Maximum Image Size Change

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by ddavies

I don't like to show a lot of sky or grass just to satisfy the limits, so most stuff I shoot, I never submit anymore.

Can you explain that? Do you limit yourself to specific scenes where there is little grass or sky to capture?

[lock4244]

Originally Posted by ddavies

I don't like to show a lot of sky or grass just to satisfy the limits, so most stuff I shoot, I never submit anymore.

Ironic statement considering your avatar

[ddavies]

Actually, the avatar was rejected because of size ...

Most of the time, I am shooting in the same plane as the train. No mountains in the background, few bridges over the track to shoot from to get composition much more than the plane the train is in ... which is wide.

[KevinM]

I respectfully suggest that the site revise its documented acceptance guidelines with respect to size. The photo upload page is apparently not in step with what the Screeners are actually doing. For a several years, I have occasionally submitted images in 3:5 format, using pixel dimensions of 1024 x 614....and these images have been regularly accepted. I had several accepted last week. Last night, I had two rejected with the following message:

"Size (Dimensions): The photo is either too narrow vertically or horizontally. For normal landscape images, our recommended height for a 1024 pixel wide image is 680 to 768 pixels."

So what does that mean? Would an image of similar proportions, sized at 1133 x 680 be accepted? Is the site attempting to say that 3:5 crops are no longer acceptable?

Those of us who contribute here are attempting to follow all of the rules, but communication is key if that is to happen. If the rules change and the contributors aren't made aware of it, needless work is created for all....the contributors and the Screeners.

Thanks,

[troy12n]

Suggestion: It's been over a year, maybe unsticky this?