Aspect Ratios: L x W (Image) vs W x L (Print): Printers and Printing Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

I understand aspect ratios very well in terms of how they result in cropped images unless you get a "full frame" image (my preference). However, when explaining how it works to other people, I find that an element of complications are thrown in because in recent years most articles describe the aspect ratio of the original image as 3:2 (length x width) instead of 2:3 (width x length) whereas the prints are described in width x length (8 x 10 instead of 10 x 8). In the old days they described the original width x length (2:3, 35mm image is 24x36mm) the same as they did with prints, so it was more comparable image-to-print, but with it being switched around it's confusing.

(In the same way, they describe the mirrorless Olympus & Panasonic cameras as micro 4/3rds, or 4:3, which is length x width, but again any prints' dimensions are mentioned in the reverse order, width x length, so again it doesn't compare.)

Why is that? Also, does anyone know where it explains how sizes like 5x7 and 8x10 became popular sizes, because I don't see where any original image ever had those dimesions to where they would match up.

larrytusazwrote:

I understand aspect ratios very well in terms of how they result in cropped images unless you get a "full frame" image (my preference). However, when explaining how it works to other people, I find that an element of complications are thrown in because in recent years most articles describe the aspect ratio of the original image as 3:2 (length x width) instead of 2:3 (width x length) whereas the prints are described in width x length (8 x 10 instead of 10 x 8). In the old days they described the original width x length (2:3, 35mm image is 24x36mm) the same as they did with prints, so it was more comparable image-to-print, but with it being switched around it's confusing.

(In the same way, they describe the mirrorless Olympus & Panasonic cameras as micro 4/3rds, or 4:3, which is length x width, but again any prints' dimensions are mentioned in the reverse order, width x length, so again it doesn't compare.)

The standard is the x-coordinate first, then the y-coordinate, EW then NS. But for photographic purposes, there is always the possibility of turning the camera from landscape orientation to portrait orientation. So the ratio is preserved, so it really doesn’t matter.

Why is that? Also, does anyone know where it explains how sizes like 5x7 and 8x10 became popular sizes, because I don't see where any original image ever had those dimesions to where they would match up.

Well before 35 mm film, which was always shot in landscape orientation for cinema, there were glass plates (qv). 8 x 10 inches (the units are important), is quite common. It was most common to make contact prints from large format cameras, even for plates as small as 5 x 7 inches. It was really only with medium format cameras: 6 x 6 cm, 6 x 9 cm, and 6 x 7 cm, etc, that enlarging for the masses took hold. The miniature formats like 35 mm are relatively recent.

You might wonder why it is so difficult to find standard frames in a 3:2 ratio, but that is another story. You should try fitting a 3:2 image on US sized paper, now there is an anomaly.

Brian A

Hugowolfwrote:

larrytusazwrote:

I understand aspect ratios very well in terms of how they result in cropped images unless you get a "full frame" image (my preference). However, when explaining how it works to other people, I find that an element of complications are thrown in because in recent years most articles describe the aspect ratio of the original image as 3:2 (length x width) instead of 2:3 (width x length) whereas the prints are described in width x length (8 x 10 instead of 10 x 8). In the old days they described the original width x length (2:3, 35mm image is 24x36mm) the same as they did with prints, so it was more comparable image-to-print, but with it being switched around it's confusing.

(In the same way, they describe the mirrorless Olympus & Panasonic cameras as micro 4/3rds, or 4:3, which is length x width, but again any prints' dimensions are mentioned in the reverse order, width x length, so again it doesn't compare.)

The standard is the x-coordinate first, then the y-coordinate, EW then NS. But for photographic purposes, there is always the possibility of turning the camera from landscape orientation to portrait orientation. So the ratio is preserved, so it really doesn’t matter.

Why is that? Also, does anyone know where it explains how sizes like 5x7 and 8x10 became popular sizes, because I don't see where any original image ever had those dimesions to where they would match up.

Well before 35 mm film, which was always shot in landscape orientation for cinema, there were glass plates (qv). 8 x 10 inches (the units are important), is quite common. It was most common to make contact prints from large format cameras, even for plates as small as 5 x 7 inches. It was really only with medium format cameras: 6 x 6 cm, 6 x 9 cm, and 6 x 7 cm, etc, that enlarging for the masses took hold. The miniature formats like 35 mm are relatively recent.

You might wonder why it is so difficult to find standard frames in a 3:2 ratio, but that is another story.

Frames for 4x6 prints are quite easy to find in the US

Mark B.wrote:

Frames for 4x6 prints are quite easy to find in the US

For that size you are better off with a cell phone or pad. Try finding an off the peg 3:2 ratio frame larger than 12 x 18 inches.

Frame manufactures seem stuck in a time many decades ago.

Brian A

I can chose all the aspects in my 7D. But I chose not to. I prefer to crop (if needed) in my own sizes. Mostly my sizes are either 12x12 square or 14x8, 14x9, 14x11. I start at 14" and let the other side take care of itself.
--
MrScary (DennisR)
Swansea, Wales. UK
http://russ4tography.com/
http://copernob.jalbum.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scarecrowdr

The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are the major updates, but do they make the camera better?

The Panasonic Lumix S5II launched the second generation of Panasonic’s full-frame mirrorless camera system and was the first Panasonic to feature phase detect autofocus. As our review reveals, it’s a heck of an all-around camera for both still and video shooters.

The latest Lumix puts a Four Thirds sensor in a full-frame body with boosted AF and a wealth of stills and video capabilities to create a Swiss Army Knife of a Micro Four Thirds camera.

The fourth camera in Leica's SL series of full-frame mirrorless cameras sees the 60MP BSI sensor from the Q3 and M11 models arrive with a significant interface redesign.

The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that brings significant improvements to Nikon's mid-price cameras. We just shot a sample reel to get a better feel for its video features and have added our impressions to the review.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.