Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Size - Give Me A Break!  
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5490 posts, RR: 51
Posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2995 times:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...?filename=20071213_N529USjcmco.jpg

Ok so my image was 1024x681 and apparently the minimum is x683. Come on now, can we nit pick just a little bit more here??

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2988 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Justin

It's a nice image, just reupload at the minimum size. Make sure you set the crop tool to 3:2 in PS and you should always end up with images that have the correct ratio.

Cheers
Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9607 posts, RR: 69
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2976 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER



Quoting Dazed767 (Thread starter):
Ok so my image was 1024x681 and apparently the minimum is x683.

Actually your image was 1024x668, the copyright bar adds 13 pixels.


User currently offlineFlipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2976 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That is actually really annoying because if you do a straight resize on the image from some nikon cameras (2000x3008) it comes out as 1024x681 they should let that through in my opinion but never mind. Its a really nice shot btw.

Fred


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2829 times:



Quoting Dazed767 (Thread starter):
Ok so my image was 1024x681 and apparently the minimum is x683



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 2):
Actually your image was 1024x668

Well, a friend of mine, Eggert Norddahl, uploads in 1024x667, last time I checked, and he told me that he did that.

I noticed a long time ago that Jerrold Wu (Je89 W.) uploaded in 1024x693 (1024x681). His newest photo is like that, and all his nice pics I've checked in the past two years have been like that.

Note; I'm not trying to accusing anyone, I just noticed this. Yes, Jerrold's last photo was uploaded in late August, and Eggert's photo in the end of September, so I can believe the screeners got more strict since then.

Still, I do not know, and if I did, I wouldn't post this. I have uploaded pics in almost a 2:1 ratio here, so I'm not saying I'm any better with size than any others.  Silly

D


User currently offlineINNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2814 times:



Quoting Aero145 (Reply 4):
1024x693 (1024x681).

What's wrong with that? x683 is the minimum, so x693 is perfectly valid...!?



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just to clarify, anything in between 3:2 and 4:3 is perfectly fine with a minimum of 1000 pixel width

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12399 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2794 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 6):
Just to clarify, anything in between 3:2 and 4:3 is perfectly fine with a minimum of 1000 pixel width

Of course, sometimes it makes perfect artistic sense to crop a photo at a different ratio to the one it was shot at.

Shot at 3:2, cropped to 4:3

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley




Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2783 times:



Quoting INNflight (Reply 5):
What's wrong with that? x683 is the minimum, so x693 is perfectly valid...!?

683 is the minimum, so 681 is under the minimum. The "693" part was *with* the banner.  Smile


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2772 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 3):
1024x681 they should let that through in my opinion but never mind.

And I believe they do but I could be wrong..
The image in question was not 681, it was 668.
Only 13px but the line has to be drawn somewhere!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2771 times:

I think the given limits make perfect sense. So why accept if they are missed by 15 pixels?
If missing by 15 pixels would be acceptable, then why would missing by 18 not be? Or 20? Or 25?

I guess it should be fairly easy to re-crop to 3:2. No need to bitch about nitpicking, imho.


User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2759 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 3):
That is actually really annoying because if you do a straight resize on the image from some nikon cameras (2000x3008) it comes out as 1024x681 they should let that through in my opinion but never mind. Its a really nice shot btw.

All of my 1024 wide shots are 1024x681 (without copyright bar, 693 with) and not a single one has been rejected for size. Canon sensors are slightly taller than Sony sensors (which the vast majority of other DSLRs use, including Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, and Sony themselves).

Fifteen pixels is about a quarter of an inch on most displays. Seems like a minor quibble to me, but I suppose the line is drawn somewhere...



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12399 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dvincent (Reply 11):
All of my 1024 wide shots are 1024x681 (without copyright bar, 693 with) and not a single one has been rejected for size. Canon sensors are slightly taller than Sony sensors (which the vast majority of other DSLRs use, including Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, and Sony themselves).

Regardless of the size of the sensor image, if you crop in 3:2 ratio and resize (with constraints) to 1024 wide, your image will be exactly 683 pixels high. The only way this won't happen is if you're resizing without doing any cropping, in which case, the sensor's ratio will be retained (which may not be exactly 3:2).

