Printing 16:9 photos

[triplejck]

I have been shooting in 16:9 format to display on my TV and computer screen.
I am aware of 3:2 & 4:3. I have a few pics in these formats as well.

I have chosen to print a few of my "display" photos from my 16:9 library and I am running into cropping of my images that I do not like and prefer not to do.

Willing to print 2 up on 16x18 and have them cut or cut myself.
Or will I have to print 2 up on 16x20?

I would also not like to guillotine the photos to size from 12x18, 12x16, or 11x16.

Any suggestions?

 

[Graystar]

I have been shooting in 16:9 format to display on my TV and computer screen.
I am aware of 3:2 & 4:3. I have a few pics in these formats as well.

I have chosen to print a few of my "display" photos from my 16:9 library and I am running into cropping of my images that I do not like and prefer not to do.

Willing to print 2 up on 16x18 and have them cut or cut myself.
Or will I have to print 2 up on 16x20?

I would also not like to guillotine the photos to size from 12x18, 12x16, or 11x16.

Any suggestions?

Something that I've done to print 4:3 images on 4:5 paper is to create a border around the image that's is a constant width. You can set the border any color that compliments the image. The border looks nice because it's of constant width, but because it's a constant width it changes the aspect ratio of the image. This works well for mounting images without a matt in thin-frame or frameless frames. For anything bigger than 8x12 I say get the print mounted on matboard.

For your 16:9 images I would multiply the long width by 1.25, multiply the result by 0.667, and then expand the canvas in both directions by those values.

Here's an example. Lets say your image is 1600x900. 1600 x 1.25 is 2000. Next step is to take 2000 and multiply by 0.667. That gives you 1334. In Photoshop (or Elements) resize the canvas (not the image) to 2000 x 1334.

For 3200x1800 you'd get 3200 x 1.25 = 4000. 4000 x 0.667 = 2668. In Photoshop or Elements or any other software that performs this function, select Resize Canvas and set your new canvas size to 4000 x 2668.

Fill the border with any color that compliments the image, or leave it white. You now have a 3:2 image that you can print on 3:2 paper without cropping. 3:2 paper is widely available now. Mpix has a range of sizes in 3:2.

.

 

[RedFox88]

You can print 16:9 photos on any sized paper and you'll end up with white space to trim yourself.

One word of caution, if you are sending your files somewhere to be printed you should prepare them differently. If you are going to print an 8x10, drop your 16:9 image sized to 10 inches wide on a "blank canvas" of 8x10. This is so the lab has an 8x10 file to print (with empty spaces). If you dont do this, they may force your 16:9 image to fill the 8x10 page or crop your photo to 8x10.

For instance I print 11x14 images on 13x19 paper at home.

 

[triplejck]

I will try this tomorrow and see how it works out.

The goal is to send it out to be printed literally 16" x 9" without an additional border.
I can do my own matting and framing.

Thank you

 

[RedFox88]

I will try this tomorrow and see how it works out.

The goal is to send it out to be printed literally 16" x 9" without an additional border.
I can do my own matting and framing.

You are unlikely to find that option and you may pay more if you do find that size. You don't need to have it 16 inches wide, you can do any sizing you wish. 8 or 10 inches on the long side, or 12, or 14. Just because your image is 16:9 ratio doesn't mean the print has to be 16" x 9"!

And since you are doing your own matting, you won't need to cut excess border of the print since it'll be hidden behind the mat so you can cut easily and quickly because you won't be cutting near the edge of the print.

One other thing, it's often good not to get borderless prints. Borderless prints require "over extension" which has you lose 1/8" or so of the image edge all the way around to make sure no white paper is left uninked. Then when you mat you will lose another 1/8 to 1/4 inch all the way around. So if you get a 16x9 print on a 18x12 piece of paper you won't lose as much image as with a borderless print.

 

[Jirka-]

For BW analogue prints printing with borders was as common as borderless.

However when the border is broad constant width does not look good. The custom is to make the lower border much wider. This way you also get to the 16:9 more easlily without making the image too small.

Something that I've done to print 4:3 images on 4:5 paper is to create a border around the image that's is a constant width. You can set the border any color that compliments the image. The border looks nice because it's of constant width, but because it's a constant width it changes the aspect ratio of the image. This works well for mounting images without a matt in thin-frame or frameless frames. For anything bigger than 8x12 I say get the print mounted on matboard.

For your 16:9 images I would multiply the long width by 1.25, multiply the result by 0.667, and then expand the canvas in both directions by those values.

Here's an example. Lets say your image is 1600x900. 1600 x 1.25 is 2000. Next step is to take 2000 and multiply by 0.667. That gives you 1334. In Photoshop (or Elements) resize the canvas (not the image) to 2000 x 1334.

For 3200x1800 you'd get 3200 x 1.25 = 4000. 4000 x 0.667 = 2668. In Photoshop or Elements or any other software that performs this function, select Resize Canvas and set your new canvas size to 4000 x 2668.

Fill the border with any color that compliments the image, or leave it white. You now have a 3:2 image that you can print on 3:2 paper without cropping. 3:2 paper is widely available now. Mpix has a range of sizes in 3:2.

.

 

[triplejck]

I shot quite a few photos in 16:9 format, why can't I print 16"x9"?

Why can't I print any photo shot in 16:9 format 2 up on a 16"x18" borderless print or one up on 11"x16", 12"x16", or 12"x18" print?

The photos were shot in 16:9 to be shown on my monitor and TV @ full size.
The composition was set for 16:9.
I understand that the standard frames and matting do not accommodate 16"x9"
Easily solved by doing my own framing and matting.

Never expected the printing side software to be this difficult.

If almost all the commercial TVs and Monitors are in 16:9 format, someone must like it.

Changing the 16:9 format by cropping Width + or Length of the photo has a negative effect on the outcome.

 

[Graystar]

For BW analogue prints printing with borders was as common as borderless.

However when the border is broad constant width does not look good. The custom is to make the lower border much wider. This way you also get to the 16:9 more easlily without making the image too small.

I have several prints here with borders making 4:3 images fit on 5:4 paper and it does look good.

Here’s an example of 16:9 with a border making the image 3:2.

 

[Jirka-]

Well, my wife is an artist and I have seen thousends of matted drawings, engravings, aquarels and photograhs in exhibitions, galleries and museums. The mat is nearly allways made broader at the bottom. There is probably a reason.

 

[RedFox88]

I shot quite a few photos in 16:9 format, why can't I print 16"x9"?

You can, I'm not saying you can't. But don't think that you have to do 16"x9" because the image ration is 16:9! It could be 20 inches wide or 12 inches wide if you wish.

Why can't I print any photo shot in 16:9 format 2 up on a 16"x18" borderless print or one up on 11"x16", 12"x16", or 12"x18" print?

You can, though 16x18, 11x16 are not common print sizes.

The photos were shot in 16:9 to be shown on my monitor and TV @ full size.
The composition was set for 16:9.
I understand that the standard frames and matting do not accommodate 16"x9"
Easily solved by doing my own framing and matting.

Never expected the printing side software to be this difficult.

To print properly and get good results, you need to really understand what all is involved, image color space, printer color space, borderless over extension loss, ppi, proper sharpening, etc. I've been printinf ro 5 years and I am continually learning and improving!

If almost all the commercial TVs and Monitors are in 16:9 format, someone must like it.

It's not like customers have a choice, really. The size ratio is being shoved down our throats with the move to "HD" TV and movies have been using it for many years. The sad thing is that nearly all movies and TV programming is "composed" for the old 4:3 part of the center of the screen. Look for it, graphics and main screen subjects are in that center portion and what is on the left and right edge is whatever is there and isn't essential.

Changing the 16:9 format by cropping Width + or Length of the photo has a negative effect on the outcome.

You don't need to crop but you can resize your image to be say 12 inches on the long side with "constrain proportions" checked (if using a photoshop program) and the height would then be 6.75 inches. Don't crop but resize to get away from 16 inches wide if desired.

If you want to print 16"x9" on a 12x18 print, outsourced I would do the following:

• open your image in a photoshop program
• resize to 16 inches wide (contrain proportions checked) and use 265 dpi/ppi), bicubic sharper
• create a new "blank" image in photoshop, 12"x18" and 265 dpi/ppi
• copy your image to the clipboard
• past your image to the blank image, it should center the image on the blank canvas. Leave it centered
• save that file and use that to outsource for printing

Check the FAQ's for where you are to have it printed for other information such as suggested color space, dpi/ppi to send, file type JPG vs. TIFF, bit depth 8 vs. 16. Convert to sRGB if it does not state otherwise.

