|
Forums >
General Industry >
Print Size (9x12 & 11x14) and the 3:2 Aspect Ratio
This thread is in response to: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=376848 and questions from customers. I have posted this in the General Industry forum because it has to do with model, photographer and MUA portfolios. In our industry standard portfolio sizes for models (9x12), photographers and MUA's (11x14) do not fit the aspect ratio produced by the majority of todays cameras. Current 3:2 aspect ratio cameras (95% or more of all SLR's) print to 4x6, 6x9 (if your lab offers it), 8x12, 12x18, 16x24 & 20x30 without cropping. Any other size including 9x12 and 11x14 require cropping or another form of layout if you want to print full bleed (image all the way to the edge of the paper). Printing 9x12's & 11x14's means that either the photographer or the lab is going to have to crop and size images for printing. Coming from the unique perspective of a lab owner I would say that at least 60% of the images submitted for print have not been properly sized for output. This diagram is to show just how much of an image can be lost to cropping:  As you can see a large proportion of important information (heads, feet, arms, legs, etc.) is subject to cropping if a little room isn't left around the main subject in while shooting. There is excellent information on this subject in the thread listed above. In the event that you simply cannot crop an image because you will lose a key feature or part of the image it can be sized down and floated onto a 9x12 or 11x14 canvas.  My best suggestions: Photographers, ask you client what size book they use and size your images for them. Also, supply them with a list of places you suggest for having them printed. Better yet, have them printed (or print them yourself) and supply them with a professionally produced finished and properly color corrected final product. Models and MUA's, let your photographers know what size you are going to print and ask them to set up your files accordingly. Hope someone finds this of some use. If anyone has any questions on sizing for output feel free to drop me a PM. Nov 26 08 12:14 pm Link I don't understand where the 9x12 ratio started. I guess it's European but what film format ever fitted that ratio? Nov 26 08 12:22 pm Link 2x3 is the 35 mm format. it did start in germany though. Nov 26 08 12:27 pm Link Yeah, I know, 9x12 is a 2.25:3 (or 4:3 for you Olympus shooters) aspect ratio not sure who decided on that one. Nov 26 08 12:30 pm Link I never consciously think of it ever and when I do try to crop for it I gets crazy! I have better luck with 8.5 x 11 format. Hey you Euro folks... Is 8.5x11 common for business and desktop printing over there? Nov 26 08 12:36 pm Link Laurence Moan wrote: European magazines. Nov 26 08 12:41 pm Link Laurence Moan wrote: it's 4:3 and I do not know MF well enough to tell if there is a camera that shoots that aspect ratio on film. Olympus does have 4:3 SLR cameras. Nov 26 08 01:55 pm Link I wish the camera manufacturers would abandon the 2:3 sensors and go with 3:4 or 11:14. Why not take those pixels on the long ends we throw out when we crop from the 8x12 ratio and put them where we can use them. Plus doing so would make better use of our round lenses. Nov 26 08 02:02 pm Link Thanks Brent, This is very helpful. Just received my prints and they look great. Vic Nov 26 08 02:03 pm Link All of this would be moot if we just went square. Nov 26 08 02:09 pm Link Since this is "photography printing 101", it should likely be stickied to the top of some FAQ section AND should become mandatory reading for photographers AND models AND MUA's........ I can't tell you how many stretched/crushed print portfolios I have seen........ Thanks Brent. Nov 26 08 02:13 pm Link Until HD and other modern video formats, television was 4:3, and that may have had some influence on early digital camera sensor formats. The earliest digital cameras I used were 640x480 pixels, the same as NTSC video. Nov 26 08 05:52 pm Link Laurence Moan wrote: 6x4.5 (or 4.5 x 6 might make the matchup more obvious). There's also a whole slew of 6x6 cameras that have the advantage that you can crop to 4.5x6 either way - so you don't ever have to rotate the camera, which can be somewhat large and heavy. Nov 26 08 08:32 pm Link Laurence Moan wrote: Christopher Hartman wrote: The 645 cameras (which stands for 6x4.5... which translates to a 3:4 ratio) of Mamiya etc was a professional standard for many years and prints from a 645 camera enlarge to 9x12 without cropping. the 2:3 ratio that digicams inherited from their 35mm forefathers was not the professional standard for printing, be it portfolios or printed publication. Nov 26 08 10:47 pm Link Good information. Thanks. Nov 27 08 05:19 am Link The 6cmX6cm Format popular with many film shooters was popular because they did not need to waste time rotating the camera from landscape to portrait orientation to frame the image they wanted. They framed accordingly in camera and did final cropping in the darkroom. Every format had advantages