[dugrant153]

Hi everyone,

Part of my business model for my photography is in prints.
Now, I've come to realize that my Pentax files come out in 8x12 format instead of the standard and very popular 8x10.

This may become a problem because I may not consider this when shooting and end up with a really awkward 8x10 print cropped from an 8x12.

Do all DSLR's (crop and full frame) shoot in 8x12 format? Is there a way to tweak this without going into lightroom/photoshop?

[Eruditass]

Yes, all APS-C and FF sensors are 3:2. m43 are... 4:3.

You'll just have to remember to shoot a little more square. There's no way to have the viewfinder be 5:4, and I don't think you can automatically crop to 5:4, but you can do it in the camera when reviewing.

You can change the aspect ratio tons of image editing programs.

[FullertonImages]

SLR's, to the best of my knowledge have always been 3:2 aspect ratio. So whether it's 35mm film, FF DSLR, APS-h or APS-c DSLR, point and shoot (excluding micro 4:3) or iPhone, it's all 3:2 ratio. So, aside from medium format 4x5 and large format 8x10, everything has had to be cropped to achieve 8x10 print size. As far as I know, there is nothing in camera to adjust output ratio. Just keep in mind that you need to leave room for cropping then do it in lightroom or whatever program you want.

[woof]

Do all DSLR's (crop and full frame) shoot in 8x12 format? Is there a way to tweak this without going into lightroom/photoshop?

The Katzeye comes with an option for 8x10 crop lines. This would be perfect for you I would think. Look here and scroll down. Viola.

Custom Grid Lines and Crop Guides - KatzEye Optics

Hope this helps.

woof!

[Ben_Edict]

This cropping problem was always present, even in film days. That's why some marketers called some of the 120-film based medium formats the "ideal format", as it better corresponds with the available printing paper. (645 is 3:4 for instance)

All small format cameras (with a few exotic exceptions) were of the 3:2 format (24x36mm, half frame or APS etc.) as was already mentioned.

Ben

[dugrant153]

ah, gotcha gotcha. So I guess in the film days, people would... just print crops of their negatives? It's very strange that 4x6 is a very popular print format, but so is 8x10... which doesn't really line up with double 4x6.

[RioRico]

Back in my film days, I shot 135 FF (36x24mm) and HF (18x24mm), and 6x6, 6x9 and 9x12 MF. And I printed and cropped to suit whatever the composition and frame called for. I learned from my father, who shot 6x6 MF and cropped to whatever rectangle or square was appropriate. Pentax and Mamiya and Fuji marketed their 6x7 MF cams as 'ideal' because of the least cropping needed to fit an 8x10" print. But any MF format gives a LOT of real estate available for cropping, especially if using slow fine-grain film.

135 shooters have less disposable real estate and (so the story goes) were/are more likely to "pre-crop" in-camera, thus the popularity of long-normal or short-tele 50-55-58mm lenses as "normal". (A normal focal length is the diagonal of the frame: 100mm for 6x9, 80mm for 6x6, 70mm for 645, 43mm for 135/FF, 30mm for 135/HF and APS-C.) But I've shot lots of 135 film both slow and fast, and enlarged and cropped and printed as needed, and the truism holds: art does not reside in pixel counts, meaning does not depend on resolution.

The P&S digicams I've used all allow for 4:3 or 3:2 formats. I considered buying a high-end Canon P&S (G10?) that also supported 1:1. I don't recall seeing a P&S that also supports 5:4 but such may exist. Our dSLRs are only 3:2, alas. It don't worry me, as the song goes. Images can be cropped and bent. I've printed 4:3 shots directly on 5:4 paper with the distortion often hardly noticeable, or even helpful. (The subject gains or sheds a little weight, eh?)

As mentioned above, the visualization-impaired can use focus screens with crop lines for various formats; or can use Live-View with crop lines crayoned-on. Hey, how about a firmware mod? Selectable Crop-Line Display! And with the option of imposing those on the captured image, so you know just where to crop in PP. Or just cut a mask to tape over the lens. I did that with a fixed-lens P&S, cut a square cardboard mask with rough edges to give a Holga effect. It worked fine.