 

[Tom_N]

I would also not like to guillotine the photos to size from 12x18, 12x16, or 11x16.

If the aspect ratio of the paper differs from the aspect ratio of the photos, your only choices are (a) adding filler to make the aspect ratio match, or (b) cropping to make the aspect ratio match.

Doing this may not be pleasant, but if you do it yourself, you're likely to come up with better results than what some store's automated "slice and dice" processing algorithm would.

It should go without saying that you only do this processing to copies of your photos – not to your originals.

 

[triplejck]

Thanks for all your helpful inputs.

This is a software issue of the "printer".

The Printer is not accommodating the need of me, the consumer.

16:9 format is a standard that the "printers" have decided not to supply.

As long term photographers, you as a group have chosen to accept the printer's rhetoric that this is an exception not a standard or even wanted. Why?

Hundreds of different cameras can take photos in 16:9 format. What I am being told here is that I must roll over and edit my photos to meet the "printer's" requirements. Add size different borders, edit them in photoshop, etc.

This seems a bit out of step with where the technology is going.

The software is the issue .... why??

If the paper size is currently offerred from the printer at a price, then the software to maximize my use should be available especially if I am using a "STANDARD" format.

Again I ask are Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Panasonic, etc. offerring a format that the printers can not print without post production techniques? Why?

 

[Hugowolf]

I shot quite a few photos in 16:9 format, why can't I print 16"x9"?

You can, but you must understand that paper doesn’t come in every possible size, it is only available in certain sizes, and none of them match a 16:9 ratio, so you must have borders, but they can be trimmed.

Why can't I print any photo shot in 16:9 format 2 up on a 16"x18" borderless print or one up on 11"x16", 12"x16", or 12"x18" print?

Why borderless? If you are matting, then you want some border behind the matt.

The photos were shot in 16:9 to be shown on my monitor and TV @ full size.
The composition was set for 16:9.
I understand that the standard frames and matting do not accommodate 16"x9"
Easily solved by doing my own framing and matting.

Never expected the printing side software to be this difficult.

If almost all the commercial TVs and Monitors are in 16:9 format, someone must like it.

It is a Hollywood size; it is designed for cinema viewing. It has never been a standard still image ratio.

Changing the 16:9 format by cropping Width + or Length of the photo has a negative effect on the outcome.

Yes, if that is how you envisaged the final image.

The paper and framing industry hasn't even caught up with the standard 35 mm 3:2 ratio, let alone more esoteric formats like 4²:3². There are standard snap shot photo paper sizes like 3 x 5, 4 x 6, and 5 x 7. There are standard enlargement sizes like 8 x 10 and 11 x 14. Only 4 x 6 match a standard 3:2 ratio.

As a printer, I will do an image any size a client or I want. But I still have to work with fixed size paper and trim anything residual to the image after printing. In the US, I can get a wide variety of roll paper in 10, 13, 17, 24, 36, 44, and 60 inches, and in a fewer types in other widths. Roll paper can be cut to almost any length.

Sheet paper unfortunately comes mostly in ANSI sizes like 8.5 x 11, 11 x 17, and 17 x 22 inches. Occasionally it is possible to get paper in standard international sizes like A4, A3, and A2. If you want anything else then it is simply a matter of printing on a standard size and trimming after.

You may want to consider the poor medium format shooter, where the image was square. I have never seen sheet paper in a square format.

Brian A

 

[Hugowolf]

Hundreds of different cameras can take photos in 16:9 format.

Not hundreds, but some. It is still not a standard still image format, and even the standard image formats like 4:3 and 3:2 are barely supported by the paper and framing industry.

This seems a bit out of step with where the technology is going.

It is.

The software is the issue .... why??

The software isn’t an issue, standard paper sizes are. (See my post above).

If the paper size is currently offerred from the printer at a price, then the software to maximize my use should be available especially if I am using a "STANDARD" format.

There is nothing standard about a 16:9 still image.

Again I ask are Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Panasonic, etc. offerring a format that the printers can not print without post production techniques? Why?

Because there are numerous other ratios, and they can’t support them all.

Brian A