KLM772ER From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, RR: 19 Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1425 times:
Did you get any other rejection reasons, or were they rejected just for size?
Reading the latest rejection threads, I find it is getting a bit strange now a days...
I ve never heard that it might be a problem by two or three pixels..
thats what the definition says:
Quote: You will see that the width/height ratio should be in the region of 3:2 or 4:3
So I would understand it the same.. should be in the region of 3:2 or 4:3 but doesn't have to be exactly 3:2 or 4:3...
Maybe a screeners comment would help in this case!
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1416 times:
Quoting DerekF (Thread starter): Have these honestly been rejected by being too small by 1 pixel. Does it matter?
Please judge the photo only by the rejection reasons as acceptance criteria. The reason 'size' has clearly told us what size and ratio the image should be like.
Quote: Landscape photos:
The first number is the longer side (horizontal) * second number is the shorter side (vertical one) in a 3:2 ratio and third (last) number is the shorter (vertical) side in a 4:3 ratio. Note that these numbers do not include the Airliners.net copyright banner which is added during upload, and is 12 pixels high. This would then add 12 pixels to the shorter (vertical) size.
1000 * 667 -> 750
1024 * 683 -> 768
...
For your rejected shots, they should be least 695 (683 + 12) pixels high. But just like you said, they are just 688, 689, and 689 respectively. What's why the 'size' rejection was given. In my opinion, all of them are not being small by 1 pixel.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
Quoting DerekF (Thread starter): I think I need to stop this airliners.net nonsense and get a life.
You and a few thousand others Derek! Hello again.
Well this seems to be an example where you have transgressed very slightly, though in a manner which you feel may not be tightly defined enough. If you look at the 'size' rule it makes it clear the dimensions below which a photo is unacceptable - i.e. in landscape format it must be at least 667 pixels deep (plus 12 for the copyright banner = 679). In that bit of the rule it also talks about being at least 1000 pixels wide.
This is where the language comes in (one of my favourite subjects!) - it then talks about "acceptable" sizes in terms of ratios, and that generally these are "in the region" of 3:2 to 4:3. As you chose 1024 for your width, the height of your shots brings them just a tad below the 3:2 aspect ratio. To be at the minimum 3:2 you need 1024 x 695, including the banner.
We are talking a very small number of pixels here. Some may say it makes no difference. But your rejection suggests the screener believes a 3:2 aspect ratio is a 'minimum', in the same way that it is clear that 1000 and 667 are clear minima. If you wanted to be pedantic you could argue that the rule could be written differently to remove any ambiguity.
DerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1401 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 3): They are in fact a full 7 pixels too short,
Wow that much. I guess I am lucky.
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 4): Please judge the photo only by the rejection reasons as acceptance criteria. The reason 'size' has clearly told us what size and ratio the image should be like.
I'm sorry I don't understand. The rejection page says "in the region of". This should be changed to say " no less than"
I would suggest 7pixels in 700 (1%) is "in the region of"
If they should be at least 695 pixels high can you explain many other photos (not just mine) at 690 pixels have been accepted?
BrianW999 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 310 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
Why not just set your editor to crop to 3 : 2 or 4 : 3 aspect ratio ?
I use the 3 : 2 ratio because it fits an A4 page perfectly for printing and is also the ratio that my Nikon D80 shoots in. Setting your crop to one of the above will negate any size rejections.
For information the following are the sizes to set ( the short measurement in 3:2 aspect is rounded up to the next decimal point).....
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11363 posts, RR: 50 Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1381 times:
I am totally missing something here. Forget the banner, it has nothing to do with the size of the uploaded shot as processed by the photographer.
At 3:2 ratio, a shot that's 1024 wide, should be 683 high. This is exactly the size I upload all my shots (apart from the very first few slide scans I did). I have never had a rejection for size (on a.net anyway!)
Derek's rejected shots are a few pixels taller than the correct, exact 3:2 ratio. However, since the upload page says "In the region of..." I don't see what's wrong.
Quoting Psych (Reply 6): As you chose 1024 for your width, the height of your shots brings them just a tad below the 3:2 aspect ratio.
His 1024 wide shots are 688 and 689 high, just over the exact 3:2 ratio (which would be 683).
DerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1376 times:
Thanks for the replies.
I think my point is this:-
- I have had 1024x689 rejected and 1024x690 accepted (including banner) Is this the limit of "in the region of"?
I appreciate the optimum size is 1024x695 including banner
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 9): I am totally missing something here.
