Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photos With 16:9 Aspect Ratio  
User currently offlineasuspine From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 64 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7162 times:

Aspect ratios of display screens have evolved over the years and 16:9 is now common. Would A.net allow upload of photos with 16:9 aspect ratio as well? Your thoughts  Smile

[Edited 2011-01-09 09:25:33]


HFK
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2910 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7145 times:

Quoting asuspine (Thread starter):
Would A.net allow upload of photos with 16:9 aspect ratio as well?

At the moment, no. Photos need to be 4:3 or 3:2. 3:2 has been the adopted aspect ratio for cameras (35mm format) and printing for decades and for me, is about right. I use a 16:10 wide screen (not by choice I'll add!) and photos at 3:2 look fine. Of course they don't fill the screen, but then a 3:2 on a 4:3 screen doen't either. I think things are fine as they are.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinecondor981 From Costa Rica, joined Mar 2010, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7047 times:

I think the 16:9 ratio makes some compositions look very good. Other databases accept them. Anyway, change is always hard to implement.

Personally, I like it.

Cheers.


User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2731 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6997 times:

Quoting condor981 (Reply 2):
Anyway, change is always hard to implement.
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 1):
I think things are fine as they are.

Ya, and once upon a time there was a factory that made the world's best buggy whips. Times change and A.net should change with those times.

TWO of my cameras shoot in a 16:9 format right in the camera as it's native format. One of my other cameras shoots 1:1 and still the luddites think that the world has to be 3:2. Film is going the way of the dodo bird. Kodachrome is GONE!!!! The world moves forward and A.net should/must move forward lest it slowly become irrelevant. That's my opinion at least.


User currently offlineNicolasRubio From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6940 times:

Although I agree on 16:9 as an aspect ratio which should be accepted, I also think that there are SO MANY things to change in A.Net before that, that I wouldn't bother with aspect ratios...


Gripped 7D + Sigma 10-20mm + 17-40L + 50mm f/1.8 II + 70-200mm f/4L IS + EF 400mm f/5.6L + 580EX II
User currently offlineiamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6936 times:

Artistically, there's definitely an argument for 16:9, or any other aspect ratio (1:1, 5:7, 5:4, 2:1, etc).

However, as I understand things, many policies here aren't a matter of artistic value, but the less glamorous documentary nature of spotting. I think there's a small handful of much wider photos in the database accepted before the 4:3 and 3:2 ratios were settled on, but when it comes down to the basic screening criteria (sharpness, contrast, motive, etc), there's not a close connection between the criteria and the aspect ratio.

Anyways, many 16:9 monitors exceed the resolution of most photos on here (even my netbook is wider than the typical 1024 pixel shots, and my desktop is bigger than the 1600 pixel versions some users upload), so matching monitors isn't a concern of mine. I'm more interested in the fact that a 16:9 shot is a different composition than a 4:3 shot, but even that I don't feel too much loss for not having.

I'll be interested to read some others' thoughts.


User currently offlinewhisperjet From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 567 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6894 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I personally think that the compostion of a photo should be done through the viewfinder of the camera and not in postprocessing. With all common DSLRs having a ~ 3:2 aspect ratio, a 16:9 allowance on airliners would mean heavy crops where large parts of the actual photos are cut away.

Stefan



Nobody is perfect - not even a perfect fool.
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4678 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6882 times:

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 6):
With all common DSLRs having a ~ 3:2 aspect ratio, a 16:9 allowance on airliners would mean heavy crops where large parts of the actual photos are cut away.

While I see your point of argument, wherether you like it or not the majority of the photos on this site are cropped. Might not be the same as when cropping to a 16:9, but still photos on this site miss a part of the original photo.

To add on that, I think a photo should resemble what the photographer saw at that particular moment. Wherether that is captured by technology in the camera (CMOS, lens, etc etc) or by technology afterwards (either darkroom or post processing), the end result is what matters.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 732 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6882 times:

I think there is a case to say that the photographer should compose the shot to make the best of the frame available be it 2:3 or 4:3. And for slide shooters this is almost a necessity.

However, the format is arbitrary and does not in itself have any special artistic merit. Even in film days, there have been cameras produced with panoramic and square formats.

These days restricting a photographer to a particular format(s) seems rather artificial - sort of like saying a painter can only use a certain size of canvas, or a song must be exactly 3 minutes long.

I think a photographer can gain a lot of creative freedom by not being constrained to a format - some very powerful compositions can only result from a landscape or square format.

And of course "cropping" is nothing new - probably the iconic form for images through the history of film is the 8x10 print - and I'm not aware of any standard format which matched this without some cropping. (Good) photographers have always mentally framed the image to suit the target output media. Slide shooters - and only those with an eye to the collector - are probably the only photographers who have had to constrain themselves to composing to fit the format.

Of course there are some practical considerations regarding on screen presentation on A.net, also non-standard formats might introduce problems if print sales are to be supported in future.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6882 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 6):
16:9 allowance on airliners would mean heavy crops where large parts of the actual photos are cut away.

So what would change exactly? We crop a lot today, to level, to not get a distance rejection etc. It's almost impossible to shoot a handheld image of a fast moving jet nwith a 400mm lens and frame it perfect in camera. The aircraft is the main subject in this DB, and not sky, ground or other things (sometimes mentioned in rejections too).

This photo would probably have looked better in 16:9:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johnny Kristensen




5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlinedendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6844 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting ckw (Reply 8):
I think there is a case to say that the photographer should compose the shot to make the best of the frame available be it 2:3 or 4:3. And for slide shooters this is almost a necessity.

I totaly agree. I see a lot of images that are spoiled by no consideration being given to the format of the image, an A340-600 across the middle of an image 1024 x 768 for instance. What is obvious is that people have the crop tool set for a given ratio and never look beyond that. My view, though I emphasise that it is mine, not in any way representative of the site, is that I would reduce the size constraints but I would also like reject if the size was not appropriate to the image (as with the A340-600 example above) due to there being too much wasted space. That would result in better photographic practice, a thought being given to composition.

Quoting iamlucky13 (Reply 5):
However, as I understand things, many policies here aren't a matter of artistic value, but the less glamorous documentary nature of spotting.

I think that is largely the reason why things are the way they are and we must not forget that the site remains a database to many, myself included. If sales are resumed, increasing the range of sizes would complicate that immensely.

One of my favourite photographs on the site is one that I would love to crop tighter, especially the top, a real letterbox format, but the photographer was not able to because of size constraints here, a stunning photo that could be even better, IMHO of course

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim De Groot - AirTeamImages



Mick Bajcar


User currently offlinedvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1743 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6833 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 6):
I personally think that the compostion of a photo should be done through the viewfinder of the camera and not in postprocessing. With all common DSLRs having a ~ 3:2 aspect ratio, a 16:9 allowance on airliners would mean heavy crops where large parts of the actual photos are cut away.

Stefan and I agree on many things, but on this we will disagree.   Even then, my viewfinder, for instance, has a masking area for 16:9 format and one of the native aspect ratios you can choose in camera is 16:9.

The preponderance of the "native" 3:2 format on this website is due solely to its roots as a collection of former slide photographers. I didn't shoot slides much in the past on film, usually only when I was on vacations. When I shot negative film, I'd crop prints all the time, and never thought much of it.

Like Mick, the following thoughts are my own and not representative of screening/the website. I for one would prefer the freedom to have 16:9 or 5:4 crops. Let's face it, if someone's native format was a Hasselblad, they'd be shooting square(er) film. Likewise, the Panasonic LX3's sensor is a native 16:9. Why punish these folk due to the tyranny of the majority?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dan Vincent - New England Airports



I love beautiful blue sky as much as the next guy, but I'd have preferred a narrower crop to this kind of shot.

