Funny rejection again: Size (Dimensions)

gakei · 10-24-2009, 05:11 PM

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=789626598

Is 800px wide to 600px high considered "either too narrow vertically or horizontally"?

This photo is appealed and appeal is again rejected.

EMTRailfan · 10-24-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gakei

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=789626598

Is 800px wide to 600px high considered "either too narrow vertically or horizontally"?

This photo is appealed and appeal is again rejected.

It's too square for RP's liking. If you have more to work with in the original, I'd say keep more of the top (like the entire front building), and go vertical. A standard vert. cut for RP seems to 750x1000. If you re-work the original, keep the horizontal croping as-is and jusr resize to 750 instead of 800, and see what that gives you to work with vertically.

JRMDC · 10-24-2009, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMTRailfan

It's too square for RP's liking. If you have more to work with in the original, I'd say keep more of the top (like the entire front building), and go vertical. A standard vert. cut for RP seems to 750x1000. If you re-work the original, keep the horizontal croping as-is and jusr resize to 750 instead of 800, and see what that gives you to work with vertically.

No, no, no, no, no!

Or at least maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe.

It isn't too square technically, it is a 4:3 ratio and such shots are commonly accepted here. Remember this was rejected for size, not for bad cropping; the former is a technical rejection, not a composition/quality rejection.

Now, according to the guidelines 800x600 is acceptable (the minimum). So I don't know why this rejection reason was chosen, unless the screener saw a small image and didn't actually check to see if it met the minimum but just rejected it. I would just resubmit it at a larger size; 1024x is customary on the wide so just make the image larger, like 1024x768. No reason to make it smaller anyway, so let everyone see it as big as allowed!

gakei · 10-25-2009, 02:16 AM

The point is that, if the first screening process is overlooking the dimension ratio, that's fine for me as I agree sometimes screeners may make mistakes when screening a lot of photos every day.

However, it is not very desirable when an appeal is again not carefully handled, and this mistakes are made again.

Any knows how they screen photos? Will they only view a thumbnail for sometimes? If so, it does not help to enlarge the photo for resumission given the 4:3 ratio is maintained.

I seldom submit photos here as compared with many of you guys, but I have already experienced quite a lot of funny rejection cases.

JRMDC · 10-25-2009, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gakei

Any knows how they screen photos? Will they only view a thumbnail for sometimes? If so, it does not help to enlarge the photo for resumission given the 4:3 ratio is maintained.

Maybe a screener will chime in on this thread. Until then, I can say I am pretty sure, almost certain, that they view full size. Call it certain.

They reject for things like pixelation all the time and that is not visible except at full size.

But what I am saying for certain is that the ratio is not your problem as 4:3 ratios are quite common on RP. Your problem is (probably? presumably? shown as? the latter, yes) too small a size. Perhaps the current minimum standard is larger than 800x600 and they haven't updated the Guidelines; those are not the greatest anyway.

The screeners will reject 4:3 if they think that is the wrong crop/format for the particular composition, but in those cases the rejection given is either bad cropping or bad composition/balance.

gakei · 10-25-2009, 03:52 AM

Given they have rejected for such reason, and given I have stated the rationale in appeal and being rejected again without given me a single word of comment, I have to assume my photo has dimension ratio problem instead of any others. I am not going to resubmit this photo until I receive a solid and concrete answer.

JRMDC · 10-25-2009, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gakei

Given they have rejected for such reason, and given I have stated the rationale in appeal and being rejected again without given me a single word of comment, I have to assume my photo has dimension ratio problem instead of any others. I am not going to resubmit this photo until I receive a solid and concrete answer.

Fair enough. Be aware that in most cases rejections of appeals are without comment, so the absence of a comment is not a good indicator. Frustrating that comments are usually not provided, but that is the way it is.

Just curious, what rationale did you state?

gakei · 10-25-2009, 05:07 PM

Just saying something like 800px times 600 px should not be considered as too narrow blah blah blah ...

Thanks.

Joe the Photog · 10-27-2009, 06:35 PM

Why did you size it that small anyway? In today's web world, that's a pretty small picture all things considered. I prefer 1024X683 or 1024X768, depending on the shot.

gakei · 10-28-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

Why did you size it that small anyway? In today's web world, that's a pretty small picture all things considered. I prefer 1024X683 or 1024X768, depending on the shot.

Because it is the acceptable minimum requirement here.

djbrown · 10-28-2009, 11:51 AM

well, It isn't too square technically..