Slightly . My sizes include the 12pixel banner along the bottom. So my 1024x689 is uploaded as 1024x677, 6 pixels short of the magical 683 (695 with banner) barrier.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1327 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 9): His 1024 wide shots are 688 and 689 high, just over the exact 3:2 ratio (which would be 683)
Steve - Derek's dimensions included the banner.
Let's cut to the chase here - forget about the banner, as this just adds 12 pixels to the dimensions referred to in the Rejection Criteria and reiterated in Brian's post above.
The criterion as written now is not explicit that anything less than 3:2 will be an automatic rejection. That is certainly implied by the use of the word 'acceptable' as I described above. Maybe this can be easily remedied with a brief rewrite. I would assume that Derek's accepted shot at 1024 x 677 was processed because the screener in question did not think that such a tiny size issue was worth quibbling about - certainly your eye won't spot it. Maybe that, together with the way the criterion is written, lulled him into a false sense of security. In these cases above the screener(s) applied what they considered to be the rule to the letter and thus, I guess in their mind, fairly.
For what it's worth, my understanding is that A.net requires us to upload at an aspect ratio anywhere between a 3:2 size at its most 'landscape' and 4:3 at its most 'square' format - if that makes sense - with the lower pixel limits as described in various posts above.
The above link gives you the full details on the size criterion on A.net.
Quoting DerekF (Reply 7): I would suggest 7pixels in 700 (1%) is "in the region of"
Right, but with the current standards there's no room for terms like "in the region of" or "almost"; it either IS or it ISN'T.
Please, don't get me wrong, I do think that it's just a minor issue for which Derek's shots have been rejected but the size rules are clearly written and I believe they are among the easiest to follow. If Derek's shots had been accepted I'm pretty sure we'd soon have a thread about screeners being inconsistent cause they accept uncorrectly sized photos.
A lose-lose situation for the screeners.
Apart from the size your photos look pretty much ok, so just clue those few pixels back to the photo and you'll be fine.
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 5): Then the 'in the region of ' bit should be changed. Two minutes' work, but will probably take two years.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 20 Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1269 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 6): If you wanted to be pedantic you could argue that the rule could be written differently to remove any ambiguity.
Hi Paul,
There's nothing pedantic about that I think. As much as I like a.net and respect the a.net team, if anything is pedantic it is having photo acceptance criteria and rules that are not properly defined, even on issues where this is perfectly possible, such as size (I accept that this is not possible on all issues).
I feel there's quite a coherent, faithfully-adhered-to set of rules in the heads of the screeners, but they're often poorly defined on the site's pages. Try the 'Photo Upload FAQ' - it probably hasn't been updated in this century.
As a photographer you'll only learn the true rules of this game if you stay in the game long enough, which is probably why newbies often accuse the site of favouritism.
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 12): The Illustrated guide is already up-to-date!
Yes, Thierry, to be honest, I think your guide would be of more value if it was set up as a 'how to upload to a.net' guide, clarifying the difficult-to-find, vague and unwritten rules. I think that's more constructive than trying to explain why a picture might have been rejected. Just my opinion, of course.
Respectfully,
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
So what if your camera uses a native aspect ratio of 16:9, like the Panasonic LX2, or you are using a medium format camera that shoots 4:5 or even square format? The bias towards 35mm slide film format is staggering.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1244 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 13): Yes, Thierry, to be honest, I think your guide would be of more value if it was set up as a 'how to upload to a.net' guide, clarifying the difficult-to-find, vague and unwritten rules.
Actually that is what it's starting to become; it wasn't meant to be an upload guide at the beginning but if you read through it you'll find that I added more and more hints and tips to help uploaders with all the unclear stuff. So the progress from a simple rejection explanation guide to an uploading guide as long since begun. Sadly, the feedback from the screeners but also and especially from you the uploaders is pretty low lately.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1130 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
By putting up another update to the IGRR I noticed a mistake in the original size rejection text; it states for portrait photos that:
"The first number is the shorter side (horizontal) * second number is the longer side (vertical one) in a 3:2 ratio and third (last) number is the longer (vertical) side in a 4:3 ratio."
whereas it actually means that:
The second number in the shown table is actually the maximum size of the shorter side (horizontal one) corresponding to the respective vertical side.
This could lead to some confusion among uploaders.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2006, 615 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3771 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, 
His 1024 wide shots are 688 and 689 high, just over the exact 3:2 ratio (which would be 683).
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