[mysticcowboy]

There are a couple of reasons for the 8x10 format. One is that medium and large format film cameras use it (4x5 & 8x10). The other is that it is a popular size for painter's canvas.

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs – 365

[hangu]

A quick way to solve this problem would be to take out your focusing screen and putting black tape around the sides to act as a crop. Then set up a photo with the crop ratio and sync the settings every time you import photos.

[woof]

A quick way to solve this problem would be to take out your focusing screen and putting black tape around the sides to act as a crop. Then set up a photo with the crop ratio and sync the settings every time you import photos.

Would you do this? Really?

Have a go and let us know how this works out for you. K?

woof

[Lowell Goudge]

Maybe this is a bit unfair, but I have to ask the OP exactly how much research went into the business plan, and photography before he started?

I mean, the 2x3 format for 35mm SLRs has been around since they were first invented in the 1950's and actually goes back to the origonal leica 35mm cameras about 80 years.

this is not exactly a new discovery that the frame format does not match the most popular print size. It has been something to deal with for 60 years.

However to answer his other question, do all DSLRs shoot the 2x3 format, the answer is no.

any of the Micro 4/3 cameras, Olympus, Panasonic and Leica shoot a closer, but still not perfect 4/3 ratio, which would be 7.5 x 10 inch format.

The issue with these cameras in my opinion is that the individual sensor is smaller for the same MP count in the picture because the chip itself is smaller. the crop factor is 2:1. The other issue is that for wide angle, to get for example the same FOV as my sigma 10-20mm lens (which cost about $550 new) you would have to get a 7-15mm lens. the olympus one is about $1500. SO just for that one lens, you can get virtually any pentax DSLR and the sigma 10-20 lens. But going th eother way,,in telephoto, you gain in the crop factor, so for same field of view you get a shorter lens and potentially faster for the same field of view.

[hangu]

Would you do this? Really?

Have a go and let us know how this works out for you. K?

woof

You have a better idea? If not, don't be a jerk.

I don't see what's wrong with this method, focusing screens are what, $30? I would do it if I needed to consistently crop.

[PDL]

Why worry about camera ratio and paper ratio. Just size the image to what YOU want on a 8x10 piece of paper.

In Lightroom I have templates set up to give me a boarder on any format paper. When I print:
Paper size Print size
4x6 --- 3.5 x 5.25 (or there abouts)
8x10 -- 6.64 x 9.46 ( or there abouts)
8x12 -- 11.5 x 17.227 ( or there abouts)
I have not done one up for my little inkjet with uses 8.5 x 11 paper -- yet.

Why let the paper size determine the ratio? I did the same thing when in the darkroom using B&W, color and Cibachrome. I determine how big the image is - not the d*mn paper.

Putting tape on the viewfinder is not how I would do it --- I shoot "Full Frame" -- i.e. I use all the pixels - just like shooting with slide film. Did you ever see anyone putting tape on the lens of a slide projector - to make the projected image follow some paper standard?

I think not.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[woof]

You have a better idea? If not, don't be a jerk.

I don't see what's wrong with this method, focusing screens are what, $30? I would do it if I needed to consistently crop.

TRY it. I wasn't being a jerk.

If you have not tried it, you cannot possibly know if it works.

My idea? Read the post I put up after you posted your duct tape and baling wire solution. And while you are mulling over the difference in price between your solution and mine, and how that makes yours so much more superior, make sure you consider that he has a business plan and is holding himself out as a professional.

The standards are generally higher, and equipment is crucial. Equipment costs can be written off, depreciated or whatever. Gumming up a camera with electrical tape and adhesive is simply not going to solve the issue; nor is having to change the focus screen every time you want to switch formats. That is of course if the screen even really fits and operates correctly once the tape is put in place. And, uh, how do you insure that you have the guide lines right? Experiment? What about the warranty. Does this void the warranty? So you keep another screen around in case you have to send the camera to Pentax. It's like lying. Too many things to remember.

When you get through with that analysis, switch gears back to probability of success, as well as overall ongoing functionality/adaptability/cleanliness of the two solutions.

Money is not the object. Which solution appears better? Sheesh.

woof!

[Adam]

Almost all 8x10 prints are cropped, no matter what camera they come from.