vasanthd
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 8:35 am

Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:53 am

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!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13348
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Great Picture... But...?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:57 am

Hmm interesting. I've certainly had shots rejected in the past that were close to square.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
photopilot
Posts: 3068
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:16 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:35 am

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
 
Airplanepics
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 4:12 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:47 am

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
 
vasanthd
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 8:35 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:54 am

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!
 
INNflight
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:10 am

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

 checkmark 

Very nice Spencer.
Jet Visuals
 
martin21
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 7:52 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:18 am

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 avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13348
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:08 am

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
vasanthd
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 8:35 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:59 pm

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!
 
Knighty
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:36 pm

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:26 pm

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!
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:40 pm

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

Who cares?
Apparently a.net as stated in the links above.
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:52 pm

"
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]
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
andrewuber
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:45 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:26 pm

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
 
willo
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:21 pm

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:16 pm

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.
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1645
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:37 pm

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
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:54 pm

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".
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
lennymuir
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:58 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:45 pm

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]
 
martin21
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 7:52 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:57 pm

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 !
 
vasanthd
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 8:35 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:08 pm

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!
 
willo
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:21 pm

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:04 am

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
 
vasanthd
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 8:35 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:24 am

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!
 
TACAA320
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:03 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:03 am

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

You deserve it!
'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'. Albert Einstein
 
photopilot
Posts: 3068
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:16 am

RE: Great Picture... But Image Size?

Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:26 am

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests