Sizing?

[uk2usa]

Mods please move if this is in the wrong thread.

Hello everyone,

This may sound like a silly question.... but I am hoping you can help me.

I have a blog that I update (infrequently) with photographs that I have taken and some dialogue behind each one. I have been reviewing the blog tonight and one thing struck me... all my pictures have been cropped differently. It makes the blog look a little untidy, but of course when I edit the html and make all the clickable images the same size I find that some of them look very distorted.

Obviously I need to crop to a constant ratio in photoshop, but what ratio to crop to?

A quick google search shows me that standard frame sizes are:

4 X 6 (1:1.5 ratio)
5 X 7 (1:1.4 ratio)
8 X 10 (1:1.25 ratio)
11 X 14 (1:1.27 ratio)
16 X 20 (1:1.25 ratio)

Eventually I hope that my photography will improve to the point that I will purchase a hosting/proofing site and I would imagine that having crops of 8 x 7.25 (for example) will cause more problems for printing etc. (The water drops in my blog are a good example of the different crops I have made).

Do any of you fellow camels crop to a ratio? Or is there something else I haven't thought of.

[uk2usa]

I have been reading through a couple of other threads - on this forum and on others and it seems that most people crop to a 6x4 size. I think that is what I will do for now and will appraise the successfulness at a later time.
However, if anyone has any advice or opinions I would welcome their input.

[ALexD]

The simple answer is to crop to the ratio that works best for the image.

Personally I usually crop to a 5X7 or 8x10 ratio. To make the images on the page appear tidy you could keep a consistent pixel dimension for the short side of each image. It appears most of the full size images is between 600-800 pixels on the short side. You could size them to 800 pixels on the short dimension and let the long dimension fall to whatever ratio you choose for that image. For example, the 4X6 crop would be 800 X 1200 and the 8 X 10 crop would be 800 X 1000. That should make the images on the page appear more consistent in size.

Really nice images by the way.

[uk2usa]

Thanks Alex, I appreciate the feedback

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by ALexD

The simple answer is to crop to the ratio that works best for the image.

Personally I usually crop to a 5X7 or 8x10 ratio. To make the images on the page appear tidy you could keep a consistent pixel dimension for the short side of each image. It appears most of the full size images is between 600-800 pixels on the short side. You could size them to 800 pixels on the short dimension and let the long dimension fall to whatever ratio you choose for that image. For example, the 4X6 crop would be 800 X 1200 and the 8 X 10 crop would be 800 X 1000. That should make the images on the page appear more consistent in size.

Really nice images by the way.

My issue with your sizing is that 800x1200 is a big image on the web - I prefer to use smaller images, perhaps a max of 800 pixels on the longest edge. (personally I prefer a max of 600 pixels).

So for a 3:2 ratio image (6x4) then 800x533 pixels and for a 5:4 ration (10x I would resize to 800x640 pixels

You don't want very large images - slower to download and easy to print!

[Rocky8]

It is most convenient – for both composition in the viewfinder as well as for prints – to standardize your photo aspect ratio. 3:2 (or 2:3 for vertical) is the classic aspect ratio (for e.g. 6"x4" or 4"x6" prints). And for good reason.

[ALexD]

EOS_JD - You are correct 800X1000 is fairly large for a web image but on uk2usa's blog the images are smaller on the main page and when clicked open to mostly about 1024 pixels on the long dimension. I think he was looking mainly for thoughts on what crop ration might be best to have consistant look on the main page. Heck, I could be wrong, sure wouldn't be the first time.

[uk2usa]

AlexD - you are correct, I was more concerned about my main page. However EOS_JD has brought up a good point which I would be foolish to ignore - I thank you both for your feedback.

I also posted the same question on another forum and was told that the page loads very slowly because of the way I have saved my images (at 300dpi rather than 72dpi) - plus a couple of warnings that echo EOS_JD.

I guess the best thing to do is reload all the images after I have set an appropriate resolution and crop ratio.

Thanks again everyone for the support and advice

[tomrit]

Also, your blog theme may limit the size of your photos, mine limited them to 500 pixels wide (I went in and reprogrammed it to allow 640), and it squishes them to fit, often with disastrous results. I now crop to 640 x 480 (VGA), so they all come out the same size with no squishing (Is that a technical term or what?).

Most web applications will resize your images to fit the space allotted, it is best to upload that size image as it will look best. I usually do 640x480 or 800x600, cropping if wanted, so the long side does not exceed those values. Most people will be able to see those images even if they are only using a netbook or an old computer.

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by uk2usa

I also posted the same question on another forum and was told that the page loads very slowly because of the way I have saved my images (at 300dpi rather than 72dpi) - plus a couple of warnings that echo EOS_JD.

The ppi value (it's not dpi) is irrelevent when posting images on the web. You can ignore that. What you want to be doing is saving the image at a particular size in pixels. Whether saved at 72ppi or 300ppi the image will not change.

What to do is insert the crop ratio you want (say 3:2) and then do a crop at 600px x 400px if you want that size of image. The resolution ppi value) matters not a jot.

I should add that dpi refers to physical dots of output on a printer, printer, scanner etc.

ppi refers to pixels in your images.

JD

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by tomrit

Also, your blog theme may limit the size of your photos, mine limited them to 500 pixels wide (I went in and reprogrammed it to allow 640), and it squishes them to fit, often with disastrous results. I now crop to 640 x 480 (VGA), so they all come out the same size with no squishing (Is that a technical term or what?).

Most web applications will resize your images to fit the space allotted, it is best to upload that size image as it will look best. I usually do 640x480 or 800x600, cropping if wanted, so the long side does not exceed those values. Most people will be able to see those images even if they are only using a netbook or an old computer.

Resizing in pixels makes sense. Think of your monitor resolution. Lets say it's 1024 wide x 768 tall (which is pretty common still especially since the advent of the small form laptops). If you post an image that is 800 pixels tall, then the person looking at the image has to scroll to see the whole image on their screen.

So you need to resize your images so that people can see it easily, use smaller sized images like 600x400 or 800 x 600.

JD

[uk2usa]

Thanks for that info. The other forum responses mentioned a long load time to view the pictures (about 10 seconds is what they mentioned) - which I was surprised at because whether I view the blog at home, work or on my laptop the images seem to load in less than a second.

This was the response I got from the other board:

"The important stuff: image size: 72dpi, 600x400 pixels for web (inches for printing) (I use 640 x 427, because that is what I like) Also, if you use PS go to image size change to 72dpi, change the larger pixel dimension to 600 and click OK, then use the Save for Web and Devices option, that will make you photos load faster. One last note: never load your photos in 300dpi unless you want people to steal them or unless you want them to be able to download them and print them."

I think I will have to remove the existing images and recrop than, save them in a format that is appropriate and repost them to the blog - I certainly do not mind doing that - it is all part of the learning process for me!

I guess my concerns are: a) my blog is not easy to read because it is messy, b) my images lose any impact they may have because I have cropped inconsistently, c) people lose interest in my pictures because it takes such a long time to view them, and finally d) that I am not using my blog efficiently because of the settings I am using.

While I am writing this I have actually thought of another question that has occured to me... For the last couple of outings I have shot in RAW (or NEF - Nikon), when I open the pics in PS Elelments 7 (actually PS Elements opens Capture NX) I get the option to save the image in certain formats, but I do not remember jpeg being one of them (forgive the ambiguous nature of the description - I am not at my computer as I write this) - so I have saved some pictures for web, but I don't think that this would be appropriate if I decided to print any of the pictures.... I am thinking that I would need to convert NEF to TIFF and then save as JPEG... am I right? Any help would be welcome.

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by uk2usa

Thanks for that info. The other forum responses mentioned a long load time to view the pictures (about 10 seconds is what they mentioned) - which I was surprised at because whether I view the blog at home, work or on my laptop the images seem to load in less than a second.

This was the response I got from the other board:

"The important stuff: image size: 72dpi, 600x400 pixels for web (inches for printing) (I use 640 x 427, because that is what I like) Also, if you use PS go to image size change to 72dpi, change the larger pixel dimension to 600 and click OK, then use the Save for Web and Devices option, that will make you photos load faster. One last note: never load your photos in 300dpi unless you want people to steal them or unless you want them to be able to download them and print them."

I think I will have to remove the existing images and recrop than, save them in a format that is appropriate and repost them to the blog - I certainly do not mind doing that - it is all part of the learning process for me!