As long as the rules are the rules, I'll follow and enforce them, but I personally would welcome less restrictions on size when uploading - as long as the image is a quality image and has at least 1000+ pixels in one dimension, I'd at least consider it.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2731 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6788 times:

So as my camera shoot native in 16:9, I guess I'll be forced to "crop" the canvas to 4:3 then just clone blue sky onto the top to fill the empty space!!!  

User currently offlineiamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6754 times:

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 10):
One of my favourite photographs on the site is one that I would love to crop tighter, especially the top, a real letterbox format, but the photographer was not able to because of size constraints here, a stunning photo that could be even better, IMHO of course

Of course, it's only stuck that way on A.net. He can crop it however he wants for other uses, and if a potential customer is interested in a license or copy and contacts him, he can offer it in whatever format he or the customer wants.

And yes, I know the counterpoint is that the impression the image makes on A.net can be affected by the crop, which might make or break a sale.


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 732 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6744 times:

Of course, it's only stuck that way on A.net. He can crop it however he wants for other uses, and if a potential customer is interested in a license or copy and contacts him, he can offer it in whatever format he or the customer wants.

And there lies the problem - I don't think there is any question that Tim's pic (and many others) could be improved by cropping. So unfortunately A.net ends up with an inferior version of the image, while better versions may be found elsewhere.

Ultimately though I guess it's a numbers game - does the number of shots which would benefit from a different format warrant the hassle of supporting this (and inevitable bickering which follows any change!). And of course not everyone would agree with a given crop - would a whole new screening debate over 'Bad Crop' arise?

If the option were available, how many would take the trouble to reload images in a different crop?

As a photographer, I'm all for "format freedom". As a photo site administrator, I can spot a potential headache a mile away  

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2731 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6742 times:

Quoting ckw (Reply 14):
does the number of shots which would benefit from a different format warrant the hassle of supporting this

Sorry, but what would the "hassle" be? It's so bloody elementary. If 1024 is the required width, then it's simply 576 pixels high, plus whatever they want for the copyright/name bar at the bottom. I can't see how defining another format could be considered a hassle in any way.

Quoting ckw (Reply 14):
As a photographer, I'm all for "format freedom". As a photo site administrator, I can spot a potential headache a mile away

Again, why any headache at all. This site already supports Two formats which are 3:2 and 4:3 so one more format is simply one more possible selection. A present day screener already has to make the determination that a submission fits one or the other present format. Is it really that much more difficult to learn one additional dimension? I think not.


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 732 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6719 times:

Not such a big deal if it was just 16:9, but I was talking about any format - eg. square or 5:4 are equally valid and useful - or indeed cropping to whatever shape best suits the photo.

Aside from possible debates over "bad crop", the biggest issue would arise from supporting a print service if this was re-implemented. I suspect in the case of A.net it may also cause some issues on how the home page is generated. None of this is insurmountable of course, but I'm sure there is a lot more to it than just allowing a different format upload. Without knowing the Anet code exactly how much re-coding and testing is required is obviously just a guess.

All I'm saying is that it is a good idea, but probably involves a lot more than simply changing a rule as some seem to think.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently onlineLH526 From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 2360 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6677 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

I asked the same half a decade ago. I have hundreds of beautiful Medium- and Large-format slides from the 1960s, cabin- , action- and detail shots of B707, B720, DV880/990, etc .... I wanted to upload them and got a "no" as response  

Mario
LH526



Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6665 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LH526 (Reply 17):
I asked the same half a decade ago. I have hundreds of beautiful Medium- and Large-format slides from the 1960s, cabin- , action- and detail shots of B707, B720, DV880/990, etc .... I wanted to upload them and got a "no" as response

We will certainly make exceptions for rare/old images. Why don't you try running a few examples by the screening crew again, and see if they aren't workable? Things may have changed since the last time you tried.


