Hi! i'm just wondering if digiprint automatically crop images for printing?
i noticed 3 of my 50 photos are cropped. how can i make sure that the next time i print my photos, it would not be trimmed?

its a 4R photo btw.

but the rest of the process was great! :Grin: up to delivery of my photos!

I think the best people to answer your question are the ones from Digiprint. :-)

Hi! i'm just wondering if digiprint automatically crop images for printing?
i noticed 3 of my 50 photos are cropped. how can i make sure that the next time i print my photos, it would not be trimmed?

its a 4R photo btw.

but the rest of the process was great! :Grin: up to delivery of my photos!

Did the three images have an aspect ratio of 2:3?

Or did you crop them during post processing but neglected to maintain a 2:3 aspect ratio?

Cheers!

Jo Avila

Did the three images have an aspect ratio of 2:3?

Or did you crop them during post processing but neglected to maintain a 2:3 aspect ratio?

Cheers!

Jo Avila


uhmm... newbie in photography here... im using olympus E-520. i don't know if it's 4/3 system affects the 2:3 aspect ratio...:Dum:

uhmm... newbie in photography here... im using olympus E-520. i don't know if it's 4/3 system affects the 2:3 aspect ratio...:Dum:

4/3 isn't proportional to 4R (4"x6").

But that would mean that all images would have shown a bit of cropping.

Cheers!

Jo Avila

uhmm... newbie in photography here... im using olympus E-520. i don't know if it's 4/3 system affects the 2:3 aspect ratio...:Dum:

Think of it this way. Most DSLRs produce images with an aspect ratio of 2:3.

Enlarge the short side to 4 inches and the long side will proportionately become 6 inches.

[2x2=4, 3x2=6]

The 4/3 system doesn't produce a digital image with the same aspect ratio. That's why images tend to get cropped when printed as a 4R print.

Cheers!

Jo Avila

thanks for the info!
sheez... so i would need to adjust the pixel aspect ratio to 0.667 (2/3) to make it standard...

thanks for the info!
sheez... so i would need to adjust the pixel aspect ratio to 0.667 (2/3) to make it standard...

Not really. There are certain print sizes like 5R (5x7) and 8R (8x10) where images from a 2/3 camera would get cropped during printing.

You win some and lose some :D

Cheers!

Jo Avila

During PC post processing, maybe you better crop it to your desired output size,
e.g. 4x6=4R / 5x7=5R / 8x10=8R, thereby, no more unexpected cropping during printing.

During PC post processing, maybe you better crop it to your desired output size,
e.g. 4x6=4R / 5x7=5R / 8x10=8R, thereby, no more unexpected cropping during printing.

But it would still be best to keep a hi-res copy of the file that is uncropped but edited.

This gives you flexibility later on if you wish to output the same file to different paper sizes whose proportions vary.

Cheers!

Jo Avila

I agree Sir Jo, before PP will be applied to your images it is better to create a copy for editing leaving the original file untouched.

Yeah always make a copy, I usually add borders too, to help on bleed space and cropping... just the basic technique I use for printing...

I agree Sir Jo, before PP will be applied to your images it is better to create a copy for editing leaving the original file untouched.

What I was suggesting (aside from the unedited master file) was a edited (post processed) but UNcropped version of the file.

Different paper sizes sometimes have different proportions (i.e. 4R vs. 5R).

Having an uncropped but edited file allows you to crop it to different print sizes later.

A pro photographer once consulted with me regarding his printing problem.

He had shot and edited a whole batch of graduation photos. But he had edited and cropped them to 8R.

Some students ordered extra prints but in 4R. He realized afterwards that 4R and 8R aren't proportional in size. He had to redo the editing of those images so that he could produce an image that would print full bleed on 4R.

Hence, my preference to have a edited but uncropped version of the digital file.

Cheers!

Jo Avila

@ Sir Jo
I am really new to photography and looking forward to printing my photos (first prints).
I have read several articles but havent found one that would clarify the difference of sharpening and saturation between internet shared photos and prints. As I have read on several posts here that lesser sharpening is needed for print photos compared to internet shared photos. Can you please shed some light based on your experience. Thank you very much in advance.

@ Sir Jo
I am really new to photography and looking forward to printing my photos (first prints).
I have read several articles but havent found one that would clarify the difference of sharpening and saturation between internet shared photos and prints. As I have read on several posts here that lesser sharpening is needed for print photos compared to internet shared photos. Can you please shed some light based on your experience. Thank you very much in advance.

Generally, you have to make the size of the digital image smaller for web purposes.

Making the image size smaller makes it easier to view the image on the display monitor of most computers. It also makes the file size smaller (a big plus for web purposes IMO :D).

Reducing image size also results in loss of image sharpness.

(I suppose that's why some people recommend using Bicubic Sharper if you are making the image size smaller in Photoshop.)

That's it has been suggested that you use a higher amount of sharpening of images meant for the web compared to images that will be printed.

Cheers!

Jo Avila

Generally, you have to make the size of the digital image smaller for web purposes.

Making the image size smaller makes it easier to view the image on the display monitor of most computers. It also makes the file size smaller (a big plus for web purposes IMO :D).

Reducing image size also results in loss of image sharpness.

(I suppose that's why some people recommend using Bicubic Sharper if you are making the image size smaller in Photoshop.)

That's it has been suggested that you use a higher amount of sharpening of images meant for the web compared to images that will be printed.

Cheers!

Jo Avila

thank you sir for clearing that up...
So that was the reason why some people recommend to sharpen more for web purposes :D.. Sir how about saturation some people say that over saturated photos looks good in print, is this another myth? sorry for a lot of questions but I am a little lost at this side and luckily there are people like you who generously share knowledge. Thank you very much.

thank you sir for clearing that up...
So that was the reason why some people recommend to sharpen more for web purposes :D.. Sir how about saturation some people say that over saturated photos looks good in print, is this another myth? sorry for a lot of questions but I am a little lost at this side and luckily there are people like you who generously share knowledge. Thank you very much.

Saturation - Yes and no. Oversaturation - NO. :D

Your choice of adding saturation to the colors is a matter of taste. Some people like it and some people may not like it.

However, there are some who complain that colors look saturated on their display monitor but dull on the print. That's normal. The range of colors or color gamut of the image on your screen is very big. The color gamut of what the printer and the paper can handle is smaller. A smaller color gamut always translates to duller or less saturated colors.

No amount of oversaturation will compensate for it.

Besides, you're making it harder to print the image the more you go over saturate it.

Cheers!

Jo Avila

Thank you sir I better start printing and see for myself.:D:D:D