I guess my concerns are: a) my blog is not easy to read because it is messy, b) my images lose any impact they may have because I have cropped inconsistently, c) people lose interest in my pictures because it takes such a long time to view them, and finally d) that I am not using my blog efficiently because of the settings I am using.

While I am writing this I have actually thought of another question that has occured to me... For the last couple of outings I have shot in RAW (or NEF - Nikon), when I open the pics in PS Elelments 7 (actually PS Elements opens View NX) I get the option to save the image in certain formats, but I do not remember jpeg being one of them (forgive the ambiguous nature of the description - I am not at my computer as I write this) - so I have saved some pictures for web, but I don't think that this would be appropriate if I decided to print any of the pictures.... am I right? Any help would be welcome.

What other board? Long load times are all about the size of the image in Kb. I can assure you ppi (remember it's NOT dpi) doesn't matter a jot. It's all about the pixels. PPI only matters when you come to print the image and affects the physical size. I can print a 600 x 400 image at any size I want but will only get the 300ppi image at 2" x 1.5" without interpolation.

"never load your photos in 300dpi unless you want people to steal them or unless you want them to be able to download them and print them.

Honestly COMPLETE TOSH!!!

A 600 x 400 pixel image on the web at 300ppi or 72 ppi is exactyly the same image - Save the same image twice with different names. Save one as a 600px x 400px @ 72ppi and the other as a 600px x 400px image at 300ppi - Look at the size of the images - I bet they are IDENTICAL

Regards the saving a jpg, it's because you are exporting them as 16bit files. You need to convert to 8bit to save as a jpg,

Regards the advice to use save for web, I do use that on ocassion. It makes your images small. Also removes all your exif data.

[uk2usa]

Wow, thanks for the quick reply - and for the clear advice. I am really getting an education of photography blogging in the last few days - and I appreciate it!

Edit: Just tried to give you some more K for the ongoing support, but am not able to. But want to say thank you for the help.

[EOS_JD]

Read that forum again and you'll see my response

The ONLY thing ppi affects is the print size. What that guy is doing is resampling his images - that is different. Changing the ppi alone does nothing for any image. To reduce the image size you need to reduce the number of pixels and save at a level of compression suitable for what you want to do.

[uk2usa]

I just read your response - I think you explained everything very well . I will take all of your advice and start the blog makeover tomorrow!

[EOS_JD]

Thanks There's a few places to get info like this. It confuses a lot of people but once you understand it, it's really VERY simple.

[EOS_JD]

Oh and if you need anything more regards resolution let me know.

[RocketRick]

Originally Posted by Rocky8

It is most convenient – for both composition in the viewfinder as well as for prints – to standardize your photo aspect ratio. 3:2 (or 2:3 for vertical) is the classic aspect ratio (for e.g. 6"x4" or 4"x6" prints). And for good reason.

"The" classic aspect ratio? It doesn't exist.

A good argument could be made for 4:5, as that's what a 4"x5" camera produces, and it matches the very common print size of 8"x10". Of course, a square 1:1 aspect ratio is also very "classic", as it matches the format commonly used by most Rollei and Hasselblad cameras (beloved by Wedding photographers) that use 120 or 220 roll film. However, 5:7, 6:7, 6:9, and 6:4.5 are/were all also fairly common in "classic" cameras.

Personally, I like to use 3:4. For one thing, it's the native aspect ratio produced by the sensors in my Olympus DSLRs. For another, it's a relatively minor crop to get from there to either 8"x10" or 5"x7" prints.

The miniature 35mm half-frame film format pioneered by Barnack in the original Leica cameras has dimensions of 24mm by 36mm, making a 2:3 aspect ratio. A generation of 135 format (aka 35mm roll film) shooters have since adopted this awkward oblong format as a "standard" of sorts, resulting in the relatively recent trend of 4"x6" snapshots.

Camera makers with big investments in existing glass and camera body designs adopted the same 2:3 ratio when they designed their DSLRs, mainly by replacing the film in a 135-format SLR camera with a digital sensor. So, the typical Canikon DSLR has a 2:3 aspect ratio sensor for hysterical raisins.

