Five years ago; still current

And still this is current! A question I answered years ago here and on another forum bears a repeat here. The photographer asked:

I just had a client order an 8×10 of a picture but when I crop it in Photoshop, it goes beyond the picture. (like it only fits for a 4×6 or something) What do I do?!?

A common question. For some reason known only to the good Lord, cameras use a 3:2 aspect ratio, while prints, frames, camera stores, and so on usually use 8×10 (i.e. 4×5) or 5×7, which are entirely different aspect ratios.

This means when you print, you have to do one of only three possible options:

  1. Crop off part of the image;
  2. Leave white bands on the sides;
  3. As in 2, but fill those two white bands with fake picture (what Photoshop calls “content aware fill”).

For methods 1 and 2, you probably want to use Lightroom, not Photoshop: in Photoshop you get burdened with having to know the picture size (pixels, DPI/PPI) when all you want to do at this point is set the aspect ratio. In Lightroom, you can simply set the aspect ratio (like “8×10”) without yet having to worry about the size you will eventually want to print at.

For method 3, however, you do need to use Photoshop. You expand the canvas to the size you want, then fill the white areas using that “content aware fill”, and adjust as needed.

But why is this all necessary? I have many people asking me this with a certian degree of perplexity.

Simply because you cannot fit a square peg snugly into a round hole.

To help understand, imagine if the print the client wanted was square. Does your camera take square pictures? Probably not. So to print square you either need to crop, or have white edges (or fill the edges with fictitious material).

Last tips:

  • This has nothing to do with picture size, or with things like DPI/PPI. It is simply about the shape of the picture (square, rectangular, etc).
  • I typically crop to the aspect ratio I like – not to the one dictated by the frame makers of this world.
  • That said, it is often wise to shoot a little wide, then crop later – just in case of this kind of aspect ratio nonsense getting in the way.

Have fun shooting!

 

Welcome, Japan.

I see on ca.urlm.com that apparently, I am most popular in Japan:

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 16.03.46 Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 16.15.29

I will take that with a grain or two of salt, but I am nevertheless delighted that this blog is read in Japan, the country the hardware we all use comes from.

So, welcome to my visitors from Japan, and keep coming back!1280px-Flag_of_Japan.svg

 

And it’s time I saw Japan again, it’s been too many years.

 

Respectfully….

…I disagree with Scott Kelby on flash outdoors. He says this in this months “shutterbug”:

image

I agree that you get s “hyper-real” look by opposing the sun. But that’s the entire point! For an artistic people cure, this feeling that a subject is almost superimposed on a shot is often exactly what the photographer desires

According to Mr Kelby, these here are no good, then:

20160618-1DX_8643-1024

20140807-MW7_8533-900

20140423-MVWX1795-1024

image20110813-DSC_4305-1024

Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 13.49.38

Tanya Cimera Brown. Photo: Michael Willems photographer, www.michaelwillems.ca

All wrong, says Mr Kelby.

All right, say I. Even though I am doing the opposite to what mr Kelby says you should do. For good reasons, say I.

You can make up your own mind, but whatever you do: never take mr Kelby’s words, or for that matter mine, for gospel. Make up your own mind.

Booth Sunday

Sunday I am shooting a photo booth. The photos I print will look somewhat like this:

image

Even a “mere” photo booth needs expertise. Shooting expertise. Computer expertise. People expertise. For an experienced photographer, all types of photography are fun: photo booths no less than any other type.