-2

I have a group photograph (which I cannot post here). When I use pixlr.com to crop with 5 by 4 aspect ratio, it does not get all the people in the photograph.

How to get all people in the photograph? I wish to create 10" x 8" photograph, and then place in standard 10" by 8" frame.

mattdm
  • 143,140
  • 52
  • 417
  • 741
Rhonda
  • 97
  • 1
  • 2
  • 1
    When you say "unable", do you mean "it does not work" or do you mean "people are cut off when I do that"? – mattdm Aug 08 '16 at 18:02
  • @mattdm can't get all the people in the photograph. – MikeW Aug 08 '16 at 18:40
  • @mattdm I was given a photograph to make into 10" by 8" (or any popular US framing size). When I try to make photograph with this proportion the people get cut off. – Rhonda Aug 08 '16 at 19:58
  • What is the aspect ratio of your original? – mattdm Aug 08 '16 at 19:59

3 Answers3

3

The easiest way to do it is to allow enough space on both ends of the photo when you take the shot. Most cameras take photos that are either 3:2 (1.5x as wide as they are tall) or 4:3 (1.33x as wide as they are tall). A 10x8 print is 5:4 or only 1.25x as wide as it is tall.

Once you've already taken the shot with essential elements, in this case people, too close to the outer edges it gets a lot more difficult. There are a few ways you can go:

  • If the background above your subjects or the foreground in front of them is uniform you may be able to use an application such as Photoshop to clone some of that background and/or foreground and expand the size of the photo in that direction.
  • You can use an application such as Photoshop to cut the people in your photo out of the background and place them in a background you have created with the desired 10x8 aspect ratio.
  • You can place an 8x12 print in an 11x14 frame with a matte that is 1 1/2" on the top and bottom and 1" on the ends. Or you could use a 16x20 frame with a uniform 4" matte on each of the edges.
  • You can find 8x12 frames. They're less common than 8x10 frames but they do exist and are fairly easy to find from online sellers. A search at Amazon.com for 8x12 frame currently returns 2,912 results. Some are 8x12 frames, others are larger frames with mattes supplied to allow mounting an 8x12 print.

Most large printing houses offer 8x12 prints at about the same price as an 8x10 print. Many local printers who print from roll paper also offer 8x12 as an 8x12 uses the same width paper roll as an 8x10 would.

If you print your own photos it gets a little harder. Inkjet paper pre-cut to 8x12 is not offered by most inkjet paper manufacturers. If your printer can print on 9" wide paper then you can use 9x13 paper which is available. Just make sure the printer is set to print at 8x12 in the center and then trim the 1/2" margins on each side.

Michael C
  • 175,039
  • 10
  • 209
  • 561
1

You can do this with padding. If cropping removes part of the photo you need to leave, you can instead get the same shape (that is, aspect ratio) by adding to the other edges.

You can use physical matting (creating a separate frame-with-the-frame) to put your original-aspect-ratio image into an 8×10" frame. Or, I have some nice borderless glass "frames" where the image appears to float in the center; with this style, it doesn't matter so much if the image isn't the same aspect ratio.

Or, you can alter the image digitally to add a border (possibly only on the sides that need to be extended). Depending on your needs, this border can be flat color (white, black, or a key color from the image), or you could possibly clone something (perhaps using "smart fill") from the image. This will work particularly well if the background and edges are simple, but will be difficult otherwise.

I think it's better to use matting (or as Michael Clark suggests, use a frame in the correct aspect ratio initially), because a digital border can look ugly. Or (also as Michael says) better yet to shoot the image in a way that allows the desired crop in the first place — but of course that's not always possible.

mattdm
  • 143,140
  • 52
  • 417
  • 741
1

Most modern cameras sport a 3:2 aspect ratio. This ratio expresses that the length of the image is 1.5X the height (3÷2=1.5). after doing this simple division problem you can easily figure out what size enlargements to make and still keep the same aspect ratio. This is important because, as you have discovered, mishmash results in a forfeiture of some portion of the image (cropping).

Some help with the math: If the desired finished print will have an 8” height then the length must be 8 X 1.5 = 12 inches. Desired length to be 10 inches then we divide by 1.5 thus 10 ÷ 1.5 = 6.6 inches

Chosen height to be 4 inches than 4 X 1.5 = 6 inch length

Elected height to be 5 inches then 5 X 1.5 = 7.5 inch length

The now popular 10 inch by 8 picture size is an irregular format, a mismatch for the modern camera. This size branches from a popular paper size made in Holland. They were the first to automate paper making. This predated the camera. The Dutch standardized manufacture of a large paper sheet that was then cut to make drawing and writing paper. The 10 x 8 inch size yielded the most sellable sheets with a lowered waste percentage.

Alan Marcus
  • 39,160
  • 3
  • 48
  • 91
  • Do you have a citation for the tidbit about the origin of 8×10" paper? I'd love to add it to What historic reasons are there for common aspect ratios? – mattdm Aug 08 '16 at 19:56
  • Most DSLRs are 3:2 ratio. Most other modern cameras are 4:3. – vclaw Aug 08 '16 at 20:01
  • @ mattdm Sorry I cannot find a reference to the Dutch and the 8 x 10 paper size. I do recall, not verbatim, “The Dutch automated paper making standardizing the width of the paper web to the length of the average workman’s outstretched arms. This is cut into sheets of various sizes. The 8 x 10 inch size was convenient and economical as this size produced paper sheets with lower waste. The 8 x 10 inch size became popular in England for drawing paper. – Alan Marcus Aug 08 '16 at 21:18