Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The international standard paper size is the "A" system (A5, A4, A3 etc) that has an aspect ratio slightly narrower than the 3:2 ratio offered in camera.

I know it is possible to customise or crop an image to fit the "A" ratio in editing (although even here I find I have to make a custom setting). Is it possible for Sony to offer the A ratio in their aspect ratio settings in camera? I'm sure this would be appreciated by the many photographers who print at home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Sony can offer any aspect ratio you want, be it 1.5:1 (35 mm film ratio), 1.333:1 (4:3 full screen ratio), 1.414:1 (ISO 216 paper ratio) 1.618:1 (golden ratio), 1.778:1 (HD 16:9 ratio), or any other arbitrary ratio you can come up with. But even if Sony made a custom aspect ratio equal to default print size, you'd still need scissors to manually crop the printing margins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pieter, printing margins are not a problem, as my printer can print borderless. The problem is that I have to make a custom mount when framing the print as an A3 mount leaves a white strip above and below the image, or the sides of the image are cut off. An "A"( or ISO 216) ratio would just make life so much easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I find that when I want to leave a uniform border (say 1cm for mounting) around my A sheet (be it A4, A3, or A2), the image has to be cropped to a slightly different ratio, depending on the sheet size. So I've worked out the pixel dimensions I need, and crop and rescale to suit - I've found that rescaling in Photoshop gets me better prints than letting the printer do it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Hola, parece que estan agotados, saludos Felipe 
    • I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...