actual size of photos

I just measured a 5 x 7 photo and the actual dimensions are 5 x 6 7/8

Is there a standard that specifies that 5 x 7 photos as this size or do
I have a slightly cropped photo?

Thanks.

CNN_news wrote:
: I just measured a 5 x 7 photo and the actual dimensions are 5 x 6 7/8

: Is there a standard that specifies that 5 x 7 photos as this size or do
: I have a slightly cropped photo?

: Thanks.

Is this image resized from a larger image ir is it cropped out of a larger
image? If it is a resized image it is possible that the
multiplication/division factor to change the original data to the "5"
side, when applied to the original data on the "7" side resulted in a 6
7/8 dimension. Or if it is cropped out of a larger image it is possible
that some math error or round off error resulted in a slight change in
this dimension.

I have also noticed in personal experience that some cropping operations
are not totally precise and repeted sizing and cropping may have some
accuracy errors of a couple pixels either way. So if your image is 5x7 at
72 ppi, an error of one pixel in the crop could make a significant
difference.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

What do you mean by "5 x 7 photo". Do you mean that you measured a
file in photo shop or does it mean that you measured a paper print that
came from a photo processor? If you measured a print, is it framed?

Thanks.

I thought that 5 x 7 was a 'name' of a photo size and not the actual
size. I measured a couple of other 5 x 7's and they were really 5
inches by 7 inches so I think the smaller one I had was just bad
cutting.

New to photography and trying to learn the terms.

CNN_news wrote:
I thought that 5 x 7 was a 'name' of a photo size and not the actual
size. I measured a couple of other 5 x 7's and they were really 5
inches by 7 inches so I think the smaller one I had was just bad
cutting.

I also realized once that my 3x5" prints were not actually 3x5". Like
you, I just figured that 3x5" was just an approximation, and that the
actual size was something slightly different. Like a 2x4 wood stud,
which is actually 1.5x3.5"[*].

I don't see how it the difference could arise from "sloppy cutting"
since I assume they're all machine cut automatically now. I guess the
machines could be miscalibrated.

I also have another thought, maybe they cut it to a different size to
match the aspect ratio to the original source. 5x7 aspect ratio = 1.4.
5x6.875 aspect ratio = 1.375. If your digital camera aspect ratio is
1.33, then 5x6.785 would be closer to the source.
[*] http://ask.yahoo.com/20001010.html

Jim Townsend wrote:
CNN_news wrote:


I just measured a 5 x 7 photo and the actual dimensions are 5 x 6 7/8

Is there a standard that specifies that 5 x 7 photos as this size or do
I have a slightly cropped photo?


If it's an actual print you got from a photo finisher, then it's
probably sloppy cutting.

The print paper comes on a long roll and is cut by the 'all in one'
developer'. If the adjustment is out slightly, then you don't get
the full 7 inches.

This might be deliberate.



The physical dimensions of my 4x6 prints are a very consistent 4.0" x 6.0".

What annoys me is the cropping. The image files I submit always measure
1200x1800 pixels. The image that is actually printed is always about 2%
smaller in each dimension.

It's easy to see why they do it. Imagine that an enlarger is projecting
an image that's just a little bit larger than the actual size of the
paper. Then when the paper is cut the mechanical precision of the cutter
can be a bit off and not print a white margin on one edge.

Most people would never miss the cropped bit until they try to combine
prints to make panoramas. Then things tend to get very ugly at the seams.

The solution is to add margins to the original image file. They get
mangled instead of the actual image. The photographer is left with the
task of trimming the unwanted bits.

Cheers,
Angus

"Bucky"
I don't see how it the difference could arise from "sloppy cutting"
since I assume they're all machine cut automatically now. I guess the
machines could be miscalibrated.

The paper comes on a roll so one dimension will be true from the factory.
The other is "set" for length so it can easily be off.