>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>89376 Yes, 4x6 = 6x4. It's an understandable noob mistake (by which I mean, it's a mistake I made when I was a noob). You just sort of naturally expect that they'd sell paper to match the size of pictures that come out of one's camera. Which is true with (most) digital SLRs and 35mm film cameras, which use a 2x3 aspect ratio natively (which fits 4x6 prints perfectly), but not with (most) point & shoot digital cameras, which use a 4x3 aspect ratio (which fits a monitor or TV perfectly). And then there's the fun of 8x10, the common size for slightly larger prints, which doesn't fit 4x3 OR 2x3, because it got standardized back when people were making 8x10 contact prints from large-format negatives (or glass plates), or at least enlargements from 4x5 large-format.
The ratio of pixels to an inch is not fixed, and depends on what those pixels are being displayed on. That's why you can have a 14" monitor that can display 1024x768 pixels and a physically-identical 14" monitor that can only do 800x600. It's even more true with paper. The number of dots that'll fit in an inch depends on the printer. For a good quality print to be viewed reasonably close up, you want to aim for around 300dpi ("dots" equals "pixels" for the purposes of this discussion). HOWEVER: Most image manipulation programs will let you crop to a given ratio, so just crop to 2x3 and you're good.
>>89380 Look at the actual picture he's trying to print. All he'll be cropping is sky. For 90% of the pictures out there, cropping to fit a different aspect ratio really doesn't have a very serious effect on it. I've only got one shot that I think was framed perfectly enough that it upset me to crop it to fit a 5x7 print that I wanted to make (and I couldn't bring myself to crop it to fit an 8x10)
|