[LRflex] Re: Random thoughts on photo processing...



Miha Golobic wrote:


Totally true!
In Europe a 10x14 cm print is quite common (as is 10x15 cm) , it should be 10x13,3 cm to mach the 4:3 ratio.
Used to be 9x13, 13x18, 18x24, etc, well, used to when I started printing with a Durst and Rodenstock.
I shoot with Nikon and do prints occasionally, but Spela`s Canon P&S shots never see the paper - she preferes to watch them on the LCD :-(
This for me is the main, and perhaps the only cause - people don't feel like bothering with paper - sending pixes from, and storing them on, a PC is so convenient .. 
I hardly ever print myself even though I never watch TV ...

Changing the format would only have a marginal effect I think.

Bien amicalement
Phili^^e
Miha
2009/2/25 David Young <dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 

    Fellow Flexers...

    With the Ritz Camera failure, my mind has been brought back to a
    thought which has often bothered me.

    The entire photo processing industry is complaining that digital
    photographers are not printing their photos at their local drug
    stores and 1 hr. labs.

    For years, the industry did very well, processing the  ubiquitous
    4x6" print from a standard 2:3 format, 35mm negative.

    However, in this day and age, I am willing to bet that the vast
    majority of digital cameras are of the 4:3 ratio --- from 4/3rds
    mount dSLRs down to the vast majority point and shoots.  And it's
    the P&S market which provides the bulk of the printing business.

    You'd think, after a decade, that they'd offer a print format
    which handles the 4:3 ratio.  But, they don't.   At my lab, the
    smallest print I can get, in 4:3 ratio is the 6x8" enlargement, at
    triple the price of a regular print.  Rather makes me unwilling to
    "buy 'em by the bag", as McDonalds burgers used to be sold.

    I've often wondered why they don't simply offer a 6x4-1/2" print
    (if the paper used is 6" wide) or, once again, offer the old
    style, 4x5" print, (if the paper roll is 4" wide).  Ok, so the
    print should really be 4x5.2", but most people wouldn't be
    bothered by the missing 1/10th of an inch (0.254 cm), on two of
    the 4 sides!  Heck, most lose more than that in every borderless
    print!  But they do complain having to put their 4:3 image on a
    3:2 format print, because they often have to cut off heads, or
    make other compromises in the composition.

    There is no reason such prints could not be offered within pennies
    of the same price as the 4x6 print and would do much to encourage
    people to get "drug store prints", once again.

    Most labs used to provide 4x5" prints when virtually everything
    was from 35mm film. Eventually, they realized that a 4x6" print
    better suited peoples needs.  All they need to do now, is offer
    the 4x5" print (for P&S & 4/3rds users) alongside the 4x6" one
    (for 35mm and most dSLR users).

    I don't understand why the processing industry continues to fail
    to provide a product to that would meet the majority of people's
    needs, and then continue to complain that people are not buying
    what they don't want!

    Cheers!

    David.

    ---

    David Young,
    Logan Lake, CANADA

    Limited Edition Prints at: www.furnfeather.net
    <http://www.furnfeather.net/>
    Personal Web-site at: www.main.furnfeather.net
    <http://www.main.furnfeather.net/>



    ------
    Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
     http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
    Archives are at:
      http://www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts: