Aspect Ratio.. Time For Change? — Aviation Photography Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Aspect Ratio.. Time For Change?

StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, RR: 48
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2069 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all,
This is something I have raised in other threads but it tends to get buried in the originating topic(rightly so).

Is it perhaps, time for A.net to consider accepting photos that have different aspect ratios to what have been tradiitionally considered correct. I am not saying A.net or the criteria are wrong, just asking for feedback.

*Our subject matter in many cases naturally fits into a wide format.

*The viewers, the general public, are increasingly purchasing widescreen televisions and becoming comfortable with that format.

*Increasingly shots, especially ground shots, are being rejected(or not submitted) because of the continued encroachment of fences etc into the airport environment.

A couple of examples....
Traditional 3x2 e.g. 1024x683 (these examples are 800x533)

Widescreen 16x9 eg 1024x576 (these examples are 800x459)

Just my thoughts, interested in hearing what others think.

Oh.. and before I get flamed for plugging my own shots, at this moment I have no intention of uploading these photographs.

Regards

Chris

If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!

9 replies: All unread, jump to last

Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3144 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2041 times:

For avoiding fences it's good but don't really like this format. I even dislike it for Television.

Georg.

StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

Oh and something I omtted from original post, this should not be seen as a way of avoiding good composition or motiv, just another point of view.

Regards

Chris

If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!

ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

I prefer to use the native format of the sensor/film in my camera. 3:2 is wide enough for me. I dislike the 4:3 ratio. But I agree that if someone was to shoot 6x6 for instance, they should be able to submit photos (without altering their original composition). But hardly anyone does I suppose so. Smile

what seems to be the officer, problem?

Malandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Thread starter):
Is it perhaps, time for A.net to consider accepting photos that have different aspect ratios

A.net have done so in the past and I have quite a few in the database.

For example

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Malcolm Clarke

The ratio in this case is 6 x 3.5 but one problem may be that non standard ratio's don't fit standard print sizes should you wish to offer prints for sale.
I certainly intend to re-upload some of mine at standard ratios with hopefully quality improvements at some future date.

Malcolm.

My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!

Sean377 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1225 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1951 times:

An interesting debate and one that had crossed my mind. Widescreen formats are probably going to be around for a while, certainly in TV, where it is probably here to stay and 4:3 is dead and buried. It's taking a bit longer to catch on in the PC fraternity though, possibly because most PC applications would benefit from more depth than width. But I would welcome the format on this site.

Sean

Flying is the second greatest thrill known to man... Landing is the first!

Javibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

You might want to read this:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072003panasonic_lx1.asp

Wink

"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?

Photopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2441 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1894 times:

To further restrict submissions only to "accepted" aspect ratios does a grave dis-service to aircraft photography.

Images should be cropped for maximum visual impact. Good and knowledgeable cropping is the hallmark of a thinking photographer.

I use a "widescreen" 1440 x 900 pixel laptop as my primary computer. None of the conventional 1024x768 images fill my monitor frame. So I ask you rhetorically, in light of new technology and visual display mediums, just what is now considered "normal"?

Crop for impact. Crop for what is visually appealing. To do less is a disservice to photography.

my dos centavos.

Steve

p.s. These were both shot with a Hasselblad at 6 x 6. If I was told to crop them to "fit" a preconceived norm, I'd simply pull the photos from the DB.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 7):
To further restrict submissions only to "accepted" aspect ratios does a grave dis-service to aircraft photography.

I totally agree and see that photos do sometimes get onto the database outside the 'normal' format.
Square photos rarely work well for aviation photos but they can as photopilot demostrates so admirably with the example on the right.
If rules are applied too rigidly, they stifle creativity.
Rather than such a rigid application of the rules, this should be left to a screeners decision...if it looks right let it on no matter what the format
Mick Bajcar

StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, RR: 48
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

Thanks all for the feedback,

A question for the screening team, would quality submissions in a wider format, 1024x576 or 1200x675 etc be rejected for badsize?

Regards

Chris

If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!

Top Of Page

Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics: