Re: Musings about image formats
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013, Matthew Hunt wrote: On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before. I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing. I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the Internet... and there were in the film days, too (showing the edges of the frame as proof). Wouldn't precisely call myself a fetishist, but until I started shooting RAW, I treated digital the same way I treated film: WYSIWYG (never had much darkroom access in my film days). Now that I have to use a digital darkroom I'm getting a bit looser in my editing constraints, although I think I'll still end up on the minimal side. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ * * * Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
Cropping was a lot more exacting in the days before zooms. You didn't just zoom in or out to get your cropping right. You had to zoom with your feet. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:53 AM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote: on 2013-08-23 21:34 Matthew Hunt wrote On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before. I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing. I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the Internet... and there were in the film days, too (showing the edges of the frame as proof). some did tremendous work within that constraint; while i'm not a purist about it myself, being close to someone who was (in the 1960s), i think it offers a certain simplicity - first thought, best thought -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
Or change to a prime with an appropriate focal length. We were required to print full frame my first semester in school, just to demonstrate we had not inadvertently composed an image that cropped elements of the scene out of the image frame. On 8/24/2013 1:11 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Cropping was a lot more exacting in the days before zooms. You didn't just zoom in or out to get your cropping right. You had to zoom with your feet. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:53 AM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote: on 2013-08-23 21:34 Matthew Hunt wrote On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before. I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing. I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the Internet... and there were in the film days, too (showing the edges of the frame as proof). some did tremendous work within that constraint; while i'm not a purist about it myself, being close to someone who was (in the 1960s), i think it offers a certain simplicity - first thought, best thought -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
Yes, that's why Pentax made primes of 85mm, 100mm, 120mm, 135mm,150mm, and 200mm. From 50.mm down they made 40mm, 35mm, 30mm, 28mm, 20mm, and 15mm. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:06 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: Or change to a prime with an appropriate focal length. We were required to print full frame my first semester in school, just to demonstrate we had not inadvertently composed an image that cropped elements of the scene out of the image frame. On 8/24/2013 1:11 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Cropping was a lot more exacting in the days before zooms. You didn't just zoom in or out to get your cropping right. You had to zoom with your feet. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:53 AM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote: on 2013-08-23 21:34 Matthew Hunt wrote On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before. I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing. I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the Internet... and there were in the film days, too (showing the edges of the frame as proof). some did tremendous work within that constraint; while i'm not a purist about it myself, being close to someone who was (in the 1960s), i think it offers a certain simplicity - first thought, best thought -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
OOps, frogot the 24mm. Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, that's why Pentax made primes of 85mm, 100mm, 120mm, 135mm,150mm, and 200mm. From 50.mm down they made 40mm, 35mm, 30mm, 28mm, 20mm, and 15mm. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:06 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: Or change to a prime with an appropriate focal length. We were required to print full frame my first semester in school, just to demonstrate we had not inadvertently composed an image that cropped elements of the scene out of the image frame. On 8/24/2013 1:11 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Cropping was a lot more exacting in the days before zooms. You didn't just zoom in or out to get your cropping right. You had to zoom with your feet. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:53 AM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote: on 2013-08-23 21:34 Matthew Hunt wrote On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before. I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing. I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the Internet... and there were in the film days, too (showing the edges of the frame as proof). some did tremendous work within that constraint; while i'm not a purist about it myself, being close to someone who was (in the 1960s), i think it offers a certain simplicity - first thought, best thought -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
And the 77, 55, 43, and 31mm. On Aug 24, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: OOps, frogot the 24mm. Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, that's why Pentax made primes of 85mm, 100mm, 120mm, 135mm,150mm, and 200mm. From 50.mm down they made 40mm, 35mm, 30mm, 28mm, 20mm, and 15mm. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:06 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: Or change to a prime with an appropriate focal length. We were required to print full frame my first semester in school, just to demonstrate we had not inadvertently composed an image that cropped elements of the scene out of the image frame. On 8/24/2013 1:11 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Cropping was a lot more exacting in the days before zooms. You didn't just zoom in or out to get your cropping right. You had to zoom with your feet. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:53 AM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote: on 2013-08-23 21:34 Matthew Hunt wrote On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before. I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing. I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the Internet... and there were in the film days, too (showing the edges of the frame as proof). some did tremendous work within that constraint; while i'm not a purist about it myself, being close to someone who was (in the 1960s), i think it offers a certain simplicity - first thought, best thought -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
Actually, I have more problems with zooms than with primes. With primes, I know that I am most likely going to be cropping later and I can deal with that. With zooms, I try to get it just right in the frame. I have trouble convincing myself to back off a bit, sacrifice just a touch of close-up detail to give me breathing room in later cropping. I don't remember anyone ever telling me that I should get it exact in the camera, but over the decades of photo books and articles, it seems to have become a habit. I can remember even 40+ years ago, in my relatively early days of SLR usage, feeling very put upon when I had to put crop marks on my slide mount to indicate how Kodak should crop when printing. stan On Aug 24, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Cropping was a lot more exacting in the days before zooms. You didn't just zoom in or out to get your cropping right. You had to zoom with your feet. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:53 AM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote: on 2013-08-23 21:34 Matthew Hunt wrote On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before. I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing. I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the Internet... and there were in the film days, too (showing the edges of the frame as proof). some did tremendous work within that constraint; while i'm not a purist about it myself, being close to someone who was (in the 1960s), i think it offers a certain simplicity - first thought, best thought -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
On 8/23/2013 7:42 PM, Stan Halpin wrote: Paper can be trimmed, mats and frames can be custom cut. But it is still a nuisance. I would love to have firmware in the camera that would show the viewing area with an 4x5 ratio (or other selectable ratio) partial mask. Many PS cameras have a selectable format ratio when taking the photo; I wouldn't want that. But if I am thinking this shot could make a nice print, I would like a viewfinder reminder of the area(s) that would correspond to print format ratios. If I decide on a different presentation mode later, I would still have the full-frame image to work with, unlike with the PS approach. Fascinating. I never thought of this notion in the manner you present it, Stan. I normally try to frame exactly how I would like the picture to be while I shoot. I know some call it fetish, some call it silliness, but I don't care - it is just more fun this way. As for different formats - well, I totally don't mind cropping after I shoot if I see it fit and then in LR it has a number of predefined aspect ratios, plus it allows me to define my own ones... So, it seems to cover it in terms of shooting and processing. I should add here that starting from K-7 I assign extreme value to 100% viewfinder. As for books... Hmmm, again in LR the integrated Blurb book module is very convenient. Although indeed having all kinds of crops in the book may either present a challenge for the editor, or even worse make it not work, so to say... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Musings about image formats
Rick Wormer recently posted a very nice PESO: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17505433size=lg Comments he has received so far mention the good composition. I totally agree - it is a boffo shot as presented. However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild struggles I have been having. The recent workshop I attended yielded several shots I have been motivated to print, and I have started layout of a Blurb book based on that week's shots. The problem I am having is that many of my compositions, as seen through the viewfinder and as captured by the sensor, and as viewed on my monitor, are just about exactly the way I want them. But the format is not an 8x10 nor 11x14 nor 13x17. So I need to print with too wide margins top or bottom. Same problem with Blurb layouts. Looking at Rick's image, I cannot see how he would be able to print the image in any standard format; any cropping on the sides would damage/destroy his composition. Paper can be trimmed, mats and frames can be custom cut. But it is still a nuisance. I would love to have firmware in the camera that would show the viewing area with an 4x5 ratio (or other selectable ratio) partial mask. Many PS cameras have a selectable format ratio when taking the photo; I wouldn't want that. But if I am thinking this shot could make a nice print, I would like a viewfinder reminder of the area(s) that would correspond to print format ratios. If I decide on a different presentation mode later, I would still have the full-frame image to work with, unlike with the PS approach. stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
Hi Stan The problem you present is one of the reasons I don't agree with the get it exact in the camera philosophy. My theory is that a lot of that type of thinking was a result of technology limitations of historic days. There was a time when the only thing most people could make from a large format negative was a contact print. More recently, many of us shot transparency film. You exposed and framed to get it exact in the camera because the original image was the only image. Today, especially with digital, the image you capture on the sensor is only one step in the processing chain. When you don't know the final use (and there may be many) you need to shoot pretty loose to give you freedom to crop the final image. I felt the same way when I shot BW 35mm negative film. You might want an 8x10 enlargement, a 5x7 or Square to more easily fit a printed book page and something along a 16:9 ratio to be sent to your TV screen. None of those are the same aspect ratio as your 2x3 viewfinder or original image. When you don't know what your going to do with the final image, shoot loose and crop later. One of the cameras I use has an option to project guidelines for different aspect ratios on the viewfinder image. I seldom use the feature because I usually don't know what aspect ratio I need for the final image. I use the full image size capability of the camera and shoot loose. gs George Sinos www.GeorgesPhotos.net www.GeorgeSinos.com On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: Rick Wormer recently posted a very nice PESO: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17505433size=lg