All the time - at work. I try to compose my shots well, but what you originally had in mind won't work a lot of the time when you see how much space you have on the front page and what has to go on it. I have to admit, I've had to get pretty creative at times to retain the message and still make it fit where it needs to. When I do a picture page, unless I'm getting rid of a really distracting element, I rarely crop.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:51 AM Subject: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?) > OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a > little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as > well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough > magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format portrait and > realises that they should have held the camera in portrait mode and > filled the frame? > > I freely admit that I often and sometimes do these. Shooting planes at > Duxford or F1 cars at silverstone, my 300mm was not always enough, so I > applied extra magnification at the scanning stage. When taking family > shots, sometimes I get into a zone where I automatically take a shot > with the camera held in portrait mode and later realise that 2/3rds of > the picture is wasted, so crop into portrait mode. > > This can mean that I need twice as many MP as my biggest print will > require to keep me happy. So that 11MP I might need for an 8*10 > actually becomes 22MP for an 8*10 which has been cropped. > > Give us a 22MP, 'non-bayer', full frame DSLR and this argument will stop > overnight - I guarantee it. > > I am not saying todays camera arent good enough, but arguing how many MP > the camera needs to do average prints without taking into account the > fact that many prints are crops or zooms is only half the story. Sure > maybe I should improve my framing technique (it is getting better all > the time anyway) and maybe I should buy that FA* 600mm F5.6 - but I cant > do either easily and neither can a lot of the world. > > My .2c > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Brigham > > Sent: 11 February 2003 09:40 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print? > > > > > > I seem to recall that different printers work at their > > optimum with different ppi images. Some prefer 360ppi to > > work at their best. 2880 *3600 = 10,368,000. So the Canon > > 1Ds would seem perfect for 8*10s on 'any' printer, until you > > want to crop and enlarge a section. > > > > Oh, and by the way - as is usually overlooked by digital > > shooters, the image supplied by the camera has already been > > interpolated by a bayer algorith and does not record true > > colour at each pixel, but merely averages out 4 adjacent > > pixels. So some Rezzing up has already been done - unless > > you shoot Sigma... This is why the 3MP Foveon is said to be > > as good as 6MP bayer by anyone who had tested it. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > It's pretty easy to figure out what size digital camera you > > > need for the best quality prints. Just multiply the size by > > > 300 dpi / 240 dpi, then multiply out the pixels needed. > > > > > > 300-dpi 8x10 = 2400 x 3000 = 7,200,000 > > > > > > 240-dpi 8x10 = 1920 x 2400 = 4,608,000 > > > > > > So you need a 7-mp camera for a top quality inkjet 8x10 and a > > > 4.5-mp camera for an adequate-quality 8x10. That's without > > > rezzing up, interpolating, anything. Note that some experts > > > say you can't tell the difference visually between a 300-dpi > > > print and a 240-dpi print. I have no opinion on that. > > > > > > This accords pretty well with my experiences, though. I get > > > very good 5x7s from my 3-mp camera and very good 8x10s from > > > my 5-mp Sony. The 3-mp can't go to 8x10 to my satisfaction > > > and the 5-mp can't go to 11x14. > > > > > > --Mike > > > > > > > > > > >
