resizing photos is stupid - why?!??! - rant coming up :-(

[Egg]

So, this probably has been covered before - but after a bried search I couldn't find my answer. So I'm gonna rant anyhow as I'm now in a bad mood.

I bought a G2 many months ago to take baby photos. And take I did, 100s naturally, nay 1000's

Now, I want to have them developed and printed at the photoshop. But I now find that the size of the "digital photo" is not really valid and that before they can be printed, I have to resize and/or crop them.

I have to do this by hand, for every photo. Madness.

Who decided in the camera/pc world that this would be ok. I guess there's a technical reason for this - but I don't care. I'm just a consumer. Digital photography was meant to make things easier, no?

Oh and I don't need you pro's saying.. ohhh here's another noob with high expectations blah blah.... it's just commonsense.

Really, am i missing something here. Does everyone go through the hassle of doing this all the time? What's wrong with the world!??!

It just makes no sense and I wonder why it is.

Rant over

sorry about that

anyone got comments or a good solution for my problem??
(resizing one by one in photoshop seems like no fun)

 

[fotografer]

Don't want to adjust?

Just ask them to print with white border. That is, the entire 4.5:6 format into the 2:3 format of the normal photo paper. You get the white border on the left and right, but you save time and hassle.

Simple?

So, this probably has been covered before - but after a bried
search I couldn't find my answer. So I'm gonna rant anyhow as I'm
now in a bad mood.

I bought a G2 many months ago to take baby photos. And take I did,
100s naturally, nay 1000's

Now, I want to have them developed and printed at the photoshop.
But I now find that the size of the "digital photo" is not really
valid and that before they can be printed, I have to resize and/or
crop them.

I have to do this by hand, for every photo. Madness.

Who decided in the camera/pc world that this would be ok. I guess
there's a technical reason for this - but I don't care. I'm just a
consumer. Digital photography was meant to make things easier, no?

Oh and I don't need you pro's saying.. ohhh here's another noob
with high expectations blah blah.... it's just commonsense.

Really, am i missing something here. Does everyone go through the
hassle of doing this all the time? What's wrong with the world!??!


It just makes no sense and I wonder why it is.

Rant over

sorry about that

anyone got comments or a good solution for my problem??
(resizing one by one in photoshop seems like no fun)

--
fotografer

...the great paper chase! (see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=5683956 )

 

[Egg]

yeah I know, but still stupid don't you think I want photos in the classic style.

this is a classic case of computer world meeting consumer world - and the two being out of sync.

is this problem ever going to fixed - or is it a symptom of the technology/standards?

Don't want to adjust?

Just ask them to print with white border. That is, the entire 4.5:6
format into the 2:3 format of the normal photo paper. You get the
white border on the left and right, but you save time and hassle.

Simple?

 

[Brivers]

Regardless of film or digital? The dimensions for an 8x10 aren't the same proportions of a 4x6...or a 5x7....so theoretically they'd have to crop (which you're accustomed to your local drug store it sounds like) to get the print. Gripe at the frame makers.......that's who you're angry with.

Brent

this is a classic case of computer world meeting consumer world -
and the two being out of sync.

is this problem ever going to fixed - or is it a symptom of the
technology/standards?

Don't want to adjust?

Just ask them to print with white border. That is, the entire 4.5:6
format into the 2:3 format of the normal photo paper. You get the
white border on the left and right, but you save time and hassle.

Simple?

--
http://www.pbase.com/brivers

 

[Brian Cao]

There's always going to be a slight cropping problem since the two most popular photo sizes in the US are 4x6 and 8x10. These two sizes are completely different aspect ratio wise. If your camera is designed for one, it must be cropped for the other.

Likewise, film has to be cropped as well. Does anyone know how they handle that, be it auto center crop or does the technician actually select the crops individually?

So, this probably has been covered before - but after a bried
search I couldn't find my answer. So I'm gonna rant anyhow as I'm
now in a bad mood.

I bought a G2 many months ago to take baby photos. And take I did,
100s naturally, nay 1000's

Now, I want to have them developed and printed at the photoshop.
But I now find that the size of the "digital photo" is not really
valid and that before they can be printed, I have to resize and/or
crop them.

I have to do this by hand, for every photo. Madness.

Who decided in the camera/pc world that this would be ok. I guess
there's a technical reason for this - but I don't care. I'm just a
consumer. Digital photography was meant to make things easier, no?

Oh and I don't need you pro's saying.. ohhh here's another noob
with high expectations blah blah.... it's just commonsense.

Really, am i missing something here. Does everyone go through the
hassle of doing this all the time? What's wrong with the world!??!


It just makes no sense and I wonder why it is.

