@jwt99 wrote:I have been using this camera with the same software for over 5 years without any difficulties. It seems unlikely that it would suddenly have such a strange error when it has never had an error like this before. I use RAW files and experiment with changing images and altering sizes and layering in PS without any problems like this one in years. I have had many difficulties using Photoshop because it is a difficult program to master but DigitalPhotoPro has been user friendly and, while I have had a few problems over the years with batch process, I have never had it change the look of an images proportions. I have never had a 16X24 inch painting come out with the same aspect ratio as a 16 X20 painting. Or is it possible that there is a problem with semantics. I don't especially know for certain that I am using the term aspect ratio properly. I mean I have never had a 16 X 24 inch painting look like it had the shorter wider proportion of a 16 X 20 inch painting when I took a photo of it. I have never had the figures in a photo look shorter and wider than they do in a painting. I will now take some photos of people with measurements and see if the camera is misrepresenting them. Thanks for all your input. I really do appreciate being able to get some ideas about what is going on.
Same photo, the difference:
Lock Aspect Ratio was not checked during 'Convert and save' in DPP on the second image
There is nothing wrong with my camera!!!
edit: one other thing that could cause that kind of distortion, would be if your camera was not perpendicular to your artwork when taking the photo.
"I have been using this camera with the same software for over 5 years without any difficulties. It seems unlikely that it would suddenly have such a strange error when it has never had an error like this before. "
I agree. It is not only unlikely, but I will go as far to say that is impossible. I asked before, what has changed, and I ask again. If it worked properly in the past, then it should still work now, not unless some change has been introduced into the process.
---------------------------------------------
"I have never had it change the look of an images proportions. I have never had a 16X24 inch painting come out with the same aspect ratio as a 16 X20 painting."
Your camera neither knows or cares what the subject matter could be. The camera will always produce an image file that will have a predetermined, and fixed, number of pixels XXXX by YYYY. Your camera doesn't care if you're photographing a portrait or a pelican. The camera will produce the same size image, no matter what you take a picture of.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
" I will now take some photos of people with measurements and see if the camera is misrepresenting them. Thanks for all your input. I really do appreciate being able to get some ideas about what is going on."
I hate to say it, but I think it is you who is misinterpreting how the camera works, and how to use your software.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a photo in DPP4 being edited to have a 4:5 aspect ratio. At this point, all that is being done is setting aspect ratio, and cropping the image. The number of pixels is entirely irrelevant at this stage. Notice the red box.
After the photo has been cropped, the Batch Process tool is used to export the photo at a given pixel density. The Batch utility allows you modify what gets written into the metadata of teh output file. In this case, I first changed the DPI to 300. I checked the "Resize" box, and locked the aspect ratio. I specified 4800 pixels in the X direction because I wanted an output that was 16x20 inches, and 16 times 300 equals 4800. Again, notice the red box.
Here are the properties of the output file, as displayed by Windows Explorer.
[EDIT]
The final output image file is just a bit too large to post, 6 MB. I regenerated the file in a way to limit file size to 4MB. However, the posted image still has 4800x6000 resolution.
Hope this helps.
@RobertTheFat wrote:
@TTMartin wrote:
@RobertTheFat wrote:
@TTMartin wrote:"I turned the paintings on their sides and got the expected pixels of 3600X2400 but when I rotated it to upright it changed to( you guessed it) 3888X2592."
3600X2400 and 3888X2592 are the same aspect ratio.
3600 / 2400 = 1.5
3888 / 2592 = 1.5
Same aspect ratio!
The aspect ratio is the same, but the resolution isn't. I wonder if the problem (if any) is that the OP is inadvertently using different magnification settings in the two cases.
3888 X 2592 is the 40D's full resolution.
I suspect this is a computer software / user issue, and not a camera issue.
But 3600 X 2400 isn't. Which suggests that the user is seeing a slightly magnified image in that case. Whether the magnification is due to software (a photo editor) or hardware (a setting on the camera with which he's viewing it) is an implementation detail.
@RobertTheFat wrote:
@TTMartin wrote:
@RobertTheFat wrote:
@TTMartin wrote:"I turned the paintings on their sides and got the expected pixels of 3600X2400 but when I rotated it to upright it changed to( you guessed it) 3888X2592."
3600X2400 and 3888X2592 are the same aspect ratio.
3600 / 2400 = 1.5
3888 / 2592 = 1.5
Same aspect ratio!
The aspect ratio is the same, but the resolution isn't. I wonder if the problem (if any) is that the OP is inadvertently using different magnification settings in the two cases.
3888 X 2592 is the 40D's full resolution.
I suspect this is a computer software / user issue, and not a camera issue.
But 3600 X 2400 isn't. Which suggests that the user is seeing a slightly magnified image in that case. Whether the magnification is due to software (a photo editor) or hardware (a setting on the camera with which he's viewing it) is an implementation detail.
These are the same photo taken of the 16X24 painting horizontal and then rotated in DPP clockwise 90Degrees. It looks slightly wider in her face when vertical as opposed to horizontal. It seems that whether horizontal or vertical the width is slightly exagerrated. The horizontal one looks slightly longer than it should and the vertical one looks slightly wider than it should. I am getting the same 1:1.5 ratio on them both but they don't look the same. If you don't see any difference please let me know because my wife and I are both seeing a clear difference between the horizontal and vertical and between the original painting image and the photos. You have been so kind to persist with what must seem to be user error but I honestly can't imagine what I am doing wrong and I enter these images into shows so it really matters to me that they be correct. Thanks again for your time and kind patience. I apologize profusely if my sentence about the viewer screen on the back of the camera didn't make sense. I don't generally use the DPP program to resize my images. I just convert them to jpeg in DPP and typically resize them in Photoshop but in both I have lock aspect ratio checked.
@jwt99 wrote:
These are the same photo taken of the 16X24 painting horizontal and then rotated in DPP clockwise 90Degrees. It looks slightly wider in her face when vertical as opposed to horizontal. It seems that whether horizontal or vertical the width is slightly exagerrated. The horizontal one looks slightly longer than it should and the vertical one looks slightly wider than it should. I am getting the same 1:1.5 ratio on them both but they don't look the same. If you don't see any difference please let me know because my wife and I are both seeing a clear difference between the horizontal and vertical and between the original painting image and the photos. You have been so kind to persist with what must seem to be user error but I honestly can't imagine what I am doing wrong and I enter these images into shows so it really matters to me that they be correct. Thanks again for your time and kind patience. I apologize profusely if my sentence about the viewer screen on the back of the camera didn't make sense. I don't generally use the DPP program to resize my images. I just convert them to jpeg in DPP and typically resize them in Photoshop but in both I have lock aspect ratio checked.
I'm sorry the two photos have the same aspect ratio.
The only thing that makes it look a little odd to you is you are photographing it at a slight angle on your easel.
The lens needs to be perfectly perpendicular to your subject or it will induce some perspective distortion.
Most people wouldn't notice the difference of that little angle. But, your artists eye is picking it out.
There is nothing wrong with your camera.
Rotated 1 degree and tilted 2 degrees.
