Shoot Aspect and Printing Aspect

[douvidl]

This is probably a simply answered question, but here goes.   
I shoot RAW with a 5D2. I generally like to print at 11 x 17, 13 x 19 and 17 X 22,  with an occasional 8.5 x 11.  Is there any way I can adjust in camera the shooting aspect so that it matches the printing aspect.  Now I find my self cropping and trying differing print sizes.  I use Resize pro to adjust the size.  Any help and/or clarification would be welcome.
Thanks
David

[Ken Bennett]

Canon sells focusing screens for the 1D series that have crop lines etched in, to show you where the 8x10 crop will be. Useful, but won't work on the 5D2.

For critical use, I have used gaffer's tape to mask the edges of my LCD on the back of the camera. (I did this for a 3:1 panoramic, but the process would be the same.) It doesn't help with the view through the optical finder, but with live view it works pretty well.

No way that I can think of to change the actual pixel dimensions in the camera. (Unlike, say, the Panasonic m4/3 cameras, which can do that.)

[DeanChriss]

I'm not quite sure if your question is about in-camera composing (answered by k bennett) or actually changing the aspect ratio of the files it produces, but here goes... Except for cropping or printing smaller on a given sheet size, there's nothing else you can do about the aspect ratio mismatch. For instance, I print a lot of 14x21 on 17x22 sheets, and 18x27 on 24x30 sheets. Harman makes some 17x25 inch sheets you could use for 16x24 inch images, but AFAIK they're the only ones who make a paper that size. But a 1/2" border around a print that size is hardly adequate regardless. When I print on roll paper I often leave 2" or more all the way around. Roll paper can solve some of these issues, but I really prefer sheets when possible because they lay much flatter. The flatness makes mounting and matting easier, and they tend to not look as wavy when hinge mounted.

[bill t.]

That camera has interchangeable focusing screens.  You might be able to make marks on a screen for whatever ratio you wanted, I'm thinking maybe a technical pen with India ink or even a very fine "Sharpie" style solvent pen if that doesn't work.  Maybe a Sakura Pigma Micron 01 or something.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+focusing+screen&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

[Mike Guilbault]

I'm not sure about the new digital camera focusing screens, but on my old Canon F1 focusing screens, I would use a fine X-Acto knife to 'etch' the lines onto the screen (on the fresnel side if I remember correctly).  It worked very well and the lines were visible but very fine as compared to a sharpie. 

[Damir]

I am not 100% sure, check this for your model of camera, but most of the modern SLR cameras have metering in the prism. Any obstacle, like lines from pen will interfer with metering system by covering some of the sensors. Even dust on focusing screen will be a problem if you have some larger particle exactly on the place at which light reading occures.

[Mike Guilbault]

Good point.  My etching of the screen was done an old film cameras.

[michael]

I'm curious why you want to make your image's aspect ratio exactly fit standard paper sizes. Is it because you buy standard sized mattes for framing?

If not, I'd suggest that you let the image (and you) determine what aspect ratio you want the shot to be, rather than the paper manufacturer.

Every image is unique, and shoe-horning it into a fixed format denies this.

If you are doing high volume, and need pre-cut mattes for economy sake, then I guess the compromise may be necessary.

Just a thought.

Michael

[douvidl]

Mike and Michael;
Mike, would you send me a pic of the scored prism and how did you calculate the dimensions?  Michael, you ask why?  I was prepping a shot I took of an old and montrously huge banyon tree in front of a house on the Florida Keys.  The image was framed by the large branches of the banyon at the top, the trunk of the banyon on one side, and a fallen tree on the bottom.  What made the image was a small shovel leaning against the fallen tree and confluence of branches, roots and bigness.  The shooting aspect included all...the printing aspect either deleted the shovel or minimized the branches at the top.  Cropping just wouldn;'t work.  Hence my question.  Happens too frequently.
David

[elliot_n]

That camera has interchangeable focusing screens.  You might be able to make marks on a screen for whatever ratio you wanted, I'm thinking maybe a technical pen with India ink or even a very fine "Sharpie" style solvent pen if that doesn't work.  Maybe a Sakura Pigma Micron 01 or something.

Marking a focusing screen with a pen won't work - the ink leeches.

[bill t.]

I have superimposed an 8x10 ratio on the EG-D focusing screen.  Note how it lines up with pre-existing marks.  I'm sure Canon has allowed for sensor element interference and so on.

It's a matte screen, so you may want to think about that.  They see the world a little differently and aren't quite as as bright, but they're terrific for manual focusing.

[douvidl]

Not to be unappreciative, but could you do one with 13 x 19 aspect?  I shall copy the 8 x 10 and try it.
Thanks, thanks
David

[elliot_n]

Not to be unappreciative, but could you do one with 13 x 19 aspect?

Huh? 13x19 is so close to the aspect ratio of the full frame that viewfinder gridlines would be pointless.

[PeterAit]

I think it would be very limiting to allow a few pre-defined print sizes limit the aspect ratios of your shots. Of course, you may have a practical reason for limiting yourself to those ratios.

[dgberg]

I agree with Peter. I am printmaker first and photographer second which is probably why I never think of this as an issue. I think it would be almost impossible to try and compose and shoot creatively with this on your mind. If you do not have a roll fed printer that's where I would start. You can then print off  a 17" roll with no restrictions. Print,trim and mount to any size.

[Alistair]

Mike and Michael;
  The shooting aspect included all...the printing aspect either deleted the shovel or minimized the branches at the top.  Cropping just wouldn;'t work.  Hence my question.  Happens too frequently.
David

I still don't really think you have a problem. Just reduce the size of the printed output so that all the image fits into you selected paper size window and after printing trim the paper. If the resultant print is too small for your requirements, get it printed on a larger printer. I really do not see why you need to lose part of your image.

[Rick Popham]

... I generally like to print at 11 x 17, 13 x 19 and 17 X 22,  with an occasional 8.5 x 11.  Is there any way I can adjust in camera the shooting aspect so that it matches the printing aspect.  Now I find my self cropping and trying differing print sizes. ...

I'm no whiz at math, but it strikes me that with the paper sizes you mention, there are at least 3 different "printing" aspects.  I'm not sure why you would need to match these paper aspects exactly (most people just print the entire frame and leave some borders, which can be trimmed, or covered with a mat), but you would need to know which of these aspects you were going to use when you took the shot.  It just seems to be an awkward and unnecessary restriction to place on yourself.

[Mike Guilbault]

Mike and Michael;
Mike, would you send me a pic of the scored prism and how did you calculate the dimensions? 
David

Afraid I don't have that camera any more David.  I just used a proportion calculator and scaled the 8x10 aspect down to the size of the focusing screen. It was just the two lines that I spaced as evenly as I could between the left and right sides.  It probably wasn't 100% accurate - but close enough.

But I have to agree with Alistair about reducing the size of the print to keep the aspect for the given image as needed.  I have always shot as close to in-camera as I can, but not afraid to crop if the image warrants it.  When I shot Hasselblad for many years (6x6 film) I often had to crop the square aspect to meet client's needs for 8x10, 5x7, etc., but have always loved the square format.  I will often crop my digital images to square. 

[bill t.]

For the archives.

Have no idea who these guys are, and I have never dealt with them.  But they've got some interesting looking focusing screens.

http://www.brightscreen.com/croplines.html

[Mike Guilbault]

They've been around for quite a while.  Although I've never personally used them, I knew lots of Hasselblad owners that purchased them because they really were quite a bit brighter than the stock Hasselblad screens, especially on the old 500c/m's.  My first Blads were the 503cx which had the better screens in them already so I didn't need to purchase a 3rd party replacement.