Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / December 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

True life size photo

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Larry - 27 Dec 2005 13:26 GMT
I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of
books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on
how to take a photo so the resulting print image is exactly true life size.
What camera settings do I need, or auxiliary aids, so that when
photographing for instance something like a $20 gold piece, the resulting
print, regardless of paper size, shows the coin exactly the size of the real
one. No doubt I've missed some simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its
advanced mathematics?

Thanks
Matalog - 27 Dec 2005 14:12 GMT
Would it not just be a matter of making sure the object was printed to it's
real-life dimensions?  By resizing the photo while having activated the
rulers in your editing software you could do it.

> I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of
> books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Thanks
Peter Irwin - 27 Dec 2005 14:29 GMT
> I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of
> books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> one. No doubt I've missed some simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its
> advanced mathematics?

The easiest thing to do is to take a picture of a ruler with the lens
set exactly the same way as in the photograph of the coin and then
enlarge/scale the photograph to match. You could visually match the
coin, but matching the ruler is easier because the ruler will tell
you exactly how much you need to correct from your first attempt.

In the days in which people made life-size images on film to
be contact printed, the method was to set the film plane to
object distance at four times the actual (measured) focal
length of the lens. (This method assumes that the nodal
space of the lens is negligible at full size copying).

While you could theoretically set an exact reduction to
the digital sensor by measurement, this is not likely
to be very practical because you would need to know:
1) the actual focal length of your lens
2) either the position of the nodes of the lens
  or the amount of nodal space.
3) the exact location of the sensor/film plane
  (sometimes marked by a line through a circle)

There are excellent tables of optical formulas
in any edition of the British Journal of Photography
Almanac or in any book on photographic optics.

In practice, taking a picture of a ruler and then
adjusting is likely to be your best option.

Peter.
Signature

pirwin@ktb.net

Bob Salomon - 27 Dec 2005 14:30 GMT
> I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of
> books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Thanks

To make an image at 1:1 (life size) all that you need to do is make the
image on the film/chip exactly the same size as the actual image. That
means that if your subject is 5" long you can not make a 1:1 image in
camera on any camera using film or a chip that is not at least 5" long.

If your camera has too small a capture medium then you would have to
output it so that the image of the object was exactly the same length as
the original.

As for what you will need that is camera specific. On a view camera you
would only need a lens/lensboard and film/chip of the proper size.

On a 35mm type camera or a medium format camera you would also need a
bellows or extension tube set. You could us a close up lens in some
cases but not if you want the best results.

To shoot 1:1 you need a lens extension 2x the focal length of the lens.

Signature

To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 27 Dec 2005 15:56 GMT
> To make an image at 1:1 (life size) all that you need to do is make the
> image on the film/chip exactly the same size as the actual image. That
> means that if your subject is 5" long you can not make a 1:1 image in
> camera on any camera using film or a chip that is not at least 5" long.

This may be confusing to the original poster.  The post asked about
life size on the print, not necessarily in the camera.
Peter Irwin gave a good response.
Stewy - 27 Dec 2005 15:21 GMT
> I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of
> books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> one. No doubt I've missed some simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its
> advanced mathematics?

If you want to focus 1:1 i.e. to photograph a 24x36mm area on a full
frame 35mm camera, then bellows or extension tubes were usually needed,
however if the lens was pretty good at closest focus then it was a
simple matter of placing the object on the enlarger table and setting
the enlarger to expose at that magnification.

Modern lenses for digital cameras will focus much closer than the old
SLRs - My Fuji S7000 will focus down to about 1cm meaning I could print
a 1c or English penny on paper measuring 33x25cm (bigger than A4) at
300dpi - about 15-20x full size.

Printing actual size, simply resize the canvas to the actual size of the
coin.

Advanced mathematic are unnecessary, just accuracy in measuring the
subject and calculating canvas size.

One way to easily record a coin at full-size is to use a flatbed scanner
- years ago, coin dealers used to photocopy their coins for ads etc.
David Dyer-Bennet - 27 Dec 2005 17:34 GMT
> I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read
> lots of books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> coin exactly the size of the real one. No doubt I've missed some
> simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its advanced mathematics?

There are infinitely many ways to do it.  You get to adjust the size
at two steps, once when you take the photo, and again when you make
the print.  So essentially anything you choose at the first step you
can compensate for at the second step (sometimes with consequences) to
get the result you want.

The easiest thing to do is probably to include a ruler in the photo
(in a location where you can crop it out).  Then adjust size in
Photoshop to make an inch on the ruler exactly 300 pixels, and then
print telling the printer to print 300 DPI.  
Signature

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Fred McKenzie - 27 Dec 2005 19:23 GMT
> I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of
> books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> one. No doubt I've missed some simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its
> advanced mathematics?

Larry-

Its math, but not very advanced.  Peter Irwin's suggestion to use a ruler,
is a good idea regardless.

To start, a digital photo itself doesn't have a size, it has pixels.  Your
screen displays so many pixels per inch, resulting in an object having a
certain size on the screen.

