally price reprints before the shoot takes place. To price them all as the $1,000 option just in case would be a serious issue.

Q.G. · Feb 26, 2009

mudman said:
Q.G. - Some Department Store photo studios are set up in such a manner that they will crop no matter what your preference is.

That's why you'd better ask (here it comes ...) a professional !

mudman · Feb 26, 2009

definition of professional from websters - "participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs." Just because they aren't the best doesn't mean they aren't professional. I think you're just looking for a fight on the matter.

Anscojohn · Feb 26, 2009

Definition of a semi-professional photographer: someone who owns five or more cameras and has a spouse who works for a living.

mudman · Feb 27, 2009

hahahaahahahahhaahaha

Q.G. · Feb 27, 2009

mudman said:
definition of professional from websters - "participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs." Just because they aren't the best doesn't mean they aren't professional.

That's right.
There are professional photographers, professional printers, and professional paper fillers.

I can't help but still be hugely amazed that in a photographer's forum (people who are concerned with images) it is considered so 'normal', so matter-of-course that the image takes second place to paper confection sizes that someone (the bride in the example) who does indeed look at the image is seen as someone to poke fun about.

As i said above, there are photographers, printers, and paper fillers.

Let's not talk about being the best or not, since that would indeed lead to a fight.

BobNewYork · Feb 27, 2009

Let's not talk about being the best or not, since that would indeed lead to a fight.

And yet you are.................

Exposure conundrum

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency