Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ideal Upload Size..?  
User currently offlineFlame From Ireland, joined Feb 2001, 21 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2275 times:

Can anyone tell me the ideal upload size ???? X ???? and image size to stand the best chance of gettings pics accepted, Apart from the image quality..please

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineXpfg From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 634 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (9 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2234 times:

The normal size around here is obviously 1024x768. Ideally, this looks great, but the accptance rate is more "competitive" so to speak. If you can manage to get something in bigger with relatively good quality, then the accptance rate gets a little better.

Just depends on what you fancy.

I myself go for the 1024x768 as I see it standard...but that doesn't mean you have to.  Smile


User currently offlineMuchswatch From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 170 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2209 times:

From the upload -FAQ, hope this would help  Smile

How important is scanning and photo quality?
Very important! We only accept the best and a very high percentage of the photos that are uploaded are rejected due to low scan or photo quality. A few pointers: Use a good camera and scanner. Spend time finding the best DPI and other scanner settings to get the final image to look as good as possible. Also get a photo manipulating tool like Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop (or some similar software that came with your scanner) and use the "Sharpen" feature when needed. The most frequent reason a photo is rejected is due to a blurry look. Furthermore the photos need to be bigger than about 1024x768 pixels. We suggest using sizes around 1000 pixels in width. Anything bigger than 1600x1600 will automatically be resized. For portrait format photos we recommend the longer side to be 1024 pixels at least.

Jay Innocent



CapitalOne & Direct Energy Sux
User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2190 times:


1024x768 is not standard aspect ratio for most DSLRs CCD/CMOS chips. Its wider. So learn basic photoshop skills, set the cropping tool to 1024 width and you should end up with something like 680 height. I personally always keep my pics in the same aspect ratio.



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineUa777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

So basically you have 1024x768-1600x1600 space to work. What is acceptable? I have yet to get 1024x768 to work without distorting the photo. Mine will come out to something like 1024x637. Even with cropping I only got 680 like ChrisH stated. Arggg this will bug me but I guess you have to toy with it to make it work. One quick question.

Does size really matter? (So to say  Big grin ) When uploading, where should I shoot for bigger or smaller?

Thanks again for all your help!

UA777222



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2142 times:


Smaller images will show less artifacts (grain, compression etc.).

If you use photoshop, open your image, press C to activate cropping tool. Now drag across the entire image and let go (press F once first to get the image centered if you like). The whole image will be selected and there will be 8 small boxes, one in each corner and one in every middle. Now click and hold a corner box, hold down your shift key and drag. The bounding box will now keep the aspect ratio of the original image, and you can crop as you wish without losing the proper ratio. Once satisfied, press enter to crop. Now do your editing and downsize the pic to 1024x for instance. In image size dialog, make sure "Constrain proportions" is checked.



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

Just a quick question about my cropping tool: When I go to crop in photoshop, the little boxes you talk about do not show up, and the cropped area is seemed to being held in a certain aspect ratio. Do you know how I can fix this. Thanks.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2099 times:


Newark: Are you using the crop tool, or are you using crop from the dropdown menu? In the toolbox is where you have to select the cropping tool (or press C), then you have to click and drag to select the part that will become the final image.Everything outside will be grey. When youve done that you will see the little boxes.

Dont use "crop" from the dropdown menu. Also, depending on PS version, I have CS, you'll see some info on the tool just under the dropdown menus, if theres a certain size/dpi entered there in the boxes you have to clear them to be able to crop freely.

hope Im making sense here =)



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5499 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

My photos usually come out around 1024x(685-720)....depends how much you crop from the top and bottom. 1024x across would be ideal though.

User currently offlineFlame From Ireland, joined Feb 2001, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2048 times:

Thanks guys..I wil have a go, I am presently baffled with the rejections I keep getting, I have had many images published in various magazines and some newspapers which have been rejected here at A.net..

User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2037 times:

Thanks, ChrisH, it works great now.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (9 years 12 months 3 days ago) and read 2027 times:

I have two rules of thumbs:

1. Ratio
2. Size

----

Ratio:

Is it film, digital or digital SLR?
Film and digital SLR tend to use a 3:2 ratio.
i.e. 3 units wide, 2 units high.
Normal Digital tend to used monitor oriented resolutions instead of photo oriented resolutions. so the ratio would be 640:480 = 1024:768 = 4:3
I recommend keeping the ratio of the original shot unless the shot warrants it

This is my only shot which didn't stick to the standard ratio. I would normally recommend against this.... but in this example, I hope you understand why.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Glenn Stewart



Size:

As a screener I must first warn against using shots 1600 wide.
While it's a great size for detail, it automatically reveals flaws that might otherwise go unnoticed in a lower resolution.
Unless your camera equipment and editing workflow are flawless, then expect a lot of rejections.

In my experience with rejections, I would say that more than 50% of the 1600 wide shots get rejected

The size of your shot should be calculated on the ratio (above) and the longest side. Upload FAQ instructs that the longest side must be greater than 1000 BUT less than1600.

Somewhere towards the lower end of the scale is recommended.
I recommend:

For film scans: 1000 to 1024 pixels wide
For non DSLR digitals: 1000 to 1024 pixels wide
For < 4MP DSLR's: 1000 to 1024 pixels wide
For modern DSLR's: 1000 to 1200 pixels wide

Above this, you can take your own risks with rejections.

Take this width, and find the height:

E.g.

Film/DSLR ratio - 3:2

Width of 1000:
Side = (1000/3)*2= 667 (rounded)

Width of 1200:
Side = (1200/3)*2= 800

Digital ratio - 4:3

Width of 1000:
Side = (1000/4)*3= 750

Width of 1024:
Side = (1024/3)*3= 768


Hope this clears up your question.



Regards,

Glenn Stewart



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 975 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2003 times:

Quick PS tip, when cropping you will notice at the top width and height boxes. Put '4 in' in the width and '3 in' in the height box and leave the resolution box blank, then when you drag your crop across the picture it will retain its 4:3 ratio. All you need to do then is resize the width and the height will follow in the correct ratio Big grin

Jid



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (9 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

Better still Jid....

If you put 1200 px and 800 px in the crop boxes, it simply crops to that exact size and maintains your aspect ratio.

This way you get to frame, crop, resize in one step.

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineBell407 From South Africa, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

Hi guys,

I have set my Canon 300D on Medium Sharp image size which equates to about 2048 pixels wide. I make sure the object I am photographing is about 2/3rds the view finder size. During post editing I simply set the crop size to 1600x1200 or 1365x1024 or 1024x768 in order to maximise the object size. Is this the right way to go?

Related to this, I submit images that will always have the 1024x768 ratio so that they fit on the PC screen. I have found before that often pictures submitted by other photographers are at 1024x678 so they never quite fit the screen totally. Why?

Thanks, Marc



"If the wings are moving faster than the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter"
User currently offlineCboyes From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 12 months 3 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

Marc

I don't think setting your image quality to Medium Fine is a good idea, unless you have a low capacity CF card (in which case I would get a larger CF card). Your camera is capable of recording 3072x2048 pixels so why not record all of this information. Use Large Fine or Raw. This ensures you are recording the highest quality image possible. You can then downsize (resample) it to the desired size during post-processing.

Regarding your second question, not everyone uses a screen resolution of 1024x768 pixels. Other choices include 1152x864 and 1280x960 pixels. Trying to size your image so that it fits peoples screens is therefore a futile exercise, unless everyone agrees to use the same screen resolution but I don't see that happening. Some (or many?) people simply maintain the aspect ratio of the original image, which is generally 3:2.

CB


User currently offlineBell407 From South Africa, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1857 times:

CB,

Thanks for the reply.

OK, but if you resample an image (from 3072 to 1600 for eg) it becomes "fuzzy" as the pixels are also resampled. Do you then use "adaptive unsharpen" etc to make the picture clear again? If so, does this not make a poorer quality image than if it had been captured at a lower size without any resampling?

