Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
1600 Resolution  
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1993 times:

Hi All,

I have been attacking the queue tonight and can't help but post another thread about another pet peeve of mine.

1600 wide resolution shots

A little hint from me to any of you who upload 1600 wide shots:
They better be perfect...

It's only common sense that the more you blow up an image, the more flaws it will reveal. For example, who in their right mind would blow up a portrait to 1600 wide?

1600 wide shots generally make it very easy for me as a screener to see problems like softness, grain and other quality issues that would otherwise go unnoticed if the shot was uploaded at 1280 or 1024 wide.

Statistics aren't stored about rejection rates per resolution, but from my own experience the rejection rate is higher for 1600 wide shots.

I'll note however that some photographers out there take very high quality shots that work well at 1600 wide. A decent quality shot will be accepted at 1600.

Kindest Regards,

Glenn Stewart


Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1976 times:

I have a few recent 1600 ones in the database, but I generally upload at 1024 or 1200.

1600 is good for shots taken in oblique light that highlights small details.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

I'm really liking 1200 uploads. For some reason I just think they are nice size, call me strange....

But I do agree that 1600x uploads should be avoided unless the quality still stands

Regards
Colin  Smile


User currently offlineLHRsunriser From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 399 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

Yeh I agree,

Large shots are annoying if they aren't bang ong perfect. 1200x800 is always good not to small not too big :P

Cheers Dom - Capital Aviation Photography



Getting back into it
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3296 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1958 times:

Quoting Glennstewart (Thread starter):
Statistics aren't stored about rejection rates per resolution, but from my own experience the rejection rate is higher for 1600 wide shots.

Thanks for the info. Considering I'm 3 for 3 at 1600, I'm glad to know I managed to beat the apparent odds  Smile



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 4):
I'm 3 for 3 at 1600, I'm glad to know I managed to beat the apparent odds

You must be nailing the shots then  Smile
Keep up the good work.

Quoting LHRsunriser (Reply 3):
1200x800 is always good not to small not too big

It's my recommended resolution for current day DSLR's. It also maintains the 3:2 ratio as well.

Quoting Linco22 (Reply 2):
'm really liking 1200 uploads. For some reason I just think they are nice size, call me strange....

Not strange at all! The other recommended 3:2 res is 1024x683

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineGBOAB From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 366 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Glenn
I think the King of the 1600 wide photo has to be Mike Moores
just some of his recent additions:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Moores



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Moores



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Moores



Ian



Concorde's gone but not forgotten
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

And just a point of interest, Mike doesn't use a "current day DSLR"!!


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineRomeoKC10FE From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1834 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 7):
And just a point of interest, Mike doesn't use a "current day DSLR"!!

Hey watch it!! I shoot with a D60 also.  wink 


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1822 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoKC10FE (Reply 8):
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 7):
And just a point of interest, Mike doesn't use a "current day DSLR"!!

Hey watch it!! I shoot with a D60 also.

That is great, the point I was trying to make you don't need to upgrade every few months to the latest model just to keep up with A.net.
I am sure you & Mike will continue to get fine results with your D60s for a long time to come as I will with my 10D and sometimes D30

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

Mike's shots are a fine example of the quality needed to upload at 1600.

Also I'd personally like to thank Glenn for his help offered to everyone of late. It's been a great help and hopefully we have all gained something from it. Just another step to hopefully save the screening team's time.

Martin


User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1756 times:

Quoting RomeoKC10FE (Reply 8):
Hey watch it!! I shoot with a D60 also.

The D60 paved the way for recent DSLR's by setting a very high benchmark. I would certainly consider it modern enough to compete against most of the DSLR's we use.

This is where Professional lenses probably come in. I'd say you can get more from a professional lens and a D60 than you can from a poor quality lens and a 30D. Haven't got benchmarks to prove my theory, but the DSLR's certainly show up faults in lenses.

Glenn

[Edited 2006-05-06 14:30:09]


Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1752 times:

For me its 1200 for photo's i think are spot on. Or down to 1024 if in my eyes there borderline in any aspect apart from motiv......

Seems to work for me.  Smile



Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineChristeljs From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 533 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

Quoting Linco22 (Reply 2):
For some reason I just think they are nice size, call me strange....

Now, why on earth would we call you strange, Colin?  bouncy 



Christel Sinsen Photography
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1709 times:

Very good thread. I am been wondering when I can try my hand at 1600. I may try 1200 first and see how it goes. Thanks for all the info guys!

User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 41
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

Quoting Glennstewart (Thread starter):
They better be perfect...

No kidding Glenn. Even though I have quite a few 1600 wides in the database, this atrocity was rejected twice today for quality.

http://drew.charliej.net/albums/user...cs/10002/AUBER_SEA_FXHeavy%7E0.jpg

I thought it might have a chance, but even the appeal was rejected without comment or explaination.

We get it. Don't try it.

I'll remain at 1280 wide at airliners.net from this day forward.

Drew

[Edited 2006-05-07 01:49:36]


I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1653 times:

Hi Glenn,

Are you telling the right audience? When I first started uploading 1600 wide was a religion because of what I read in the upload guidelines. Is it "us lot" or inexperienced photographers who are causing you problems?

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1549 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 16):
Is it "us lot" or inexperienced photographers who are causing you problems?

Hi Tim,

It's hard to gauge what percentage of the site are pro's from way back, and what percentage are newbies cutting their teeth with first purchased DSLR's.

All I can say is that most of the 1600 shots I come across just don't cut the mustard. There are many photographers though which have perfected 1600 uploads - and typically they've been uploading to this site for years and using high end lenses and cameras.

If can you master 1600, and your rejection rate is low - then by all means, continue uploading at this res. But this message is more of a suggestion to the majority who would have more success at 1200  Smile

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1547 times:

Quoting Christeljs (Reply 13):
Now, why on earth would we call you strange, Colin?

There are many reasons, but we wont go there  Wink


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...
Camera Resolution posted Fri Sep 8 2006 06:30:21 by AussieAviator
Resolution P/S posted Sat Aug 26 2006 15:55:37 by Dale
Higher Resolution Displays...A Pain? posted Thu Feb 9 2006 05:24:09 by VasanthD
Help With Cropping And Resolution. posted Sun Nov 13 2005 22:34:33 by Franackerpan
The Importance Of Resolution... posted Tue Sep 27 2005 20:09:51 by Flyfisher1976
Photo Dimensions, Resolution, And Usage Help. posted Thu Aug 18 2005 04:10:42 by QantasA332
Uploading At 1600 Pixels.. posted Thu Jun 30 2005 14:21:18 by Pilot kaz
Advice On Screen Resolution Please posted Sun Apr 24 2005 22:33:05 by DC10Tim
Recommended Screen Resolution For Uploading Photos posted Mon Mar 28 2005 00:55:57 by PaveLowDriver
What Screen Resolution Do You Use? posted Thu Dec 9 2004 14:35:20 by Tin67