p.2 #1 · Converting 3.2 aspect ratio to 4;3 with horizontal bands.
I was just referring to those times when an actual slide was intended to be the end use. Sure, I had the lab make prints from slides (Cibachrome, iirc) that included cropping instructions. But as a slide shooter ... I would compose my best shot in camera for my KNOWN output. If I didn't have a known output ... I used the whole frame.
I suspect that is where the OP started from ... only to find out the output to be different after the fact.
p.2 #2 · Converting 3.2 aspect ratio to 4;3 with horizontal bands.
It seem very strange that any op using a digital camera would confind all their images to a single 3:2 landscape aspect ratio and never even shoot in portrait orientation, stitch or crop. You would think if they wanted to be a slide shooter they would get good camera with a 16:9 1920x1080 capture option an shoot HDTV slideshows and include a CD or DVD in their book. One must appreciate Murphy if there can be the will be one in this world of ours..
p.2 #3 · Converting 3.2 aspect ratio to 4;3 with horizontal bands.
It's going to look odd if the white borders are printed at minimum dot.
I hear what Rusty is saying. For years I shot thousands of slides that were primarily intended for good old slide lectures: "How we climbed Rum Doodle in only twelve weeks"; "On holiday with the Soviet fishing fleet in the Baltic in winter" etc. so getting the framing right in camera was very important, as it is in cinematography (well, it's essential, and perfectly natural).
p.2 #4 · Converting 3.2 aspect ratio to 4;3 with horizontal bands.
Yeah, I remember the limitations of slide shows. It was before I knew of the concept of post processing. And for lectures and travelogs, it is not fine art prints, therefore another world and different approaches that make my earlier comments not relevant.
