Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Print sizing question  (Read 3250 times)

GregShapps

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
    • http://www.shappsphotography.com
Print sizing question
« on: October 24, 2013, 01:45:20 pm »

I have a couple of questions.

If you are selling lets say a 16x20 print someone orders thru your website - do you think the buyer is expecting to receive a print that is actually a full bleed 16x20 or one that is maybe 12x18 on a 16x20 sheet of paper so there is white space around?   Is the 12x18 on 16x20 really considered to be a 16x20 print or just a 12x18 print with lots of white space?   Or would you just print a full 16x20 on a 17x22 and shipping that out?

Hopefully that all made sense.

Thanks,
Greg
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1797
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2013, 01:49:28 pm »

I would want you to be very specific on the exact print size, the size of the borders, and the paper size. So, if it's 12x18-inch image area on 16x20 paper, just say so. That to me is very different from a "16x20 print."
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/

Justan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1928
    • Justan-Elk.com
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2013, 01:51:55 pm »

When i sell custom prints i specify xx border or borderless. It’s important to spell out the details to avoid messed up expectations due to miscommunication.

Gary Damaskos

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2013, 02:42:12 pm »

I agree with what everyone is saying: be very specific.
I make 16x20 that are 15.75x19.75 for mounting without mattes to fit flush on mount material, and then other times for mattes at 16x20 and yet other times 15x19 for mattes with white paper showing between image and matte. I am sure you see the only solution is specificness.
good luck...
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2013, 02:44:34 pm »

If I ordered a large print and received a small print on a large piece of paper, I'd be very cross.

Jeremy
Logged

GregShapps

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
    • http://www.shappsphotography.com
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2013, 03:36:17 pm »

Thanks for the responses.   I agree with everything mentioned on the specifics.   I am just trying to figure out the best way to print a 5d2 file that was composed as to be a full frame image in camera on a 16x20 with is obviously a way different proportion.   
Logged

Justan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1928
    • Justan-Elk.com
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2013, 03:52:36 pm »

Contact the buyer and explain the issue and ask them what they would like. They'll love it.

Sal Baker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2013, 05:40:31 pm »

Thanks for the responses.   I agree with everything mentioned on the specifics.   I am just trying to figure out the best way to print a 5d2 file that was composed as to be a full frame image in camera on a 16x20 with is obviously a way different proportion.   
You really only have two choices.  Crop the image or, if the image permits and you're a wiz with PhotoShop, use the full frame and paint in more image on two sides. 

I have a 5D2 and usually try to frame my shots knowing some of the image will need to be cropped for "standard" size frames/matts.

Sal
Logged

hugowolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1001
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2013, 08:01:23 pm »

.... "standard" size frames/matts.

Framing is an unfortunately non-standard process. dSLRs are 3:2, frames seem to cater to an image ratio related to the 19th century larger format plate glass sizes, and matting and other supplies come in fractions of the ‘standard’ 40 x 32 inch sheet.

There are few industries that have such a lag and have survived as long.

Brian A
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1797
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2013, 08:41:02 am »

I regularly print 16x24 inches from 3:2 ratio cameras. It's a nice print size -- big enough to be dramatic but I can still print it on my Epson 3800 :). I use cut sheets of 17x25 inch paper, available from several manufacturers.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses. https://www.instagram.com/wakeforestphoto/

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2013, 09:42:02 am »

The problem here is that you are thinking in "Standard" sizes which no one should be doing anymore.
Forget standard sizes of 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, etc.
The image tells you what size it needs to be. Either you shoot for the composition of the image you were trying to get, or shoot so  that all of your images can be cropped to fit those outdated sizes.
The main reason people try to make their images fit to those sizes  is that they are cheap and just want to go to wally world or somewhere and buy the cheapest frame they can buy.

Stop degrading your images like that just so you or your customer can save a few bucks on  the frame or the mat.
If your work can't handle the extra cost of doing it right, then you might want to rethink what you are doing with a camera.
You'd be amazed how much people are willing to pay if the piece looks right and not crammed into a standard frame.

...and yes, I'm amazed the mass producing framing industry still insists on making frames to fit photo sizes that no one shoots.
I'm always having to show my customers how the image they have just won't fit into a "standard" frame and what would have to be cut off to make it fit.
My favorite response is.. well, can't you just run a strip of mat board along the short sides?

To add my answer to the op's question about size.. Better quality poster catalogs will tell you the image size AND the paper size.  Always tell the customer the actual size of the image. They couldn't care less what size paper it is printed on.
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1021
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2013, 10:38:12 am »

When I sell a 20x30 canvas, it's 20x30. When I sell a print, I will say "paper size 20x30. Image size will vary". If I print a 16x24 image on 20x30 paper, it's still a 20x30. Long before digital, an 8x10 was the paper size. The image is whatever size the artist wanted it to to be.
Logged

BarbaraArmstrong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 288
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2013, 05:07:21 pm »

A 16x20 inch image is not a 20x30 inch print.  The print is the area that is printed.  I'm also going to add that framers I am familiar with appreciate a good margin of paper around the image to be displayed, as it helps in keeping the displayed work flat behind the mat. But that doesn't "enlarge" the stated size of the print itself.  --Barbara
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2013, 05:17:55 pm »

A 16x20 inch image is not a 20x30 inch print.  The print is the area that is printed.

You're right Barbara, but unfortunately galleries today adopt the nomenclature according to nemophoto - (including Sotheby's and Christie's).

When I sell a 20x30 canvas, it's 20x30.  If I print a 16x24 image on 20x30 paper, it's still a 20x30. Long before digital, an 8x10 was the paper size. The image is whatever size the artist wanted it to to be.
Logged

BarbaraArmstrong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 288
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2013, 07:34:10 pm »

I don't think that helps us position photography in the fine art field.  It makes us look like charlatans. --Barbara
Logged

jferrari

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 484
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2013, 09:14:15 pm »

I'm in complete agreement with Barbara (and others) on this one. Just because Sotheby's and Christie's still cling to an antiquated standard doesn't mean the rest of the planet shouldn't evolve. If my clients want a print that is 16 by 20 then that's the size I give them, regardless of the size of the paper/canvas I printed it on.
Logged
Nothing changes until something changes.

rgs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 603
    • Richard Smith Photography
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2013, 09:49:30 pm »

List your sizes by the length of the image's longest size and make sure your customer understands that the shorter side may vary with the photograph's content. Don't list "16x20 print". Instead list "20 print" preceded or followed by a short explanation of aspect ratio.
Logged

Mike Guilbault

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1040
    • Mike Guilbault Photography
Re: Print sizing question
« Reply #17 on: October 26, 2013, 10:21:02 pm »

List your sizes by the length of the image's longest size and make sure your customer understands that the shorter side may vary with the photograph's content. Don't list "16x20 print". Instead list "20 print" preceded or followed by a short explanation of aspect ratio.

I used to do that and it worked quite well.  For some reason I went back to 2-sided dimensions, but I'm thinking of going back to longest side only again.  Would simplify the price list immensely!
Logged
Mike Guilbault
Pages: [1]   Go Up