My reasoning, as per previous posting, is that rather take the picture at a size that will require the least amount of resampling so that you do not loose any "information" in the pixels. Then, just use a mask (say 1600x1200) and resize the image that way without any resampling.

Marc




"If the wings are moving faster than the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter"
User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1843 times:


Bell, youve got it all a little backwards. It is _always_ better to start out with the highest resolution / lowest compression possible. Personally I downsize incrementally, it increases quality even more. For instance going from 3000px, 2500px, 2000px, 1500px, final 1100px. I'll sharpen both original size and then sharpen the final size with various settings.

Also, I don't shoot for a.net and computers solely, and I dont like the 4:3 aspect ratio of a computer monitor. I want to keep the picture the way I saw it in the viewfinder. Maintain aspectratio of your original shot and simply crop slightly to center a/c is the way to go imo.



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1805 times:

With each resize, crop, resample.... you will LOSE quality.
Keep it simple!

I perform level/contrast/colour/shadow-highlight alteration prior to rotation, at full res. I then rotate!
After rotation I crop/resize (one step in Photoshop) and perform FocalBlade or USM sharpening last.

Glenn Stewart



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1797 times:


You dont lose quality in every downsize, try it and you will see for yourself =)




what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1691 posts, RR: 61
Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1797 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

I am still struggling with my image processing but am getting better (I hope) so I desperately need some feedback please ! My acceptance rate is still not very good, but improving. My biggest problem seems to be that I am not very good at recognising the onset of jaggies.
Adobe say that the last processing should be the USM and that this should only be done once as the effects are different if you repeat it at different levels. A screener recently gave me a hand, probably pissed off with me, (thank you Peter) and he suggested re-sizing to 1024, then USM 200, 0.3, 0 then 200, 0.2, 0 once or twice. That works for a.net !
What has surprised me is that for USM virtually everyone uses a threshold of 0. If that was the best setting, why have Adobe included it in all of their programmes? (Americans, please note the correct speelling)
With the threshold set at 0 everything becomes a candidate for sharpening, including grain/noise and this is contrary to Adobes recommendation.
For Digital, my 10D I now set it at 2 and for scanned slides at 7. they then stand USM 200, 0.5 or 0.6, 7 without the grain being obtrusive as it was with the threshold at 0
I did use Neat Image but have stopped doing so and have started using Smart Blur, a mere hint to soften some of my old, grainy shots, levels 3,4, 7 and I find that they will stand a touch more USM afterwards. Probably completely wrong but it does seem to work.
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineCboyes From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1752 times:

Marc

It is true that when you downsize you lose quality, but this is no worse than not recording the information at all. In fact, IMHO, not recording the information at all is far worse. You've paid for a 6.3 MB camera but with the Medium Fine setting you're using it as though it were a 2.8 MB camera! If you want to print your images the extra pixels are very useful.

Mick, if you're going to give the Americans a spelling lesson, probably best to spell the word 'spelling' correctly.  Smile

CB

[Edited 2005-01-05 01:29:47]

User currently offlineBell407 From South Africa, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1743 times:

Thanks to everyone for the input on this discussion - much appreciated.

CB,

Will give it a bash at the higher end of the image size and see how things progress from there.

Marc



"If the wings are moving faster than the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Upload Size Help posted Wed Nov 19 2003 09:07:04 by EGBB
Format / Size For Upload posted Fri Oct 13 2006 18:49:23 by LH526
Upload Photo Size Differences? posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:52:12 by Manc
Photo Upload Rejected Due File Size Too Large posted Sat Jan 1 2005 14:47:42 by Aeroyu
Photo Upload Pixel Size posted Sun Feb 1 2004 22:20:43 by Q330
How To Upload Different Size? posted Sat Aug 17 2002 05:54:04 by Ejazz
Upload Problem- Photo Size posted Tue Apr 16 2002 03:50:11 by Airplanenut
Upload Queue Limits Change For New Photographers posted Thu Nov 23 2006 20:10:18 by Administrator
1024x768 Is NOA Size Now? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 13:04:02 by Fiveholer
Motiv/size/editing Rejection posted Thu Nov 2 2006 15:38:14 by AirKas1