Digital camera designs which didn't start their lives as 135-format cameras with digital sensors shoehorned-in have tended to gravitate towards less-oblong sensor shapes. Most are in a 3:4 aspect ratio, as that aspect ratio matches the typical computer monitor/television aspect ratio (until just the past few years, when movie-format widescreen displays have taken the lead), allowing for full-screen viewing without cropping. Also, as mentioned earlier, a 3:4 ratio allows for minimal cropping to the two most commonly-displayed print aspect ratios: 5:7 and 4:5, which correspond to 5"x7" and 8"x10" prints, respectively.

For web use, the main things to keep in mind are to:

• Keep the overall file sizes small to make them fast to load
• Don't use pictures that require scrolling to see, especially horizontal scrolling. This generally means keeping the width below about 600 pixels or so, since there is generally also text on the same page. Often, a 300-400 pixel wide image is sufficient for web use.
• Try to be consistent about sizes and aspect ratios, to keep a uniform look to your site. However, if a certain image looks best in a different crop, don't hesitate to adjust it. The technology is in service of the images, not the other way around.

Hope this helps!

- Rick

[EOS_JD]

Originally Posted by RocketRick

"The" classic aspect ratio? It doesn't exist.

A good argument could be made for 4:5, as that's what a 4"x5" camera produces, and it matches the very common print size of 8"x10". Of course, a square 1:1 aspect ratio is also very "classic", as it matches the format commonly used by most Rollei and Hasselblad cameras (beloved by Wedding photographers) that use 120 or 220 roll film. However, 5:7, 6:7, 6:9, and 6:4.5 are/were all also fairly common in "classic" cameras.

Personally, I like to use 3:4. For one thing, it's the native aspect ratio produced by the sensors in my Olympus DSLRs. For another, it's a relatively minor crop to get from there to either 8"x10" or 5"x7" prints.

The miniature 35mm half-frame film format pioneered by Barnack in the original Leica cameras has dimensions of 24mm by 36mm, making a 2:3 aspect ratio. A generation of 135 format (aka 35mm roll film) shooters have since adopted this awkward oblong format as a "standard" of sorts, resulting in the relatively recent trend of 4"x6" snapshots.

Camera makers with big investments in existing glass and camera body designs adopted the same 2:3 ratio when they designed their DSLRs, mainly by replacing the film in a 135-format SLR camera with a digital sensor. So, the typical Canikon DSLR has a 2:3 aspect ratio sensor for hysterical raisins.

Digital camera designs which didn't start their lives as 135-format cameras with digital sensors shoehorned-in have tended to gravitate towards less-oblong sensor shapes. Most are in a 3:4 aspect ratio, as that aspect ratio matches the typical computer monitor/television aspect ratio (until just the past few years, when movie-format widescreen displays have taken the lead), allowing for full-screen viewing without cropping. Also, as mentioned earlier, a 3:4 ratio allows for minimal cropping to the two most commonly-displayed print aspect ratios: 5:7 and 4:5, which correspond to 5"x7" and 8"x10" prints, respectively.

Whether you have a 4:3 or a 3:2 ratio camerait's not a problem - both have advantages. I don't like the smaller sensors that the 4:3 cameras use which generally give noisier images particularly at high ISOs. I'd prefer to have the larger sensor and if cropping is required, you are doing so from generally a smaller magnified (possibly better quality) image.

I also tend to disagree that 7:5 or 5:4 ratio images are more common than 3:2 ratio images. All have been used hugely. To get a 5:4 or 7:5 ratio from a 3:2 ratio image only requires a small amount of cropping too.

4:3 is only massive because compacts also use that as their format. In dSLR world the 4:3rds system is small in comparison - I don't really think it's worth discussing though.

Originally Posted by RocketRick

For web use, the main things to keep in mind are to:

• Keep the overall file sizes small to make them fast to load
• Don't use pictures that require scrolling to see, especially horizontal scrolling. This generally means keeping the width below about 600 pixels or so, since there is generally also text on the same page. Often, a 300-400 pixel wide image is sufficient for web use.
• Try to be consistent about sizes and aspect ratios, to keep a uniform look to your site. However, if a certain image looks best in a different crop, don't hesitate to adjust it. The technology is in service of the images, not the other way around.

Hope this helps!

- Rick

Rick on this we totally agree.