The what to do about compact camera print sizes thread

Baldy

We have 4x5.3 prints which fit 4/3rds cameras. Most of the print orders we get from them are from point and shoot camera owners.

We also have 4/3 sizes for 5x7 (5x6.66) and 8x10 (8x10.66).

We'd like to drop 5x6.66 ad 8x10.66 from our catalog. They're so close to 5x7 and 8x10 it makes very little difference with most shots and they don't fit standard frames. Any big objectors?

What do do about 4x5.3? We can:

1. Eliminate them.

or

2. Default to 4x6 always, no matter the camera aspect ratio and let people in the know select 4x5.3 if they want them. Here's what the crop looks like:

http://www.smugmug.com/prints/4xd-prints

(Calling them compact prints is also offensive to the Olympus and Sony crowds.)

What motivates this change? People are getting 4x5.3 and figuring out they don't fit in their albums and asking for exchanges with 4x6. Shutterfly, Snapfish, Kodak, Costco, Walgreens, etc., don't offer them.

Thanks,
Baldy

Art Scott

Eliminate them.................................

Cameron

I've long felt that defaulting to 4x5.3 was strange. I don't know anyone that has ordered a 4x5.3 that has realized it was not a standard/common size. The people that order those likely don't know what sizes are typical and are used to simply handing over their film at the drug store and getting prints back without asking questions.

As you mentioned, lumping the 4/3 ratio originals into the "compact prints" category doesn't mesh with the quality SLR's that are available in those formats and that some professionals are using. My Olympus toting brother will likely chime in here - we've talked frequently about how silly it is to lump his 4/3 images into the "compact prints" category. I bet if you defaulted to 4x6 and didn't offer the 4x5.3, few would notice. Now that the cropping tool has become so easy to use, defaulting to 4x6 is a no-brainer!

bwg

CSwinton wrote:

Now that the cropping tool has become so easy to use, defaulting to 4x6 is a no-brainer!

/me cries happy tears

Allen

Baldy wrote:

...
1. Eliminate them.
..

... and families that order photos will only get the old school 2x3 panoramas
with heads cut off because they won't move the crop and if they do they cut
off feet. The world needs to get up to date with the 3x4, I would guess that
there are many many more P&S's sold then dslr's.

Wish I was just kidding but what percentage of photos on Smug are 2x3 vs 3x4? Maybe only count standard accounts, pros might throw off count.

Just a thought.

NWMtnGuy

I have never been a fan of these odd sizes, and as you mention they don't fit standard photo frames/albums. Most people ordering the prints won't realize that until later.

To go one step further, I always found it confusing that there are separate categories in the shopping cart for "standard camera sizes" and "compact camera sizes". Unless the person doing the ordering is the same person that took the photo, they probably don't have a clue what kind of camera was used, or even that compact cameras have a different aspect ratio. It's just not part of most people's universe.

To give a real world example, I have had members of my own family call and ask whether they should order from the "standard sizes" or "compact camera sizes" category. Keep in mind, these are people who really do know what kind of camera I use, and they are still confused about what it means.

How about organizing the print categories in a completely different way? When most people order prints they are not thinking "I want a standard size" or "I want a compact camera size". They are thinking something like "I want a small photo for my wallet" or "I want a big photo for my living room wall". Why not organize print categories by approximate size range? For example "small prints", "medium prints", "large prints", and "SmugMungous prints". For most people I think it would make more sense and allow them to find the type of print they want with less confusion.

(You probably have a bunch of use test data which proves me completely wrong, but I'm sticking by my suggestion!)

Dale

Allen

I think what blows the cart out is all the different sizes multiplied by the three
finishes. Why not just show the size with a selection for finish?

bwg

Allen wrote:

I think what blows the cart out is all the different sizes multiplied by the three
finishes. Why not just show the size with a selection for finish?

Allen, nice chop :-)

Problem with that approach is where are the prices? People like to know how much something costs before they click on it. There's a very real fear of "what if I click on it and its too expensive" even if undoing it is as simple as another click.

We're working on some things...hang tight.

jfriend

A new way to show sizes?

bigwebguy wrote:

Allen, nice chop :-)

Problem with that approach is where are the prices? People like to know how much something costs before they click on it. There's a very real fear of "what if I click on it and its too expensive" even if undoing it is as simple as another click.

We're working on some things...hang tight.

For people that don't really understand aspect ratios and cropping and which sizes match well for a particular image, I've been wondering about a single screen that helps you choose an appropriate print size and helps the buyer understand which sizes fit the image and which will come close to fitting. This is very rough, but here's a sketch just to show you the general idea:



Each column shows all the sizes that are the same or close to the same aspect ratio (and thus involve the same amount of cropping). Then, you see a preview of how an auto crop would look and you see all the sizes grouped together that have a similar crop.

I don't know exactly where you'd put this in your shopping cart flow, but it could be part of a "pick a size" wizard.

Just thought I'd share the idea...

mbellot

Baldy wrote:

1. Eliminate them.

As CSwinton says, the new crop tool makes the task almost too easy for any other option here.

Maybe something that forces the buyer through the crop tool just to be certain they understand the picture needs attention.

Baldy wrote:

(Calling them compact prints is also offensive to the Olympus and Sony crowds.)

And your point is?

jasonscottphoto

I don't see why it matters so much to pros - we can eliminate them ourselves by pricing them at $0 anyway...

BTW, Snapfish DOES offer different sizes - after you select 4x6 photos it gives you the option to change them all to the smaller size or leave them alone. (With a big disclaimer about what the crop will look like, how the smaller ones won't fit in albums, etc)

(Hmm... at least they did as of a few days ago! I can't seem to get it to do it now that I want a screenshot! )

PBolchover

Unfortunately, the nature of these forums is that you're probably going to get a lot more feedback from pros who shoot in 3:2, rather than point-and-clickers shooting in 4:3. But it's those point-and-clickers who are going to be most confused about cropping photos etc.

My preferred option is to keep the 4x5.33 size, but default to 4x6. Sometimes, when I take a photos, it doesn't crop nicely to 4x6, so I decide to order a full-frame photo. (For precisely this reason, I've switched one of my cameras to shoot in 3x2, even though it won't be as high a quality file.)

I would only advocate deleting the 4x5.33 if the user has the option to have a "no-crop" 4x6 print (i.e. with white at the edges, which the user can then trim if desired).

PS: Photobox also offer the 4x5.33 sizes...

swintonphoto

As a 4/3 pro user, I figure I better chime in on this one. I agree and disagree with some of the things that have been said. First, my brother mentioned the following:

CSwinton wrote:

I've long felt that defaulting to 4x5.3 was strange. I don't know anyone that has ordered a 4x5.3 that has realized it was not a standard/common size. The people that order those likely don't know what sizes are typical and are used to simply handing over their film at the drug store and getting prints back without asking questions.

As you mentioned, lumping the 4/3 ratio originals into the "compact prints" category doesn't mesh with the quality SLR's that are available in those formats and that some professionals are using. My Olympus toting brother will likely chime in here - we've talked frequently about how silly it is to lump his 4/3 images into the "compact prints" category. I bet if you defaulted to 4x6 and didn't offer the 4x5.3, few would notice. Now that the cropping tool has become so easy to use, defaulting to 4x6 is a no-brainer!

I agree with him. 4x5.3 is a very strange size. I have NEVER ordered one of these sizes, and I don't even offer them as options to my clients because albums and frames are usually 4x6 or 4x5. For this reason I offer 4x6 and 4x5. The 4x5 is very close to full frame and usually solves the issues of chopping of heads on 4x6's if it is an issue. But 4x6 is still my most popular size. Make one of those the default.

I also completely agree with Dale:

NWMtnGuy wrote:

I have never been a fan of these odd sizes, and as you mention they don't fit standard photo frames/albums. Most people ordering the prints won't realize that until later.

To go one step further, I always found it confusing that there are separate categories in the shopping cart for "standard camera sizes" and "compact camera sizes". Unless the person doing the ordering is the same person that took the photo, they probably don't have a clue what kind of camera was used, or even that compact cameras have a different aspect ratio. It's just not part of most people's universe.

To give a real world example, I have had members of my own family call and ask whether they should order from the "standard sizes" or "compact camera sizes" category. Keep in mind, these are people who really do know what kind of camera I use, and they are still confused about what it means.

I have had many clients ask similar questions when ordering prints. Why do we need these strange categories? This has always been on of my biggest pet peeves with the smugmug ordering system. I would prefer having them all together. I often have had people not realize there were other print size options because they were in some other category, or they don't understand how to interpret what the categories mean. Every other ordering system I have ever used lumps all print sizes together. I am raising both my arms up to vote for lumping them all together:smo

And lastly:

mbellot wrote:

And your point is?

That stings man.... :cry

Haigh

I´m all for:

Lumping all sizes together (or separating them into size categories rather than aspect ratio categories as sugeste before by NWMtnGuy). Customers do not understand aspect ratios easily.

Shortening the list by dealing with the finish/prices issue diferently.

Giving some visual indication of aspect ratios and cropping needs when selecting sizes (something along the lines of what Jfriend suggested). Would make it a lot easier for customers.

Dealing acordingly (specifically on non pro carts) with warnings about highly incompatible image/print aspect rations as suggested in this post: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=98744

Writing a good help page about issues regarding aspect ratios, print sizes, frame sizes, cropping, etc. and pointing to it from the cart (as a popup so clients don´t leave the cart)

As a last wish (which only partly relates to this): All international customers would LOVE to see sizes in metric rather than in inches, (as we would love to see foreign currency, diferent languages, and local print labs). I personally have to check a conversion table on my desktop with sizes in cm, inches and aspect ratios every time I´m going to order prints anywhere.

As for the UI for all this, I´ll leave it to BigWebGuy and all of the others with great design ideas.