1024 / 3 * 2 = 682.666 (which PS rounds up to 683 since you can't have less than a whole pixel!)

[Edited 2007-12-14 08:10:46]


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1664 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2725 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

The line has to be drawn somewhere and I cannot imagine any screener rejecting for a pixel or two out. As pointed out, take the copyright bar off and yours is well under size. We are far more lenient with oldies as mistakes in taking cannot usually be rectified
A pet peeve of mine is people never giving any thought to the composition of the image and the size that best suits the situation. Simply setting the crop tool to a given ratio and never considering any more is the way a lot of people do this. I am loathe to provide examples (they are very easy to find though) but the type of inappropriate size I am thinking of is a straight side-on of an airliner, say an A340 that is long and thin, yet the image is uploaded at 1024 x 768 when it would better fit at 1024 x 683.
My way is to use a freehand crop tool and to crop to suit the image - to compose it. When I re-size I simply make sure that it is within the permitted range.
I am not saying that my way is necessarily the right way, merely saying that the size and composition should be considered and my way is simply one way of doing that.

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2702 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 12):
Regardless of the size of the sensor image, if you crop in 3:2 ratio and resize (with constraints) to 1024 wide, your image will be exactly 683 pixels high. The only way this won't happen is if you're resizing without doing any cropping, in which case, the sensor's ratio will be retained (which may not be exactly 3:2).

I use the crop tool in Adobe Lightroom set at the original aspect ratio of the image.

The point is that it's so close as to be negligible because the sensor is actually slightly wider than "true" 3:2. If I resized to 683 tall, the image would be 1027 pixels wide. You get about three "free" pixels at the same height. The point is that size differences that small are nearly negligible.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12399 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2698 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 14):
I use the crop tool in Adobe Lightroom set at the original aspect ratio of the image.

OK, that makes sense and explains the "odd" size.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11217 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2687 times:

To the screeners and software folks: If I understand correctly, the screener page alerts the screener if the uploaded shot is not within the size guidelines. Could that be ported to our upload confirmation page? I think that could have prevented this minor tiff. (Get it? TIFF? hah.  Wink)


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12399 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2644 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Get it? TIFF? hah.

Don't give up your day job!  smile 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5490 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Sorry I didn't have a chance to go back and look on my old computer as I was installing everything on my new build, so I didn't get to look and see it was 668, my fault. I'll try and keep an eye out so I don't do it again. I've just had so many rejections for minor stuff lately, it gets aggervating. Plus I haven't had much time to go back and re-edit everything again and upload.

I did get feedback from a screener on one rejection, which is always appreciated.

Thx,
Justin


User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2596 times:



Quoting Dazed767 (Reply 18):
I did get feedback from a screener on one rejection, which is always appreciated.

I agree with that even though I was once a screener a long time ago. Things change and keep up the good work guys.  bigthumbsup 

Colin  old 



Good things take Time.
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...
Could Someone Give Me A Short Review? posted Thu Jan 5 2006 10:11:05 by Daren3006
Can Anyone Give Me A Suggestion On Quality? posted Mon Dec 26 2005 00:00:21 by Levg79
Badscan?!? Give Me Your Opinions Pls posted Mon Mar 15 2004 13:10:35 by Spotterboy
Can Anyone Give Me Their Opinion On This Shot? posted Mon Mar 1 2004 00:01:32 by Chris78cpr
Give Me A Opinion posted Fri Feb 21 2003 23:49:30 by Rsmith6621a
Captions That Give Me A Chuckle :) posted Sat Feb 1 2003 21:28:00 by KLAX
Please Give Me Some Comments posted Sat Jul 27 2002 21:22:55 by Bowen0614
Ive Got Some Big Decisions To Make/give Me A Hand? posted Thu Apr 4 2002 19:33:52 by LGW
Come On, Give The Guy A Break posted Wed Nov 3 2004 19:58:46 by Pepef
"Limit File Size To 1 MB Or Less!"? posted Sat Dec 1 2007 23:51:00 by Jawed