Wed, August 25th, 2004 by JamesK
Last Friday, Photo Friday launched it's first extra challenge; analog. The challenge, as I'm sure some of you know, was to post a photo taken from a non-digital camera.
Due to a distinct lack of funds(!) and a plethora still to learn about photography I've stuck with using film throughout and enjoy the experience very much. But Photo Friday's challenge got me thinking. As I looked closely at some of my negatives, I noticed that a substantial amount of information had been cropped from the negative in the final print.
I tend to frame things tightly when I shoot and this problem appeared to me to make a big difference between good and bad photos. It tends to limit what I can justifiably (to myself) post! I want to throw this open to the photoblogging community seeing as it's analog week. Have others had similar experiences? Is this an inevitable part of the development process I need to account for when composing/shooting in the future? Or am I within my rights to go back to the developer's and ask them to reprint the film(s)?
August 25th, 2004 at 7:48 pm
I actually just noticed the cropping on a set of black & white prints I got back from the lab the other day. The only reason I even noticed was because I scanned the negative and compared it with the original photo for dirt and scratches, etc., and saw that there was about 5mm missing all around on the print. I've never noticed this before, so I'm not sure if it's normal or even if it might vary from lab to lab.
Regardless, you have every right to go back to the lab and ask for a reprint, for whatever reason, if you're not satisfied. If they don't reprint your photos, take your business elsewhere. Maybe the crop was a mistake, maybe it's normal to crop; it's worth it to ask them so you'll know to compensate for next time.
August 25th, 2004 at 8:04 pm
Also keep in mind that 35mm negatives have a 2:3 depth to width ratio whereas many standard print sizes do not.
For instance, 4x6 inch prints should be able to be printed full frame (it is a 2:3 ratio). However standard print sizes like 3.5x5 and 5x7 inch prints are not.
I find it interesting that 8x10 inch prints are such a more frequent standard than 8x12 inch prints considering how long 35mm negatives have ruled the market. It's been a long time since 4x5 negatives have been prolific.
August 25th, 2004 at 8:48 pm
Ive been lucky in that Ive only ever had one roll developed at a print shop, the rest Ive developed using a community darkroom. When I saw your post this came to mind and I wondered if many it might be worth having a look in your community to see if there are Darkrooms available for public use? The one I use cost $8 AU an hour to use. It usually takes 1 hour to develop and dry, and another to do the proof sheet and afew enlargements. So Im not really sure of the cost comparisions or if it is viable for you. Anyway, just a thought.
August 25th, 2004 at 9:04 pm
As someone who works in a lab, I feel I should speak here...
Yes. All negatives are cropped to some degree when being printed. This is true with 35mm up to 4x5. In general, the cheaper the lab you are having them printed at, the more you end up losing from the image.
I think some percentage of it is intentional. Most cheap point/shoot cameras and especially disposable cameras shoot a wider-angle than what the viewfinder shows to be sure to "get the shot". Printing the negative cropped-in corrects that problem, in a rather ass-backwards way.
The better labs available tend to print a fuller-frame image. Yes, 4x6 are "full frame" but you're still seeing only about 95% of your shot... 3x5, 5x7, and 8x10 are all cropped more, and generally you are losing image long-ways. I don't know if it is better equipment, finer calibration, or simply the design of high-end mini-labs that makes the difference there.
Here's where it gets even worse. If you are having your digital images printed, and they are coming from a point/shoot digital, the format of those images are intended for a computer screen, which is closer to a 4x5 ratio, rather than 2x3 (more square than rectangular). This means when they are being printed, you are losing a significant amount of your shot from the 'short' side. Most places pump the prints out as fast as they can, with little regard for whose head is being cut off, etc. Some, like where I work, go through on every shot that is losing something important when being cropped and shifts the image up or down to compensate. Sometimes it is a tough decision when the shot is tight in all directions. We generally tell our customers that if they know they are going to be printing their photos, to shoot a little extra wide to compensate. What people should do is request 4x5 prints from digital, but no one will...
SO-- in short, Yes, you lose something in the print. But almost all cameras shoot ever-so-slightly wider than they show. (A few of the early high-end Nikons, such as the F3 I believe, were praised for their 100% viewfinders... The F100 or F5 may still be this way, I don't know.) When I scan my negatives, I try to go full frame if the carrier in my scanner will allow it. It's not much, but its a subtle way of saying - "This is my shot as I intended for it to be".
Also remember, don't always trust the print. It is already second-generation. Colors are tweaked, density is 'corrected', dust and fingerprints get in the way, and it can be cropped. No one ever said photographs were completly truthful, right?
August 25th, 2004 at 9:09 pm
p.s. If you went back to the lab, they probably couldn't print your negatives any wider. What the machine prints is mostly set-in-stone. Try a different lab if one is available and get a reprint or two.... There are also a few mail-order labs that do amazing work....
Understand of course that when you demand professional-level service, you usually end up paying professional-level prices. Just something to keep in mind.
August 26th, 2004 at 12:20 am
kvh hit this one on the head. Machine printing standard "borderless" =equals= must be cropped slightly. I worked at a lab many years ago and often printed 5x7 on 8" wide paper for myself. Most machine printers have a zoom lens. A little trial and error and it was possible to get full frame prints. Get to know your lab rats. Find out which ones know what they are doing. They might be able to do custom prints for you. It might depend on the machine. We used some Noritsu model in a "Kodak" lab.
