From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Why do photofinishers crop so much?
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:12:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

>>a reason for this? The aspect ratio is exactly the same,
>>by the way, I'm shooting 35 mm. (24x36 mm. image size)
>>and printing on 4x6 in., so that's no excuse. Is this 
>>standard practice? If so, why? I'm not talking about...

>>Any comments or recommendations (besides do it myself, I've 
>>already concluded that this might solve several problems but
>>it's not going to happen THIS year anyway...)?
> 
> 	Actually, the aspect ratio of the image on negatives (35mm)
> 	is not the same as normal prints.  If look at the negatives,
> 	the images are sort of longish rectangles, longer than the
> 	prints made.

The 4x6 `super' prints are of the same aspect ratio (1:1.5) as the negative. 
That's why they are sold as `full frame' prints. (At least they are here).

As to why YOUR prints are being cropped, i couldn't say.  i don't usually shoot
print film, but when i do, i take it to a local lab that i think won't scratch
the negatives.  The prints i use a proofs more than anything (or to mail to
mom.)  Every time i've gotten the full frame prints, they have indeed been full
frame prints.  

i'll bet what happened is that your lab accidentally left a black or white
border around some prints, someone complained, and the manager resolved that
he'd never have THAT happen again.  And reset his machine to crop
the edges just to be sure.  Have you complained to your lab that you're not
getting what you should be?  At least get an explanation from them.

> 
> 	I really have no idea why prints are not made according to the
> 	dimensions of the negative.  Maybe there is an industrial
> 	standard???  If the cropping is a standard practice, I suggest
> 	that the camera manufacturers mark the "effective" image are
> 	in the finder.
> 


i've always been told that the more `normal' prints, with 3 1/2 x 5 inch or 
8 x 10 inch sides (with a 1:1.25 ratio) are that way because of a carryover
from paint artists.  Someone way back when decided that a 1:1.25 ratio was an
artistic ideal.  The idea stuck around for centuries until someone saw a chance
at making a better profit by selling bigger photos ``with everything that's on
the film.''  Note that that 1:1.25 ratio isn't exact.  An 11 x 14 is something
like 1:1.27 or so.
 


>>...heads, hats, tops of mountains, etc. missing and I'd rather not
>>have to leave a zone of extraneous material all the way around.

> 	Oh, btw, if the cropping really annoys you, try to leave
> 	room on both sides of the pictures when you take them.
> 
> 
This is probably good advice for print film, or with any film that you intend
to sell to a photo editor.  With print film, you'll probably have to crop
anyways, and it's easier to cut something out than realize you framed your
subject just a little too close when you see your negative.  If you sell (or
intend to someday) your photos for printing, most editors like to be able to
play with the image a bit so that they can fit it in around text, advertising
etc. or even print on the photo (say you're shooting a cover for Rolling Stone-
that logo has to go somewhere!).  If they can't play with the edges of a shot,
it just makes it harder for them to work with it.  (rule does not apply to any
work where the photographs are what the editors are mainly interested in, and
will do funny things with the printing.) 

The only time i would recommend not leaving a little room is if you shoot
slides for projection, like i do. It's hard to tell people to ignore that half 
person sticking into the edge of the frame...

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu