Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Great Picture... But Image Size?  
User currently offlineVasanthd From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4396 times:

Hello All,
I happened to see this great classic pose of BA 744. But I did notice that the Image ratio is nearly 1:1 and a bit different when compared to the regular A.net standard of 3:2 or 4:3. Is this a newly acceptable size ratio?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Spencer Wilmot



Regards,
Vasanth

[Edited 2006-01-12 20:23:30]


One Lucky shot deserves another!
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12623 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4384 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hmm interesting. I've certainly had shots rejected in the past that were close to square.


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2767 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4337 times:

I think this photo has an excellent and effective crop. Who cares what the "mathmatical" ratio actually is. For me the viewer of this photo, the question is... "Does the crop work and provide visual appeal?" And the answer is a resounding YES!

Steve


User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2737 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4319 times:

Quoting Vasanthd (Thread starter):
different when compared to the regular A.net standard of 3:2 or 4:3

Where does it say about a standard aspect ratio?



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineVasanthd From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 2):
Does the crop work and provide visual appeal

      But just curious to get it confirmed if image size standard can be waived for special circumstances?

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 3):
standard aspect ratio?



Quote:
Keep the format at or near 3:2 aspect ratio, or larger if using a 4:3 ratio camera.

Quoted from here http://www.airliners.net/faq/

--Vas

[Edited 2006-01-12 20:56:01]


One Lucky shot deserves another!
User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4283 times:

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 2):
I think this photo has an excellent and effective crop.

 checkmark 

Very nice Spencer.



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineMartin21 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2001, 347 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4218 times:

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 3):
Where does it say about a standard aspect ratio?

Here:

Photo upload - Frequently asked questions

4. How important is scanning and photo quality?

"Keep the format at or near 3:2 aspect ratio, or larger if using a 4:3 ratio camera."

Martin21



At 30.000 feet, the sun always shines !
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12623 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4189 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I wasn't disputing that it's a very effective shot, just pointing out that more often than not, shots of that aspect ratio will be rejected.

All I want is consistency from the screeners.

[thread locking alert - whoop, whoop]



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineVasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4118 times:

Quotted from - http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#size

Quote:

SIZE
The size of your photo(s) was too small or they had a very unusual width/height ratio....The width/height ratio should be in the region of 3:2 or 4:3.

Quotted from the standard rejection mail...

Quote:
Another reason might be that your photo has a very unusual size
like for example square dimensions or a site ratio way below 3:2 or
above 4:3


I guess standards are lowered in unique situations like this. Certainly a great picture!! No offenses to anyone...   

--Vas

[Edited 2006-01-13 06:07:23]


One Lucky shot deserves another!
User currently offlineKnighty From Australia, joined Dec 2004, 207 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4104 times:

I think it's excellent that this shot was accepeted to the database - well done to the screeners involved and well done to Spencer for making such a great shot!


Ian Knight - Proud Canon shooter!
User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4099 times:

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 2):
Who cares what the "mathmatical" ratio actually is.

Who cares?
Apparently a.net as stated in the links above.


User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

"
The size of your photo(s) was too small or they had a very unusual width/height ratio. Uploaded images should be at least 1000 pixels wide and at least 667 pixels high for landscape format photos, or 1000 pixels high (the longer side) for portrait format photos. The width/height ratio should be in the region of 3:2 or 4:3. "

Source: http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#size

VasanthD, You seems to be right.

[Edited 2006-01-13 06:54:58]

User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4073 times:

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 3):
Where does it say about a standard aspect ratio?

It said it on a rejection I had a couple months ago because the photo was 10 pixels too narrow. I didn't bother appealing or reuploading.



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineWillo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4031 times:

Quoting VasanthD (Reply 8):
I guess standards are lowered in unique situations like this

Where is the lowering of standards? Change of size does not equal lowering of standard.

I find it rather pathetic when a picture or the rules are questioned "because I had a similar shot that wasn't accepted". Why can't it be accepted that one size doesn't fit all and there will always be instances when a picture merits inclusion, regardless of whether it conforms "to the rules" or not.


User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1671 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4020 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

I find it gratifying that such an excellent shot is allowed to break the rules. There is very little reason to reject a square...ish subject, probably more so to reject a long thin image.
The screeners who accepted it did a great job of using their heads to push the boundaries of the rules. The image works, works very well, and had it not done so you can bet your bottom dollar it would have been rejected.
As to that image lowering standards....what nonsense - it raises them !

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3972 times:

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 14):
The screeners who accepted it did a great job of using their heads to push the boundaries of the rules. The image works, works very well, and had it not done so you can bet your bottom dollar it would have been rejected.
As to that image lowering standards....what nonsense - it raises them !

Nobody doubts that the specific picture in initial thread is simply great. The problem is about a rule that must be respected at all time, established by this same website [not by its members], and to be applied at all time. As the Roman aphorism says: "Lex dura lex".


User currently offlineLennymuir From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 434 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3949 times:

The FAQ also says:
....A few pointers:.....Anything bigger than 1600x1600 will automatically be resized....

So what is the problem with a post-processed (square) 1600x1600 picture?
It doesn't say that aspect ratio is wrong, does it?
Repeat: ....A few pointers:.....

I've got lots of old slides taken on 126 Kodak slide film from the 1970's   
I haven't bothered to process any of them for this website yet.   
Will they be barred for violating an aspect ratio?   ... I doubt it.

Gerry




....BTW: I like the picture Spencer!...

[Edited 2006-01-13 14:46:13]

User currently offlineMartin21 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2001, 347 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

Quoting Lennymuir (Reply 16):
So what is the problem with a post-processed (square) 1600x1600 picture?
It doesn't say that aspect ratio is wrong, does it?

I think that what the mean is for landscape or portrait mode 1600 pixels.
And if you read further in the same paragraph you can read:

Quoting FAQ photo upload:
Keep the format at or near 3:2 aspect ratio, or larger if using a 4:3 ratio camera.

martin21



At 30.000 feet, the sun always shines !
User currently offlineVasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3926 times:

I tried to upload a 1800x1800 picture...and this is the error I get...

Quote:

Unsuccessful upload
Too large photo
The file you uploaded was too large, it was 1800 x 1800 pixels and had a filesize of 58044 bytes. Try to keep your photos smaller than 1600 x 1600 pixels and limit filesize to 1MB (1048576 bytes).

Around 1200 pixels in width is the ideal. If you keep it that size your photo will not be resized and will be uploaded with full quality.

Please press the back button on your web browser to upload a new photo.

So no automatic resizing. Maybe A.net states 1600x1600 as a reference for us not to exceed 1600px on either side.


Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 14):
it raises them

Standards I meant was the acceptance standard...not the Image Standard. I still regard the Image as a beautiful capture but just need a clarification in accepting a 1:1 image in certain circumstances....

 whiteflag 
--Vas



One Lucky shot deserves another!
User currently offlineWillo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting VasanthD (Reply 18):
I tried to upload a 1800x1800 picture

Why so big? Very few people run their monitor at such high resolution and scrolling is a real pain. Are you future proofing your shot for when screens are cinema size Smile


User currently offlineVasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3897 times:

Quoting Willo (Reply 19):
Why so big?



Quoting Lennymuir (Reply 16):
Anything bigger than 1600x1600 will automatically be resized

Nah...Just wanted to test if A.net has a photo resize algorithm if image size exceeds 1600px ...Pratically the test failed  Smile

I believe right now the max resolution of displays are 1920x1200 costing around $900 bux...

meanwhile check this comparsion...


 cheerful  Somebody buy me a present...  cheerful 

--Vas



One Lucky shot deserves another!
User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3841 times:

Quoting VasanthD (Reply 20):
Somebody buy me a present...

You deserve it!


User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2767 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

A couple of thoughts on image ratio.

First off, my monitor is 1440 x 900. So that is my reality with my "widescreen" monitor, fast becoming much more popular in computer circles.

I often shoot 6 x 6 cm (2-1/4" x 2-1/4") with a Hasseblad. That's another "normal" ratio for me.

It does indeed seem odd to shoot a nice big tranny and not be allowed to use the whole image area, doesn't it?

my dos centavos.
Steve


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...
3x Platinum For Michael Carter + A Great Picture! posted Sun Apr 16 2006 02:35:01 by Clickhappy
Great Site But Could Be Better? posted Mon Jan 16 2006 15:20:19 by Pepef
Great Picture...not The A380...! posted Sat Nov 12 2005 01:50:26 by Vasanthd
Image Size Questions posted Thu Apr 14 2005 01:54:32 by APFPilot1985
Great Shot...but... posted Thu Mar 24 2005 17:42:50 by JetTrader
Great Picture, Denis! posted Sat Feb 26 2005 14:49:36 by Condor
Great Picture! posted Mon Feb 7 2005 14:26:54 by Willo
Great Picture! posted Mon Jan 31 2005 04:20:03 by September11
Problem With Image Size posted Fri Oct 15 2004 15:48:56 by Malandan
Image Size posted Sun Jul 18 2004 22:59:58 by Fightingdingo