Rant over

sorry about that

anyone got comments or a good solution for my problem??
(resizing one by one in photoshop seems like no fun)

 

[Brivers]

this is a classic case of computer world meeting consumer world -
and the two being out of sync.

is this problem ever going to fixed - or is it a symptom of the
technology/standards?

Don't want to adjust?

Just ask them to print with white border. That is, the entire 4.5:6
format into the 2:3 format of the normal photo paper. You get the
white border on the left and right, but you save time and hassle.

Simple?

--
http://www.pbase.com/brivers

 

[Egg]

ahhh... see - I didn't realise that standard film was also cropped.

(I'm in europe btw)

In that case - I guess it really is just a case of user expectations etc. This process has been hidden from me/us before when dropping of the normal films.

BUT, I've never had problems with bad cropping by the drug store before (if they do it), ie heads missing etc.

I fear i may not be so lucky with my digital prints - as I was working on a WYSIWYG basis :-(

 

[Gary P]

My personal method is to select those photos I feel should be cropped, color corected, etc. and then print those "keepers". To me it's part of the fun of haveing a digital darkroom. For those pics that don't make the grade, I still save them for possible future use.

I've taken over 15K photos over the past two years driving my wife nuts of all the photos on display, here, there and everywhere. And have even sold a few.

Looks like it will be awhile, or never, before sizes are standardized.

--
GFP USA

 

[keith caldwell]

I am in sympathy with your views. The whole issue of frame sizes needs to be rationalised. The mixture of 35mm frames in trad film VDU formats printer paper sizes etc etc has resulted in a mess--. It high time an attempt was made to produce a universal format. Camera manufacturers could help by indicating different frame formats in the viewfinder.

If you have an idea at the time of shooting it is always advisable to allow for cropping by including some 'dead' space around the main subject. It is not always possible to forsee crops/print sizes however at the time particularly if a shot is made in haste & if there is some leeway then at least you have some room to play with. Cropping does sacrifice some resolution but at least you can end up with a useable image.

keith c

 

[Eddie Kay]

Many photo printing programs have autocrop feature for standard size prints. That should make life easier.

ahhh... see - I didn't realise that standard film was also cropped.

(I'm in europe btw)

In that case - I guess it really is just a case of user
expectations etc. This process has been hidden from me/us before
when dropping of the normal films.

BUT, I've never had problems with bad cropping by the drug store
before (if they do it), ie heads missing etc.

I fear i may not be so lucky with my digital prints - as I was
working on a WYSIWYG basis :-(

--
Eddie
----------
01ympus C-4O4O, TC0N14, Megap1us2x, Vivitar285HV, Can0n i85O & i45O

 

[mikepittelko]

Qimage. batch prints and has EXCELLENT resizing. Yes, there is a technical reason why this is so. You don't really need to resize them, you need to print to fit, but the print drivers rescale isn't all that great. Qimage does a MUCH better job, and it's cheap, prints batches, filters, etc.

I know a lot of people use this for exactly these purposes (including myself) they've got a free demo version that is fully featured for 30 days so you can try it. Photoshop really doesn't do a particularly good job at printing, as far as I can tell, and forces you to do all the resizing yourself.

(No, not affiliated, just a happy customer)

 

[J. Newton]

Qimage crops also but gives you an opportunity to decide where the crop will be - if you decide not to crop it will resize keeping the proportions of the original pic - except for the old 4x5 and 8x10 format cameras everthing else has different aspect ratios - and once you think your getting set with oh say a 4x6 print someone like Kodak comes along with a new idea - lets sell a camera that can take pictures with different ratios so the consumer can make their own choice in camera - as long as there are 10 people you will have at least 5 different ways of doing things - to count on standardization is deceiving yourself - it is best to learn to adapt and to work with what you have - i have spent many hours in my old chemical darkroom and now in my digital darkroom and when i want a print made up outside i go to a place that i have used often and take a copy of the print marked the way i want it cropped and then let them do it

Qimage. batch prints and has EXCELLENT resizing. Yes, there is a
technical reason why this is so. You don't really need to resize
them, you need to print to fit, but the print drivers rescale isn't
all that great. Qimage does a MUCH better job, and it's cheap,
prints batches, filters, etc.
I know a lot of people use this for exactly these purposes
(including myself) they've got a free demo version that is fully
featured for 30 days so you can try it. Photoshop really doesn't do
a particularly good job at printing, as far as I can tell, and
forces you to do all the resizing yourself.

(No, not affiliated, just a happy customer)

 

[DRG]

ahhh... see - I didn't realise that standard film was also cropped.

