User avatar
derekf
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:01 pm

Just had these rejected for size.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20070622_EGWC_100607_GAEEH.jpg (1024x688)

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20070622_EGWC_100607_AB910.jpg (1024x689)

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20070622_EGWC_100607_GBWUE.jpg (1024x689)

The sizes include the title bar.

The photos above are exactly 1 or 2 pixels shorter than these accepted ones.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Ferguson




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Ferguson




Have these honestly been rejected by being too small by 1 pixel. Does it matter? Am I really starting a thread about this?

I think I need to stop this airliners.net nonsense and get a life.  Sad

Derek
Whatever.......
 
KLM772ER
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 5:29 pm

RE: Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:17 pm

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!

Regards
Björn
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:21 pm

The Spitfire was only rejected for size. The Buchon for contrast as well (misty day) and the flea thing for grainy (indoor shot)

You're right it says "in the region of". I didn't realize that should be translated as "exactly"

Derek
Whatever.......
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4102
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:22 pm

Quoting DerekF (Thread starter):
Have these honestly been rejected by being too small by 1 pixel.

They are in fact a full 7 pixels too short, so you were lucky with the others   

Seriously, why not simply ensure that what you upload is between 3:2 and 3:4.

Peter 

Edit: I didn't realize the rules said 'In the region of', so I guess you have a valid point.

[Edited 2007-06-22 12:26:23]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
bubbles
Crew
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:54 am

RE: Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:25 pm

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.

_Hongyin_
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4102
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:33 pm

Hongyin,

Then the 'in the region of ' bit should be changed. Two minutes' work, but will probably take two years.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:33 pm

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.

Take it easy.

Paul
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:35 pm

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?

Derek
Whatever.......
 
brianw999
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:15 am

RE: Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:27 pm

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).....

3:2 aspect. 1000x667 1024x683 1200x800 1400x934 1600x1067

4:3 aspect. 1000x750 1024x768 1200x900 1400x1050 1600x1200

Hope this helps....Oh, and if you upload in portrait format obviously you just reverse the numbers.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13369
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:28 pm

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.

 confused  His 1024 wide shots are 688 and 689 high, just over the exact 3:2 ratio (which would be 683).
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Size Rejections

Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:50 pm

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.

Derek
Whatever.......
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Size Rejections

Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:46 am

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.

Paul
 
User avatar
ThierryD
Crew
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Size Rejections

Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:04 am

Hi guys!

http://planecatcher.com/IGRR/Size.htm

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.  Wink
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.  Wink

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 5):
Then the 'in the region of ' bit should be changed. Two minutes' work, but will probably take two years.

The Illustrated guide is already up-to-date!  Wink

Thierry
"Go ahead...make my day"
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4102
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Size Rejections

Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:00 am

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 Smile
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

RE: Size Rejections

Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:05 am

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.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
User avatar
ThierryD
Crew
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Size Rejections

Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:18 pm

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.

Thierry
"Go ahead...make my day"
 
User avatar
ThierryD
Crew
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Size Rejections

Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:07 pm

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.

Thierry
"Go ahead...make my day"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests