Do you print in standard sizes? I don't.   Why? Well an A4 or an 8" x 10" often simply does not fit the composition.  

I have always felt a print is the real proof of the photo, viewed in reflected light.  Is color right? Is clarity there in this resolution which is quite more telling than the monitor of a computer?  And,  is the composition  right to express the intent of the image?

I have lots of prints around here.  It would cost so much to have all framed and I suspect many will not get framed. Mats will need to be cut to fit the photo which often has white padding around.

I am not stuck to the "A" sizes or the conventional USA inch sizes but printers often are. So, we get padding around the photo.

So, do you print  selected images and do you stick to conventional sizes?

Curious to know.       TomDArt.

I do print some of my images.  Most are unconventional sizes.  Although with my printer I have printed a few images to an 81/2 x 11 size, fit to page, without noticable distortions.  I am still learning, and I need to figure out what resolutions will print as in size of photo.  Sometimes I crop too much.   Then, I have a lot of padding around the photo.  Then there are the 4/6 you print and it cuts off some of your photo because it's too big.  I consider it a learning experience.  Those are some of my experiences as an extreme amateur.

:0)  Melinda

I see that TomDart wanted to know,

So, do you print  selected images and do you stick to conventional sizes?

In general, no.  Here on renderosity, I try to limit the image sixe to 1024 pixels wide so that the viewer will not have to scroll left-right to see the image. 

I have a print portfolio that was created in the mid 1980's and every image was cropped according to the subject ... a fallen log was short and wide, a path leading up a hill was portrait format, ...

I also saw that mbz2662 observed,

Then there are the 4/6 you print and it cuts off some of your photo because it's too big.

There is a way to get a cropped image that matches the intended paper size ... please take a look at the message thread, "Yet Another Photoshop Question".  There you'll see how to crop an image and get an exact match to the paper size. 

--
Martin

I only really print stuff that I intend to frame so virtually everything gets done at 8" x 10" or slightly bigger. I've only recently started to print my own shots and now I when shooting I try to allow for cropping when composing shots as resizing the image, to say 8 x 10, too often leads to distortion.
Although, like you, I have many great shots that are 'oddly' cropped to make the best composition and these will need to have mounts cut and at the moment I can't be bothered with that, lol :)

Andy

Attached Link: http://www.drdavesgraphics.com/photoshop/resize.html

Ciao
Dave

Hi Tom,

i only print when someone want to buy one of my pic. And the print respect the original size of my 24x36 classic film.
I use these formats : 30cm x 45cm, 40x60, 70x105 and squares are 40x40 or 60x60. + the frame (nearly black thin wood, and a white or black 'marquise' )

I print sometimes for myself, but in small size for my book (15 x 22.5), centered on a A4 mat paper.

seeya ;o)
Olivier

One one hand you can of course say: "that is what I saw" but on the other hand it's also true that "yes, but it's not because the viewfindersensor/film has that size that I need to respect it."
Then again, like Goethe wrote: "It is in limiting himself that the master shows".

Two to three comes close to the rule of thirds, but the real spots are not at  1/3 and 2/3 horizontal and vertical, but at Phi, meaning 0,618.
When Aegipan started his thread on composition, I thought he was heading the way of dynamic composition, meaning root rectangles. These have ratios of approximately:

root two:    1 x 1,4142
root three: 1 x 1,7321
root four:    1 x 2,000
root five:     1 x 2,2361

root two is used in the DIN A norm ( A3= 29,7 x 42 , A4= 21x29,7)

the Phi rectangle (Golden Section) is 1 x 1,618, or 0,618 x 1

remarkable is that the root five equals 0,618 + 1,618.
Five is also a number that is connected to life (starfish, five extremities,...) and the word quintessence is also based on it (quint means five).

This is an endless subject...

To answer the question: I try to make my composition in the viewfinder, yes. But when it looks better at another ratio, I follow my aesthetic sense, not the law.

I see that Tanchelyn offered some interesting insights about numbers,

Phi: 0,618; root two: 1 x 1,4142; root three: 1 x 1,7321; root four: 1 x 2,000; root five: 1 x 2,2361

We shouldn't forget that tuning systems in music were based on  justly tuned perfect fifths (ratio 3:2), leapfrogging twelve times, one eventually reaches a pitch approximately seven whole octaves above the starting pitch. ... however ... dropping 7 octaves will not come back to the initial pitch -- this difference is the "Pythagorean comma".  in Western music, 12 perfect fifths and seven octaves are treated as the same interval. Equal temperament, today the most common tuning system used in the West, accomplished this by flattening each fifth by a twelfth of a Pythagorean comma, thus giving perfect octaves. This tuning system was introduced about the time of J S Bach ... e.g."The Well-Tempered Clavier". 

Other numerical influences ... during the Middle Ages (12th century), a person was not considered educated unless he knew the Seven Liberal Arts  At the Cathedral of Chartres, sculptures of the Seven Liberal Arts appeared in the archivolt of the right bay of the Royal Portal, which represented the school at Chartres.

The Seven Liberal Arts were ...

• the Trivium (1. grammar, 2. rhetoric, 3. logic)

• the Quadrivium ( 4. geometry, 5. arithmetic, 6. music, 7. astronomy)

In case you didn't notice ... 3 + 4 = 7 ... a mystical number ... for that matter, 3 could represent the Trinity and 4 could represent the Alchemical elements: Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. 

Bernard of Chartres, of the Cathedral School of Chartres expressed [study of ancient learning; e.g. Greek and Roman],

"Standing on the Shoulders of Giants"

"We are as dwarfs mounted on the shoulders of giants, so that although we perceive many more things than they, it is not because our vision is mor piercing or our stature higher, it is because we are carried and elevated higher thanks to their gigantic size."
[I quoted from: Gimpel, Jean; Medieval Machine; ISBN 0-14-004514-7]

--
Martin
 

Thanks Martin for that Jean Gimpel quote. I confess I didn't read that book, and it's now number one on my list.

MMM...

3 + 4 = 7
3 x 4 = 12

7 x 12= 84 , and 8 + 4 equals 12

I once went to a lecture by Otto Antonia Graf who claimed that the whole Hagia Sophia was built on this principle that dates back to one of the eldest archaeological findings, namely a piece of pottery with a 3 / 4 ornamental motive. Otto Wagner and Frank Lloyd Wright seem to have known, and used this.

I see that Tanchelyn was interested in the,

Jean Gimpel quote ... it's now number one on my list.

amazon.com has a pretty good memory ... when I verified the amazon URL today, I was reminded that,

  you purchased this item on March 29, 2001

At the Pennsic War (a major SCA event), I sometimes give this class,
"Machines, Technology and Change: Ancient through Medieval".  The most recent time I gave the class, I talked for about 3 hours ... is that a surprise to anyone? 

The class handout runs to about 20 pages ... and will probably double in size the next time the class is offered ... possibly at Pennsic 37 in July. 

Up until now, I have used these 4 references ...

Landels, J G; "Engineering in the Ancient World"; ISBN 0-520-22782-4

Gies, Frances and Joseph; "Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel"; ISBN 0-06-092581-7

Gimpel, Jean; "The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages";
ISBN: 0-14-004514-7

White, Lynn Townsend; "Medieval Technology and Social Change"; ISBN: 0-19-500266-0

... but will probably add another 3 or 4 references ... hmmmm ... that estimate of 40 pages for the next class handout may be a little low.  [grin]

--
Martin