Comments he has received so far mention the good composition. I totally agree - it is a boffo shot as presented. However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild struggles I have been having. The recent workshop I attended yielded several shots I have been motivated to print, and I have started layout of a Blurb book based on that week's shots. The problem I am having is that many of my compositions, as seen through the viewfinder and as captured by the sensor, and as viewed on my monitor, are just about exactly the way I want them. But the format is not an 8x10 nor 11x14 nor 13x17. So I need to print with too wide margins top or bottom. Same problem with Blurb layouts. Looking at Rick's image, I cannot see how he would be able to print the image in any standard format; any cropping on the sides would damage/destroy his composition. Paper can be trimmed, mats and frames can be custom cut. But it is still a nuisance. I would love to have firmware in the camera that would show the viewing area with an 4x5 ratio (or other selectable ratio) partial mask. Many PS cameras have a selectable format ratio when taking the photo; I wouldn't want that. But if I am thinking this shot could make a nice print, I would like a viewfinder reminder of the area(s) that would correspond to print format ratios. If I decide on a different presentation mode later, I would still have the full-frame image to work with, unlike with the PS approach. stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
I dont worry about standard formats. I format image proportions suitable to the visual language I'm constructing and lay out book pages (or exhibition framing) to suit. Of course, there are those occasions when having a regular format throughout a particular exhibit or book makes good sense. But I don't need to be reminded of this in the camera viewfinder when I'm framing. I've gotten into the habit of framing a little 'loose' when making the exposure to ensure that I can set the format proportions as desired when I'm preparing to output finished work. In conflict with that, the Olympus E-PL1 that I picked up (so as to play with some oddball lenses) has been set to record and display square format since I got it. I'm anything but consistent, eh? 0;-) Godfrey On Aug 23, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: Rick Wormer recently posted a very nice PESO: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17505433size=lg Comments he has received so far mention the good composition. I totally agree - it is a boffo shot as presented. However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild struggles I have been having. The recent workshop I attended yielded several shots I have been motivated to print, and I have started layout of a Blurb book based on that week's shots. The problem I am having is that many of my compositions, as seen through the viewfinder and as captured by the sensor, and as viewed on my monitor, are just about exactly the way I want them. But the format is not an 8x10 nor 11x14 nor 13x17. So I need to print with too wide margins top or bottom. Same problem with Blurb layouts. Looking at Rick's image, I cannot see how he would be able to print the image in any standard format; any cropping on the sides would damage/destroy his composition. Paper can be trimmed, mats and frames can be custom cut. But it is still a nuisance. I would love to have firmware in the camera that would show the viewing area with an 4x5 ratio (or other selectable ratio) partial mask. Many PS cameras have a selectable format ratio when taking the photo; I wouldn't want that. But if I am thinking this shot could make a nice print, I would like a viewfinder reminder of the area(s) that would correspond to print format ratios. If I decide on a different presentation mode later, I would still have the full-frame image to work with, unlike with the PS approach. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013, Stan Halpin wrote: However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild struggles I have been having. The recent workshop I attended yielded several shots I have been motivated to print, and I have started layout of a Blurb book based on that week's shots. The problem I am having is that many of my compositions, as seen through the viewfinder and as captured by the sensor, and as viewed on my monitor, are just about exactly the way I want them. But the format is not an 8x10 nor 11x14 nor 13x17. So I need to print with too wide margins top or bottom. Same problem with Blurb layouts. Looking at Rick's image, I cannot see how he would be able to print the image in any standard format; any cropping on the sides would damage/destroy his composition. Haven't done anything about it yet, but I've been thinking some about the same issues. I just crop my images so they look good and when it comes time to print, I'll print them with the properly-composed crop and deal with either cutting or whitespace. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ * * * Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
Book page formats have (next-to) nothing to do with the aspect ratio of the images put on those pages. White Space Is Your Friend™. On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 23, 2013, Stan Halpin wrote: However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild struggles I have been having. The recent workshop I attended yielded several shots I have been motivated to print, and I have started layout of a Blurb book based on that week's shots. The problem I am having is that many of my compositions, as seen through the viewfinder and as captured by the sensor, and as viewed on my monitor, are just about exactly the way I want them. But the format is not an 8x10 nor 11x14 nor 13x17. So I need to print with too wide margins top or bottom. Same problem with Blurb layouts. Looking at Rick's image, I cannot see how he would be able to print the image in any standard format; any cropping on the sides would damage/destroy his composition. Haven't done anything about it yet, but I've been thinking some about the same issues. I just crop my images so they look good and when it comes time to print, I'll print them with the properly-composed crop and deal with either cutting or whitespace. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/ * * * Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
