1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

aspect ratio question

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by BAKatz, Sep 27, 2011.

  1. BAKatz

    BAKatz Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 9, 2010
    Riverdale, NY
    If I set my aspect ratio on my EPL-1 to 6:6, ( essentially 1:1 ), how do I print my photo ? I am assuming it will be 6x6, much like a 120 format print. Or is that an incorrect assumption? thanks.
  2. s0nus

    s0nus Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 13, 2010
    I'm no expert in printing, but essentially you're limited by:
    • The size of the paper, or more correctly, the paper size limitations of your printer
    • Your threshold for acceptable image quality.

    The largest I can print is A4, and the largest I really print is 8x10. I've heard that you can easily go 20 inches or larger in one of the dimensions and still retain quality.

    Keep in mind, that depending on the camera, the implementation of the 1:1 aspect ratio may be different. On my EPL1, for example, 1:1 is essentially a crop of the native 4:3. It's my understanding that the new generation Pannys have a multi-aspect sensor, so you're not losing pixels in a crop. Generally speaking, more pixels translates to greater quality for larger prints.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    6:6 is exactly the same as 1:1 - it's just square. So, print it square :smile:
    • Like Like x 1
  4. BAKatz

    BAKatz Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 9, 2010
    Riverdale, NY
    how? most places are only set up to do 4:3 . I don't want to print 8x10 and cut it.( I guess I could ). The only other option I guess is to use someone who processes medium format film.

    Thanks for the help.
  5. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    The oversized sensor in the GH1/GH2 gives native 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 - ie. those aspect ratios are full resolution and maintain the same field of view. However, 1:1 is a crop of the 4:3 frame, so if you shoot square you will lose pixels.

    Unless you can find somewhere that prints square, cutting is probably your only option...
  6. DDBazooka

    DDBazooka Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 3, 2011
    Well 6:6 is a square, so you can either find a place that will print that ratio (doesn't seem common though) or you're going to have to cut them.

    Off topic but, is there a disadvantage in using a different aspect ratio from 4:3?
  7. retnull

    retnull Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 12, 2010
    I like to leave a lot of white around my images. Using Lightroom or Photoshop, shots done in 1:1 are placed on a 5x7 or 8x10 canvas. The "Polaroid look" works well sometimes: placing the image with an equal-sized border around the top, left, and right borders, with a big white space below. Try it.
  8. Blue Cube Imaging

    Blue Cube Imaging Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 29, 2010
    Southern Oregon, USA
    Where are you located?

    The majority of camera stores and advanced labs should be able to print "standard" sized square prints. Most will off 5x5", 8x8", 10x10" and possibly 11x11".

    If you're in the USA I can do all of those sizes plus 12x12", 16x16", 20x20", 24x24" and 30x30" for you. Drop me a line if you have any questions.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Not true. You can also squish the long ends of the print, or you can stretch the short ends out. You have lots of other options.

  10. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    I recommend you print it yourself. My personal experience is that high end photo printers equal or better commercial printing. I print via DTP programs which allow me the option to print the image at a size I desire. I use multiple borders which not only enhance the framing but also expand or contract to fill in the edges (black) of cropped images.

  11. BAKatz

    BAKatz Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 9, 2010
    Riverdale, NY
    Sorry, didn't mean to open a can of worms. I was really wondering if using 6:6 would give me an image similar to 120 film. Usually you use 1:1 if the image you are trying to get has alot of extraneous stuff on the sides or edges. Kind of like cropping before the fact. I could process a 5x7 print and cut it to 5x5. I think the pixel loss is inconsequential, since I want a 6x6 print. I have places in NY that process 120, so I'll use them. Thanks for all the help.
  12. jlabate

    jlabate Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 22, 2010
    With those GH's you do lose pixels with 3:2 and 16:9. And 16:9 loses more than 1:1

    GH2 Specs:
    • 4608 x 3456 (4:3) = 15,925,248
    • 4752 x 3168 (3:2) = 15,054,336
    • 4976 x 2800 (16:9) = 698,368
    • 3456 x 3456 (1:1) = 11,943,936

  13. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    But then it's not square, which kinda defeats the point... Or am I missing something?
  14. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I was just kidding. :)  You are correct, that the only way to make a paper square is to cut it square. Even the printer cuts it off their roll...
  15. jambaj0e

    jambaj0e Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 31, 2010
    I'm actually interested in the square format. How do you guys think about it being used in fashion photography or editorial? Is it a good look or just a gimmick?
  16. Markb

    Markb Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 9, 2011
    Kent, UK
    In the days when the Rolleiflex was king of the photo journalist cameras most of their output was cropped for press use.

    No, it won't look much like 120 film without the magic of Silver Efex or similar software.

    Digital file processed in SEP (Tri-x filter)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Beach Path by Mark Bowerman, on Flickr

    Real 120 Tri-x shot very close by

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Stairway to... by Mark Bowerman, on Flickr
    • Like Like x 1
  18. I don't think it is a "gimmick" anymore than the 4:3 aspect ratio is a gimmick or the 35mm frame is a "gimmick". Yes, originally I think the square format was probably intended as a way to shoot verticals without having to turn the camera, especially with a waist level finder, all you had to do was shoot carefully and then crop the image in the darkroom to either a horizntal of vertical.
    I like the square format for personal preferences. There is no reason why a layout on a webpage or magazine page can't use square photos. Heavens to betsy! The original Kodak shot circular images!
  19. BAKatz

    BAKatz Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 9, 2010
    Riverdale, NY
    maybe food fasion or things like hand models. Just my opinion though.
  20. BAKatz

    BAKatz Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 9, 2010
    Riverdale, NY
    This really came about because I feel alot of B/W photos benefit from a square image. with my EPL-1 I can use the art filter and aspect ratio to get my desired effect. I just can't print 6x6 at home. I haven't invested in a photo printer yet. I can do 5x7, but I'm not thrilled with the quality. so I guess my options are to use my guy who does my 120 film or just cut down larger prints.

    I could of course just go out with my holga or diana and have the film processed. Where did I put those Ilford rolls ?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.