JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I am trying to put together an 8 picture photography portfolio by Thursday for a contest that could win me scholarships. I need to go get some of my negs scanned at a high enough DPI to print them. I am planning on going to a local pro lab to get the scans done.
I can print the scans at any size I want for the contest. I have tried prints at 8x10 before and was quickly disappointed about having to crop because 36x24mm doesn't equal 8x10 inches. Doesn't 8x12 inches equal 36x24mm? Is this the size I should print at?
What DPI should I scan at to print a 35mm neg at 8x12 at 300dpi? Isn't it like 2600dpi?
Once I have the scans, I am going to need to work on them in Photoshop and then have them printed. guess I'll get them scanned to a CD and then bring them home to work on them. After that, will a place like Walgreens print at 8x12?
Thanks
I can print the scans at any size I want for the contest. I have tried prints at 8x10 before and was quickly disappointed about having to crop because 36x24mm doesn't equal 8x10 inches. Doesn't 8x12 inches equal 36x24mm? Is this the size I should print at?
What DPI should I scan at to print a 35mm neg at 8x12 at 300dpi? Isn't it like 2600dpi?
Once I have the scans, I am going to need to work on them in Photoshop and then have them printed. guess I'll get them scanned to a CD and then bring them home to work on them. After that, will a place like Walgreens print at 8x12?
Thanks
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Best of luck!
35mm film is a 3:2 ratio. Hence, 4x6 prints (4x6 = 6x4 = 6/2 x 4/2).
8x12 does indeed fit the 3:2 ratio. Yes, you can get prints made in that size. There are a number of reasons you may not want to.
Good question. I've had reasonable 8x10 prints made from scans at 3200 dpi, but I don't actually know what the minimum would be.
No, they only print at standard sizes. For custom print sizes, you need to use a company like Mpix (my personal favorite).
For that reason, I suggest cropping to 8x10 if you can. You might also note that matting and framing is more expensive with 8x12, and such would be, I presume, necessary for your contest.
If cropping just won't work you can also full-frame crop, that is, crop within the 8x10 (or better, 11x14), using your full-frame scan and leaving white borders of unequal size. This can be matted out and framed in a standard frame - the result does not have to look bad. Asymmetrical matting/framing can give added interest.
cjm
Well-known
I would highly suggest cropping to a standard size like 8x10 if you can. It will be immensely easier to get pre-made matting and frames from a chain photo store. Custom matting and framing is possible but usually takes more time than you have and can get quite expensive.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
6x9 on an 8x10 space is a popular/standard approach to full-frame 35mm film. You can put it in the dead center; putting it higher up by between a half to a whole inch (leaving more empty space below the image than above it) is also popular.
Do you have any idea how other current or past contestants commonly cropped their photos? Maybe you could email one of the contest representatives about this issue.
Do you have any idea how other current or past contestants commonly cropped their photos? Maybe you could email one of the contest representatives about this issue.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I will be matting the images at school. I really dont want to have to crop. But I don't want the image to be too small either.
bmattock
Veteran
Seems like you have a choice to make, then. Sorry! Sometimes it does come down to the lesser of two evils.
Shok
Low Roller
Hint: try adobe's lightroom instead of photoshop. It's geared more towards exposure, brightness, contrast etc, much like a classic darkroom might. Unless you're looking to severely modify the image, then stay with photoshop.
venchka
Veteran
Maybe the place that scans can also print after you have made your adjustments. That way you and they can decide on a finished size before they scan. Personally, I think printing 35mm 9 1/2" long on 8x10 paper and let the width be whatever it is will be fine.
Bigger prints are not always better prints. Some folks think if they print big their less than good photos will look better. Not always true. Last month I was in a room full of Ansel Adams original prints. There was 1 11x14 print. The other 50-70 prints were smaller than 8x10. Some as small as 4x5. All, except the 11x14 print, were in 11x14 mats. Very impressive indeed!
Bigger prints are not always better prints. Some folks think if they print big their less than good photos will look better. Not always true. Last month I was in a room full of Ansel Adams original prints. There was 1 11x14 print. The other 50-70 prints were smaller than 8x10. Some as small as 4x5. All, except the 11x14 print, were in 11x14 mats. Very impressive indeed!
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I went to my local pro-lab and they are scanning to TIFF at 2600dpi which is what I need to get an 8x12 print at 300dpi. They will be ready tomorrow at 4. After I bring the scans home and work on them, I can bring them back and they will print at 8x12 for me. I'm just glad I don't have to crop.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I have Lightroom and Photoshop. I never use Lightroom anymore because it is very limited in what in can do compared to Photoshop. But I do like having archives in Lightroom and how cool everything looks.
tmfabian
I met a man once...
try printing 6x9 on 8x10 paper
8x12 on 11x14 paper
anywho good luck.
8x12 on 11x14 paper
anywho good luck.
venchka
Veteran
Good luck!