I suddenly realize that's the beauty of a digital SLR. WYSIWYG. No parallax, print it yourself.
August 26th, 2004 at 12:47 am
Another option is to get your film printed with a REBATE OR BLACK REBATE. Different labs call it different things. Essentially they print to the edge of the negative. Of course the drawback is a slightly smaller than 4 x 6 print, but you will definitely get everything you intended to be in your shot.
August 26th, 2004 at 1:17 am
I've noticed this happen to my pictures for some time now, and it's bugged the hell out of me. Especially nowadays when everything is printed digitally, and there are no real enlargers at most places. It's gotten to the point where they'll change what colours it has, to what they think looks right. I solved this by investing in a negative scanner. Since most my images will end up on the web anyways, I only ask for processing, and bring them back to scan. It saves a little money, and makes me feel like I have control of the image again.
August 26th, 2004 at 8:31 am
My $0.02: Just buy a decent 35mm scanner. Opt for a Nikon Super CoolScan 4000/5000 or the like. For $1000, it's more flexible than your 10D or D70 anyway. For the digital prints, expand the canvas of your JPEGs by adding enough whitepace to the edges to bring the dimensions inline with the desired print size. There'll be whitespace on the print, but you'll get the entire frame.
There is another plus to this approach. I shoot film as a matter of preference; there is currently no digital camera with the equivalent dynamic range of even a cheap drugstore film. You're almost always more likely to scan an acceptable image from a poorly exposed frame of film than you are to salvage a blown-out or muddy CCD-recorded image. With the scanner you can do multiple scans at different exposure settings and composite them - and you get every single bit of detail the film captured.
As always, your mileage may vary ...
August 26th, 2004 at 9:23 am
I agree with Mudge that a film scanner can be a great investment.
I do question his generalization about digital cameras' lack of dynamic range, though:
http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html
From that page:
"Prints made from images captured on digital cameras can have extraordinary tonal quality, comparable to the finest full-toned traditional prints. But to reach their full potential they must be processed properly, which involves changing default camera settings and moving away from standard file formats."
August 26th, 2004 at 9:31 am
It is strange that 8 X 10 is so popular... It really bothers me how that aspect ratio really chops up my 3:2 images. That's why I like having the flexibility to crop things on my own before they're printed. At least that way I can choose what gets removed from the print.
August 26th, 2004 at 10:22 am
we keep everything on fiftymillimeter uncropped, but when i print, i print to 8x10.
can i even buy 8x12 black and white paper?
August 26th, 2004 at 12:33 pm
Just a month ago, I began to see 8x12 and 10x15 matts and frames in the local grocery store. The selection is extremely limited, but there are some...
I wish these were more popular, because I can't cut a matt to save my life.
What is the image dimension ratio on point & shoot digicams anyway? Isn't it usually close to 4:3? That's a little more 8x10 friendly size...
August 26th, 2004 at 1:32 pm
The persistence of the 8x10 standard is very annoying. It comes from way back, pre-35mm, when view cameras were more common. View cameras use 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film, so 8x10 became a standard size. Once a standard, always a standard.
I always printed full-frame, with borders, so my 8x10 prints had an image area of about 6x9.
August 26th, 2004 at 3:01 pm
If you print full frame 35mm onto 8x10 paper for maximum size, it's ABOUT 7x10... 6x9 is the next best thing and gives you an even white edge, but I don't think it is easy for most labs to get paper that size if you want to print it borderless.
As a side note, a lab we work with had to print an order for a trial to PROVE to them it was printed from original film and unaltered. The solution was to print not only full frame, but edge to edge of the film, including the sprocket holes... you saw all the fuji-color bands, the numbers, big burned out sprocket areas, and washed-out colors from the poor exposure needed to print it that way, but it sure looked cool.
August 26th, 2004 at 6:23 pm
Brandon is right in pointing out that prints made from film vs. those from digital can be comparable in their tonal quality and range. But I think this is generally because the *typical* lab print is limited in tonal range anyway - regardless of the source. Very often, you'll have to abandon the 1-hour corner store machine and spend more money to get truly fine tonal results in a print. But I agree; it CAN be done ... in a print.
However, I stick by my claim that the raw film negative is currently capable of capturing far more data than even today's most sensitive CCD sensors. And my 35mm scanner's flexibility almost always bears this out. The media is far more tolerant of my all-too-often exposure errors. Of course, once you're up into the 1600+ ISO range, there lies a point of dimishing returns as the grain size becomes more akin to golfballs than to pixels. But maybe that's moot - I don't know of a digital camera that can do 1600+ respectably yet
August 26th, 2004 at 6:37 pm
Moreover, since the general discussion here pertains to film negatives, cropping, and printing issues, I don't know why I am pontificating about the digital vs. film debate anyhow! Sorry for the tangent.
Have opinion; need soapbox.
August 26th, 2004 at 11:00 pm
If you want full frame images you gotta ask for 8x12's. I used to wokr in a camera store and spent long hours explaining to customers that theres no way to fit your 35mm negative full frame into a 5x7. The idea of a ratio is foreign to some people. So we just ended up convincing them to get an 8x12. make more money that way too.
August 27th, 2004 at 7:20 pm
Matt wrote --> "...spent long hours explaining to customers that theres no way to fit your 35mm negative full frame into a 5x7."
But Matt, that's bogus. For example, if your 24x36mm negative is enlarged to 4x6 inches, then it will print perfectly well on 5x7 without cropping. You'll have half inch white borders all round. What's the problem?