DotPhoto Offers New Print Sizes Based on Real Image Dimensions

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115270,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115270,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div>"Digital photos aren't meant to fit on the 3-by-5-inch or 4-by-6-inch photo papers traditionally used for 35mm film prints. Photo-printing Web site DotPhoto.com's solution: Offer prints based instead upon the dimensions of the digital image itself. The company began offering the service this week...DotPhoto's new print size is called 4xD (the D is for digital). An industry standard based on a digital photo's native 1.33 aspect ratio, its resulting prints are 4 by 5.33 inches. Several other sites also offer 4xD prints, including Ulead's IMira.com and Smugmug.com. At least one, Club Photo, has been offering the size for years, according to company vice president Darren Schiff. But many of the major players, including SnapFish, Shutterfly, and Kodak's Ofoto, don't yet offer 4xD or other 1.33 sizes."<br /><br />I think this is a bad idea. A really, really bad idea. Two reasons why: first, the world of photography is based around standards, and that resonates in everything from paper size to frame size. There's a legacy lasting decades there, and trying to come up with a "digital" print size makes no sense. Secondly, digital image sensor sizes are always changing, and unless I've misunderstood something, they seem to be pushing towards the "full frame" 35mm size - which is a good thing.<br /><br />I'm all for choices and letting the market decide, so unless DotPhoto also starts to offer frames with their prints (they might), I predict the quick and spectaculur death of this concept. Even if they offer frames, I still predict this won't take off.

[Suhit Gupta]

Yeah, more than anything, a lack of frames that would fit this new photo size would create the most problems. And it doesn't look like their website offers any frames yet.

Suhit

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Well, you're right on legacy standards being important. Albums, frames, and mounting cards generally standarised towards the usual print sizes. So for most consumers, the lack of a proper way to store and display prints will be quite a problem.

On the topic of aspect ratios, larger formats didn't use 3:2. On medium formats the the common sizes used were 6cmx4.5cm (4:3, incidentally), 6x6, 6x7, and for large formats they usually were 4"x5", 5"x7", and 8"x10". Some print sizes like 8x12 were the result of 35mm's popularity, so this might still take off if it gets popular and recieves enough support. I think there's something similar here as well too!

Digital sensors don't necessary have to be full frame though. So far the APS sized sensors are doing quite well, and there's the new 4/3 concept, which of course has aspect ratios of 4:3. At the end of the day digital is still a very much evolving medium, and I don't think there'll be a standard digital sized sensor soon, because unlike film, the sensor remains in the camera, so there is no need for a standard imager size.

[Doug Johnson]

You don't need to worry about it, though, Jason... Your Digital Rebel shoots in 3:2 just like 35mm film. You'll get 4x6 prints just as if you had been shooting film.

4:3 is much more common, though, and unless you can print in a 4:3 ratio either something is getting cropped or you have blank edges on your photos. There might not be frames for these sizes yet, but 4:3 is probably here to stay since nearly all digital cameras use this ratio. Digital cameras were originally designed for viewing on computer monitors or televisions, which are 4:3, not 3:2. Printing of digital photos came later.

If you want to enforce 3:2 for digital prints, you'd probably also have to change all consumer cameras, and while you're at it, computer monitors and televisions too.

You might not think it's a good idea, but I do, but only because 4:3 has already been established as a standard for cameras. If the industry could go back and do it again, 3:2 would be the better way to go. But as things are, 4:3 dominates the digital camera world, with very few exceptions.

On another note, 4xD would allow panoramic prints stitched together, whereas a 4x6 print does not.

And, 4xD printing allows the photographer to decide how to crop to fit in standard size frames, instead of the printer.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Well, why is 3:2 preferred? Just curious to hear your thoughts.