Good luck!
8x12?
We try to save him some money. He just won't listen.
At least I was on the right track for scanning and printing in the same place.
Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy...leave Photoshop to the digital folks. They are the ones who like to make oversaturated, bizarre looking graphic illustrations that they like to think are photographs. Kinda kidding-but I have seen it on digital heavy forums.
Anyway, my point being: if you can't get a photograph looking right with Lightroom...never mind. They are your photographs. Have fun!
Good luck with your submissions.
Good luck!
8x12?
We try to save him some money. He just won't listen.
At least I was on the right track for scanning and printing in the same place.Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy...leave Photoshop to the digital folks. They are the ones who like to make oversaturated, bizarre looking graphic illustrations that they like to think are photographs. Kinda kidding-but I have seen it on digital heavy forums.
Anyway, my point being: if you can't get a photograph looking right with Lightroom...never mind. They are your photographs. Have fun!
Good luck with your submissions.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I have the same problem. If I shoot 3:2 I want to print 3:2.
I pay good money for a wide angle lens, I compose in the viewfinder, why should I want to cut off the ends just because 8x12 is (insanely) less available?
venchka
Veteran
Is 6"x9" so terrible?
I must admit, I have a 12"x18" that I hung at the house last Saturday that I really really like.
I must admit, I have a 12"x18" that I hung at the house last Saturday that I really really like.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
Exactly......
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
8x12?
We try to save him some money. He just won't listen.
Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy...leave Photoshop to the digital folks. They are the ones who like to make oversaturated, bizarre looking graphic illustrations that they like to think are photographs. Kinda kidding-but I have seen it on digital heavy forums.
Anyway, my point being: if you can't get a photograph looking right with Lightroom...never mind. They are your photographs. Have fun!
Good luck with your submissions.
I am listening. An 8x12 print only costs 5 bucks so I'm not losing a ton of money. I am going with an 8x12 because I am highly against cropping and because I don't want the pictures to seem too small. Also, I don't have to worry about framing because me and my art teacher will be making 8x12 frames at school. I would have started making them today, but I'm out because of snow!
Photoshop is not just for digital folks. The main reason people don't like Photoshop is because they don't know enough about it. You don't have to leave photoshop with oversaturated, bizarre looking graphic illustrations. But like you said, it is possible to do so.
Heres some people that get 8x12 prints.
1
2
3
4
5
Last edited:
russianRF
Fed 5C User
+1
Non-Photoshop people just don't get it. I remember taking a class and there was one older dude there who just refused to use computers. He'd read through the page of instructions explaining scanning and moan and whine about how much easier it was to do wet-printing. He never bothered to learn how to do it in Photoshop.
He kind of shut up about it after one conversation. He was in the middle of one of his anti-digital rants, this time discussing contact sheets. "Oh I just throw a little light on it in the enlarger and then develop it..." My only response was "I just 'throw' a little scanner on it and then save it. Oh, and that's for full resolution, not contact printing!" A couple of digital-savy girls across the room laughed and that shut him up, at least in that class. Makes you wonder why it took a couple of females to quiet him down; guy-friends of his, myself included, had been trying to explain how digital worked to him all semester...
venchka
Veteran
Yikes!
Yikes!
No anti-digital rant. I just believe in Lightroom as the digital equal of an enlarger and photo paper. If I can't make a decent print with Lightroom then I need to start with a better negative.
Jeremy, never never ever ever send me to a gallery of HDR images without proper warning. I almost lost my lunch.
I wasn't knocking 8x12 prints. Like I said, I just hung a 12x18 in my home. I was trying to save you a few bucks on the print, mat and frame. It all adds up. Trust me, if your photographs are any good, size won't matter.
Yikes!
No anti-digital rant. I just believe in Lightroom as the digital equal of an enlarger and photo paper. If I can't make a decent print with Lightroom then I need to start with a better negative.
Jeremy, never never ever ever send me to a gallery of HDR images without proper warning. I almost lost my lunch.
I wasn't knocking 8x12 prints. Like I said, I just hung a 12x18 in my home. I was trying to save you a few bucks on the print, mat and frame. It all adds up. Trust me, if your photographs are any good, size won't matter.
Last edited:
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
No anti-digital rant. I just believe in Lightroom as the digital equal of an enlarger and photo paper. If I can't make a decent print with Lightroom then I need to start with a better negative.
Jeremy, never never ever ever send me to a gallery of HDR images without proper warning. I almost lost my lunch.
I wasn't knocking 8x12 prints. Like I said, I just hung a 12x18 in my home. I was trying to save you a few bucks on the print, mat and frame. It all adds up. Trust me, if your photographs are any good, size won't matter.
Ha. I was wondering if anyone would say anything about the HDRs. We can all agree to hate those.
venchka
Veteran
Thank goodness. You're learning kid!