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4782 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6628 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 6):
I personally think that the compostion of a photo should be done through the viewfinder of the camera and not in postprocessing. With all common DSLRs having a ~ 3:2 aspect ratio, a 16:9 allowance on airliners would mean heavy crops where large parts of the actual photos are cut away.

Um, I think whatever format benifits the shot most should be the way to go. I think most photographers and artists would agree.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2731 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6614 times:

Quoting whisperjet (Reply 6):
With all common DSLRs having a ~ 3:2 aspect ratio, a 16:9 allowance on airliners would mean heavy crops where large parts of the actual photos are cut away.

The Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 has a 16:9 shooting option and also the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10 DSLR both have 16:9 shooting modes, full frame, no cropping required.


User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6602 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting photopilot (Reply 20):
The Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 has a 16:9 shooting option and also the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10 DSLR both have 16:9 shooting modes, full frame, no cropping required.

....right...the size ratio of the sensors in those cameras are actually 3:2 and 4:3 respectively, so any 16:9 image they produce has in fact been cropped from the original image, only it's done in camera, not afterwards. All DSLRs and almost all compacts available today have either a 3:2 or 4:3 ratio.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 15):
Again, why any headache at all. This site already supports Two formats which are 3:2 and 4:3 so one more format is simply one more possible selection. A present day screener already has to make the determination that a submission fits one or the other present format. Is it really that much more difficult to learn one additional dimension? I think not.

Perhaps you misunderstand the rules as they currently are. We accept 3:2, 4:3 and anything between those two ratios. People submit at all sorts of odd sizes, we need to determine if they are within the allowable range, not just if they fit the two stated ratios. As an example, today I accepted images that were 1200x832.


User currently offlineiamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6531 times:

A thought on the angle of photo sales.

- Most print services will accept any size digital file.

- Then they have the user select the print size.

- Then they crop to that size, usually providing the option to either center the crop or providing a tool for the user to select the crop.

This could be an option for A.net photo sales, but I know it is not trivial to implement such a tool.

Also, photographers who wish to participate in sales would need to consider this when uploading. If you upload a 16:9 photo cropped nose-to-tail, you've selected a format few, if any print shops (or frame makers) offer. A 3:2 crop for the printer then has no option but to cut off the nose and/or tail or else to letterbox. Same for 5:7 or 4:5.

Looking on MPix, for example because they offer a very wide range of sizes, the only reasonable cropping options are 5x15 or 12x24. Maybe that's ok for a side-shot of a 773 or A346, but it's not ideal for a lot of other shots.


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 732 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6511 times:

This could be an option for A.net photo sales, but I know it is not trivial to implement such a tool.

And that's not the real problem. The trouble comes when the user buys a print, doesn't understand or misuses the crop tool and ends up with an aircraft with a missing nose or tail. Whose fault is that? Does A.net provide a refund? .

You can see where the hassles and headaches arise ...

Cheers.

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
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...
Photos With A.net Photographers In Them.... posted Wed Oct 22 2008 12:13:04 by Damien846
Something Strange With My Acceptance Ratio? posted Fri Sep 5 2008 17:38:41 by JakTrax
First Photos With New Lens - Opinions? (Prescreen) posted Wed Feb 20 2008 08:05:59 by JonathanJet
Great Photos With Unknown Location? posted Wed Jan 16 2008 16:39:46 by Sovietjet
Photos With A High S.P. Value Part V posted Sat Sep 30 2006 12:37:21 by INNflight
Photos With A High S.P. Value Part IV posted Sun Aug 27 2006 00:48:55 by Ptrjong
Photos With Samsung Camcorder : posted Mon Aug 7 2006 20:50:46 by TS-IOR
Photos With A High S.p. Value Part III posted Thu Jun 15 2006 22:47:34 by 9VSPO
Any Good 1:1 Aspect Ratio Printing Companies? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 00:59:28 by DLKAPA
Photos With A High S.p. Value Part II posted Thu Jun 1 2006 10:06:47 by Javibi