and disadvantages. understanding the limitation of each format allowed photographers to exercise the greatest level of creativity. When I shot full time some 20 years ago, I shot 40% 35mm, 40% 6x6 (Hassie), 15% 4x5 and 5% 5x7 or 8x10. It ultimately depended on what the customer planned as usage. John Nov 27 08 05:32 am Link bump Dec 26 08 11:58 am Link Magnus Hedemark wrote: I like round..they fit on Cd's really good! Dec 26 08 12:00 pm Link This OP should be stickied and placed at the top of many forum topics. One a photographer spends (in some cases) many hours editing an image to look artistically pleasing, it might end up square. Actually, it might have been originally visualized in the photographer's mind as a square. After it's done isn't the time for a model to ask for a 9x12. prints, costs, and print sizes should always be discussed between models, MUA's, and photographers PRIOR to a shoot. To the OP...thanks for this post....it's something that isn't fully understood. Dec 26 08 12:03 pm Link Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote: concurred. thanks for this info & all continuing info. Jan 26 09 09:23 am Link Blue Cube Imaging wrote: But I size them good right Brent? With annoying little rainbows on the bottom.... Jan 26 09 12:00 pm Link Just to confuse things further the comon size in the EU is A4 this being 21cm x 29.7 cm or in English 8.4" x 11.8" Sizing changes by halving or doubling the longest side. Jan 26 09 12:46 pm Link I usually have the photographer already crop the images and slap those on a disk under a "Print" Folder, or ill do it myself. BUt thanks this IS helpful  Jan 26 09 01:00 pm Link put some tape on your LCD at the right place, so when you chimp, you can see what will be cropped or not. (ducking the shoes thrown by the no-chimping snobs) I hear James Cameron shoots with several different aspect ratios masked off in his viewfinders so he'll know, say, what titanic will look like on a 3:4 TV... And while we're talking about ideal aspect ratios, I took the trouble once to determine the maximum rectangular area you can get out of an image circle. I was (only a little bit) startled to discover that the 4x5 format provides the greatest maximization of your circle of light. (that's not true, it's actually 4:5.smalldecimals, IIRC, but it's really close) Jan 26 09 02:03 pm Link Star wrote: You do! Speaking of which, did they arrive today? Jan 26 09 02:06 pm Link Magnus Hedemark wrote: Now your talking! Jan 26 09 07:57 pm Link I like the 4:3 ratio, and had an Olympus point & shoot that had it. Now that I've 'upgraded' to Nikon, I shoot 3:2 and hate it. Jan 27 09 08:31 am Link I've been printing 8.5x11 lately. I resisted at first but it seems to be becoming more popular, and it fits SLR images better which is good because I don't crop much. Jan 28 09 10:36 am Link In a digital camera, we can select a wide array of things from focusing points to white balance. There's no reason why manufacturers could not include amongst the many options, a variety of crop marks to assist us when taking the images. If a focus point can light up red in our viewfinders, photographer selectable crop marks could light up in blue. Camera manufacturers always are looking for "gimmicks" to market in order to "one-up" their competitors. If anyone knows someone who is tightly connected to a manufacturer, please suggest this. Jan 28 09 11:22 am Link Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote: I use this in my 5D. Jan 28 09 12:31 pm Link bumping this for relevancy and helpfulness. Sep 24 09 11:52 am Link Laurence Moan wrote: Magazine page size Sep 24 09 05:27 pm Link HOLY THREAD REVIVAL! There has been a lot of talking about portfolio sizing, prints, books and such past couple days so...figured I would bump this one! xoxo Cherilyn May 31 10 01:07 pm Link hey mr blue cube please pick up your phone when i call you May 31 10 01:08 pm Link Cherilyn Fontaine wrote: Funny thing is I just emailed liks to this thread 5 times this week. Veasna Him wrote: My hours are eratic, you can usually catch me at the lab at the following times: May 31 10 01:46 pm Link Jeffrey Scott French wrote: That would be correct. Oskar Barnack, when he designed the first Leica, used 35mm movie film since it was easy to obtain and didn't require a new film manufacturing process. But instead of running the film vertically like a 35mm movie camera, the film ran horizontally, so he doubled the 18x24mm movie frame image size to a 24x36mm still image size for the new camera. The Leica format became "standard" as Zeiss, Canon and Nikon copied the same film and image size for their cameras. May 31 10 03:31 pm Link Laurence Moan wrote: 6 x 4.5 film....traditional magazine size Jun 01 10 07:10 am Link S W I N S K E Y wrote: Exactly! Jun 01 10 05:35 pm Link I try to print in 2:3 format where possible. I like it better than most standard formats even if it means custom framing. Jun 01 10 06:00 pm Link Yeah I like "wide screen" better too. lol. Whichever orientation. Not so fond of 8x10 (3:4). I find it too square. Jun 01 10 07:07 pm Link |