Then when you print, the printer has so many pixels per inch, resulting in
an object having a certain size on the printed page that may be different
from that shown on the screen.

With bit-image graphics programs, you might need to do the math.  With
"Draw" programs that use vector-graphics, there is usually a grid on the
screen that indicates the size of an object, including the printed size.
In other words, the program works with the printer driver to ensure the
final image is the specified size.

Examples of such vector graphics programs are Claris Draw, Adobe
Illustrator and the Draw functions of ClarisWorks and AppleWorks.

Fred
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 27 Dec 2005 21:33 GMT
> To start, a digital photo itself doesn't have a size, it has pixels.

I've seen this often stated, but do not agree.  What is the logic?

In the camera, pixels certainly have a size.  The sensor coupled
to a lens (a camera) has each pixel subtending an angular size.
The lens focuses a spot in the field of view covering that
angle onto the pixel.  For example, a 3 meter spot on
a distant mountain can be focused onto a pixel.  Thus there
are 3 sizes:

   1) size on the object being photographed,
   2) angular size, and
   3) pixel size on the sensor.

In astronomy, the angular size is referred to as plate scale,
for example in arc-seconds per pixel.  NASA spacecraft images
of planets refer to plate scale as meters (or kilometers) per
pixel on the planet.

I think where the confusion comes from is the resulting number
derived from the pixel has no size as it is just a number in a
computer (although one could argue that the electrons in memory
occupy space, so even the number has a size in the computer,
or a magnetic area on a disk).

Roger
Bart van der Wolf - 29 Dec 2005 00:52 GMT
>> To start, a digital photo itself doesn't have a size, it has
>> pixels.
>
> I've seen this often stated, but do not agree.  What is the logic?

My personal take on it, a pixel only has a physical size when coupled
to a tangible medium. A (e.g. EOS-20D) 3504 x 2336 pixel image has no
physical size unless coupled to either the sensor array or sensel size
(~< sensel pitch), or (magnified) output. Output pixel size can be
anything, depending on magnification or interpolation. Original
subject size can be anything, depending on magnification factor (focal
length and subject distance).

> In the camera, pixels certainly have a size.  The sensor coupled
> to a lens (a camera) has each pixel subtending an angular size.

I prefer referring to sensor elements (or sensels) when talking about
a sensor array and it's size. It also is closer to ISO terminology,
and tends to avoid a lot of confusion. You are obviously correct in
coupling a physical size, or alternatively an angle of subtended
vision (sensel Field of View, FoV) which varies by lens (focal
length), to a sensel (which has physical medium dimensions).

> Thus there are 3 sizes:
>
>    1) size on the object being photographed,

Not really a sensel characteristic, but more an optical
(magnification) parameter, IMO.

>    2) angular size, and

Varies with focal length, and since it varies IMO not too useful in
general photography. Granted, it's vastly useful in photogrammetry and
astronomical photography, because it simplifies subject size
calculations.

>    3) pixel size on the sensor.

IMHO the only useful metric for resolution and output characteristics,
but only approximately derivable from sensel pitch (sensor array
dimension divided by no. of sensels).

Bart
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 29 Dec 2005 18:14 GMT
>>> To start, a digital photo itself doesn't have a size, it has pixels.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> size can be anything, depending on magnification factor (focal length
> and subject distance).

Isn't this like saying a map has no scale if there is not a
scale bar attached to the map?  Even if the map has no scale bar,
it still has scale, just missing information.  Same with an
image: the fact that someone may give you a digital file
with no information doesn't mean that the sensor size disappears.
It simply means you weren't given all the information.  That's like
giving the distance between two cities as 36.  36 what?
kilometers?  Miles? Hours of driving?  But that doesn't mean
there is no distance between the cities.

>>    3) pixel size on the sensor.
>
> IMHO the only useful metric for resolution and output characteristics,
> but only approximately derivable from sensel pitch (sensor array
> dimension divided by no. of sensels).

Yeah, I wish the manufacturers would publish the fill factor of
the sensor in each camera.  But again, this is just missing
information and doesn't negate that fact that it exists.

So, the bottom line is, while there are real physical dimensions,
measured a number of ways, us consumers usually have some
pieces of the information hidden from us.

Roger
Ilya Zakharevich - 31 Dec 2005 11:00 GMT
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> computer (although one could argue that the electrons in memory
> occupy space, so even the number has a size in the computer,
> or a magnetic area on a disk).

Right; and a recently read image has larger size (and weight!) than
one not read for a long time - it occuplies space both on disk and in
cache.

Best wishes for the new year,
Ilya
John A. Stovall - 31 Dec 2005 13:06 GMT
>I've taken photos for many years, owned dozens of cameras, and read lots of
>books, but have always wondered about, and never found a good explanation on
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>one. No doubt I've missed some simple explanation someplace. Or maybe its
>advanced mathematics?

A 1:1 macro.

*************************************
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However" replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
 A sense of obligation."
                  Stephen Crane
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.