(I'm in europe btw)

In that case - I guess it really is just a case of user
expectations etc. This process has been hidden from me/us before
when dropping of the normal films.

BUT, I've never had problems with bad cropping by the drug store
before (if they do it), ie heads missing etc.

You've been spared missing heads in the past because the majority of cropping takes place on the left and right, if holding a print in landscape orientation.

 

[E. J. Shockley]

ahhh... see - I didn't realise that standard film was also cropped.

(I'm in europe btw)

In that case - I guess it really is just a case of user
expectations etc. This process has been hidden from me/us before
when dropping of the normal films.

BUT, I've never had problems with bad cropping by the drug store
before (if they do it), ie heads missing etc.

I fear i may not be so lucky with my digital prints - as I was
working on a WYSIWYG basis :-(

Egg, just get a freeware program like IrfanView (now in version 3.85) and batch process the bunch. You can then go through the converted collection and manually redo any that have unacceptable crops. IrfanView is also great for doing batch conversions down to email or web size and it is one of the best viewers around.

Regards, Ed

 

[Egg]

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

I guys, I'll try out the software mentioned. And in future, be a little more aware of the framing of my photos knowing some edges may be lost.

I guess i'm a little happier knowing everyone has this and it's normal.

Still think it's crazy though

Here's a though - must ask Canon about this:

Why not introduce a new WYSIWYG digital photo standard. Thus they'll be the right dimmensions for a 10x15(uk) shot, and no cropping will be needed.

anyhow... thanks again!

 

[chemical lime]

but what about 4X6 or 8X10 or 5X7 then????

Photography was complicated . .. digital is complicated too

-j

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

I guys, I'll try out the software mentioned. And in future, be a
little more aware of the framing of my photos knowing some edges
may be lost.

I guess i'm a little happier knowing everyone has this and it's
normal.

Still think it's crazy though

Here's a though - must ask Canon about this:

Why not introduce a new WYSIWYG digital photo standard. Thus
they'll be the right dimmensions for a 10x15(uk) shot, and no
cropping will be needed.

anyhow... thanks again!

 

[Yves]

Yes, it is stupid.

We are used to 35 mm film (3:2 ratio, fits 6 x 4 perfect) and here are digital cameras using 4:3. Fits absolutely nothing, except your old TV screen!

However, the new Canon 300D shoots at 3:2 exclusively and all the Sony Cybershot have the 3:2 option.

There are also other reasons than "print fit" to prefer the 3:2 to the boxier 4:3. Particularly so when using wide angle. But this is another topic.

 

[paul kubat]

Get Q-image program and be done with your rant. All the croping can be predermined and it doesn't affect the original file.
Paul

 

[Paul Prachun]

There never will be, not should there be a "standard" format for film; any more than there is or should be a standard format for prints -- or any artwork for that matter. The 2:3, 4:5, 5:7 ratios have been popular because most photos look appropriate in one of those formats.

The subject matter of the photo should decide for you which physical format to use. Personally, I love 1:1 (Hasselblad) format but it only works for certain prints. You want a "standard" format -- get over it; it ain't about to happen, any more that one size shoes will become the standard.

I am in sympathy with your views. The whole issue of frame sizes
needs to be rationalised. The mixture of 35mm frames in trad film
VDU formats printer paper sizes etc etc has resulted in a mess--.
It high time an attempt was made to produce a universal format.
Camera manufacturers could help by indicating different frame
formats in the viewfinder.

If you have an idea at the time of shooting it is always advisable
to allow for cropping by including some 'dead' space around the
main subject. It is not always possible to forsee crops/print sizes
however at the time particularly if a shot is made in haste & if
there is some leeway then at least you have some room to play with.
Cropping does sacrifice some resolution but at least you can end up
with a useable image.

keith c

--
Paul Prachun

 

[Brivers]

I wouldn't consider myself a photographer, but the only reason I take as many pictures now as I do, is digital is soooooo much easier....at least for me. No guess work for film choices, or cost of processing.....I have control over the editing. I guess it doesn't help that I'm very computer literate to be able to work with digital files, but I think the hobby of photography is only expanding because of digital and the ease in which someone can take a great picture.

Brent

Photography was complicated . .. digital is complicated too

-j

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

I guys, I'll try out the software mentioned. And in future, be a
little more aware of the framing of my photos knowing some edges
may be lost.

I guess i'm a little happier knowing everyone has this and it's
normal.

Still think it's crazy though

Here's a though - must ask Canon about this:

Why not introduce a new WYSIWYG digital photo standard. Thus
they'll be the right dimmensions for a 10x15(uk) shot, and no
cropping will be needed.

anyhow... thanks again!

--
http://www.pbase.com/brivers