Stan, Thanks for the compliment on the pic! I get my prints done by Denver Digital Imaging (slideprinter.com), which consistently produces prints that match what's on my screen (they honor color space). I can get 10 x 15, 11 x 16, 12 x 18, 16 x 24... aspect ratio is not a problem. I order mats several at a time in my favorite sizes. In short, not a problem. Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW - Original Message - From: Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net Cc: Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:42 PM Subject: Musings about image formats Rick Wormer recently posted a very nice PESO: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17505433size=lg Comments he has received so far mention the good composition. I totally agree - it is a boffo shot as presented. However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild struggles I have been having. The recent workshop I attended yielded several shots I have been motivated to print, and I have started layout of a Blurb book based on that week's shots. The problem I am having is that many of my compositions, as seen through the viewfinder and as captured by the sensor, and as viewed on my monitor, are just about exactly the way I want them. But the format is not an 8x10 nor 11x14 nor 13x17. So I need to print with too wide margins top or bottom. Same problem with Blurb layouts. Looking at Rick's image, I cannot see how he would be able to print the image in any standard format; any cropping on the sides would damage/destroy his composition. Paper can be trimmed, mats and frames can be custom cut. But it is still a nuisance. I would love to have firmware in the camera that would show the viewing area with an 4x5 ratio (or other selectable ratio) partial mask. Many PS cameras have a selectable format ratio when taking the photo; I wouldn't want that. But if I am thinking this shot could make a nice print, I would like a viewfinder reminder of the area(s) that would correspond to print format ratios. If I decide on a different presentation mode later, I would still have the full-frame image to work with, unlike with the PS approach. stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before. I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing. I've always interpreted that to mean expose it properly frame it so that you don't chop off heads feet or any other features you might want in your print later. You can always crop down to get the image you want, but it's hard to crop up. On 8/23/2013 2:12 PM, George Sinos wrote: Hi Stan The problem you present is one of the reasons I don't agree with the get it exact in the camera philosophy. My theory is that a lot of that type of thinking was a result of technology limitations of historic days. There was a time when the only thing most people could make from a large format negative was a contact print. More recently, many of us shot transparency film. You exposed and framed to get it exact in the camera because the original image was the only image. Today, especially with digital, the image you capture on the sensor is only one step in the processing chain. When you don't know the final use (and there may be many) you need to shoot pretty loose to give you freedom to crop the final image. I felt the same way when I shot BW 35mm negative film. You might want an 8x10 enlargement, a 5x7 or Square to more easily fit a printed book page and something along a 16:9 ratio to be sent to your TV screen. None of those are the same aspect ratio as your 2x3 viewfinder or original image. When you don't know what your going to do with the final image, shoot loose and crop later. One of the cameras I use has an option to project guidelines for different aspect ratios on the viewfinder image. I seldom use the feature because I usually don't know what aspect ratio I need for the final image. I use the full image size capability of the camera and shoot loose. gs George Sinos www.GeorgesPhotos.net www.GeorgeSinos.com On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: Rick Wormer recently posted a very nice PESO: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17505433size=lg Comments he has received so far mention the good composition. I totally agree - it is a boffo shot as presented. However, viewing it quickly brought to mind some mild struggles I have been having. The recent workshop I attended yielded several shots I have been motivated to print, and I have started layout of a Blurb book based on that week's shots. The problem I am having is that many of my compositions, as seen through the viewfinder and as captured by the sensor, and as viewed on my monitor, are just about exactly the way I want them. But the format is not an 8x10 nor 11x14 nor 13x17. So I need to print with too wide margins top or bottom. Same problem with Blurb layouts. Looking at Rick's image, I cannot see how he would be able to print the image in any standard format; any cropping on the sides would damage/destroy his composition. Paper can be trimmed, mats and frames can be custom cut. But it is still a nuisance. I would love to have firmware in the camera that would show the viewing area with an 4x5 ratio (or other selectable ratio) partial mask. Many PS cameras have a selectable format ratio when taking the photo; I wouldn't want that. But if I am thinking this shot could make a nice print, I would like a viewfinder reminder of the area(s) that would correspond to print format ratios. If I decide on a different presentation mode later, I would still have the full-frame image to work with, unlike with the PS approach. stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before. I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing. I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the Internet... and there were in the film days, too (showing the edges of the frame as proof). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
on 2013-08-23 21:34 Matthew Hunt wrote On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: I've never heard of get it exact in the camera before. I've always heard get it right in camera ... not the same thing. I sure have. There are absolutely no-crop fetishists on the Internet... and there were in the film days, too (showing the edges of the frame as proof). some did tremendous work within that constraint; while i'm not a purist about it myself, being close to someone who was (in the 1960s), i think it offers a certain simplicity - first thought, best thought -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Musings about image formats
on 2013-08-23 19:01 Rick Womer wrote Stan, Thanks for the compliment on the pic! I get my prints done by Denver Digital Imaging (slideprinter.com), which consistently produces prints that match what's on my screen (they honor color space). I can get 10 x 15, 11 x 16, 12 x 18, 16 x 24... aspect ratio is not a problem. I order mats several at a time in my favorite sizes. i know they have a good reputation, but that's good to hear; i am finally going to use them for some printing; they are a short walk from my house -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
