Old 04-22-2010, 11:34 PM   #1
Warton GR4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Default Crop Ratios, Why so strict???

Hi,
I've not put anything on here for a while but as I've had some interesting stuff in my area recently I thought I'd share some. Unfortunately the same frustrating rejections are also back. Why must photos be in the ratio between 1024 pixel wide and 680 to 768 pixels tall. Some pictures just look better with a crop outside those dimensions, a square crop for example. At work I'm forever scanning lovely old medium format square negatives and they look great.
I had this rejected for being too narrow:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=264072999
I chose this crop because it best fits the rules of thirds and removed a lot of basically dead space at the bottom of the image and while the sky has some interest to it the image just doesn't need more sky.
On the flip side I this this done for bad cropping (or composition):
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=805898&key=0
I agree, I'd love to take a little off the left and right of the image that adds little to the shot, but then it would be too square...
I can fully understand rejecting images for quality reasons because that's what keeps the standards high, but surly the crop ratio is down to the artist to decide what works best for his image, not a list of standard rules! It would also open the site up to a lot more creativity for example a long panoramic shot might look wonderful.
Does anyone else feel the same way or am I on my own in this confusion?

Best regards,
Mark
Warton GR4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2010, 11:47 PM   #2
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

In my experience anything between 3:2 and 5:4 works for RP, so 1024x683 up to 1024x819, so you can go more square than x768 (4:3). One can discuss the question of acceptable formats until the cows come home but ultimately it is simply that RP likes what it likes and that is just that.

The train shot, you can crop some of the coach and get within 3:2, I suspect. Yes, dead space top and bottom and 3:2 can be an issue with RP and long trains with plain foreground and sky. The engines are blurry, however.

The engine shot, you can crop some on the right - especially getting rid of that white dot/light, and keep it within 5:4, and see how that goes.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2010, 11:55 PM   #3
Warton GR4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Default

Sorry, I must admit I was venting a bit of frustration there, it's been a long day! Comes from being a photographer full time, I can get away with murder at work with what I do to images lol! Slap on wrist, must try harder to follow the rules! I'll give them both another go at more friendly ratios.
Ta for the advice,
Mark
Warton GR4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 01:10 AM   #4
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

I wish that we could have 16:9 images Sometimes it does work!
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 04:18 PM   #5
Warton GR4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40 View Post
I wish that we could have 16:9 images Sometimes it does work!
The standard monitor dimensions these days are 16:9 so it would make sense to allow images to that ratio atleast. I'd still love square crops though

MArk
Warton GR4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 06:46 PM   #6
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warton GR4 View Post
Sorry, I must admit I was venting a bit of frustration there, it's been a long day! Comes from being a photographer full time, I can get away with murder at work with what I do to images lol! Slap on wrist, must try harder to follow the rules! I'll give them both another go at more friendly ratios.
Ta for the advice,
Mark
Best bend with the wind, I don't think they budge much on ratios or they get more asking why he got his on but mine didn't.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 11:11 PM   #7
Warton GR4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
The engines are blurry, however.
Just noticed this comment, looked on another monitor and they do look a little soft. The original defiantly isn't and I did all my editing in Lightroom on the origional RAW then exported out at the required size. I think I'll run it through photoshop first and add a touch of sharpening and possibly a high pass for contrast. I'm a bit disappointed in lightroom as I shouldn't need to add that extra step. I think it's part of all these webites though (airliners.net is the same), people get so paranoid with the screening process they often tend to air on the over sharpened side rather than what looks natural. Some photos on here look un-naturally sharp to my eye but unless it's breaking up with jaged edges it'll get accepted.

Quote:
Best bend with the wind, I don't think they budge much on ratios or they get more asking why he got his on but mine didn't.
Yeah but if they just removed strict ratios as a rule and just checked the ratio like you would a crop i.e. does it look right, then they wouldn't have any problems with it at all. What they could do, hypothetically speaking, is treat the images as if you were entering a photographic competition. All pictures must be this size X pixels by Y pixels. But how you fill that is up to you. For example if you had a portrait crop you would leave a border or mount in black or mid tone grey around the edge, whatever helps the pictures stand out. That way all pictures are uniform in that they are exactly the same size but it adds a new "presentation" factor into the equation.

It'll probably never happen but it's an interesting thought if someone was starting a similar website as it would look more like a gallery of images.

I'm away from home and "blogging" (for want of a better term) ideas by the, I'm not looking to anger anyone with my comments, just looking for discussion with other like minded people.

Cheers,
Mark
Warton GR4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 12:21 AM   #8
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warton GR4 View Post


Yeah but if they just removed strict ratios as a rule and just checked the ratio like you would a crop i.e. does it look right, then they wouldn't have any problems with it at all. What they could do, hypothetically speaking, is treat the images as if you were entering a photographic competition. All pictures must be this size X pixels by Y pixels.
Cheers,
Mark
They like the pages to fill out the same and look constant. It would be nice to have a panoramic option. There kind of set in there ways as in if it works they wont fix it.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 12:35 AM   #9
railfanzone
Senior Member
 
railfanzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lebanon, CT USA
Posts: 174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warton GR4 View Post
I'd still love square crops though

MArk
Didn't have a problem getting this 6x6 scan from my Rolleiflex TLR in...

Image © Thomas J. Nanos - www.nanosphoto.com
PhotoID: 236415
Photograph © Thomas J. Nanos - www.nanosphoto.com
__________________
Tom Nanos
www.NanosPhoto.com - New England Rail Photography
My Rail Photo Blog


Flickr stuff - http://www.flickr.com/photos/nanosphoto/
My Railpictures.net Photos
My published photo portfolio
My one photo on JetPhotos.net
railfanzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 08:36 AM   #10
Warton GR4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by railfanzone View Post
Didn't have a problem getting this 6x6 scan from my Rolleiflex TLR in...

Image © Thomas J. Nanos - www.nanosphoto.com
PhotoID: 236415
Photograph © Thomas J. Nanos - www.nanosphoto.com
Interesting, and a fabulous example, I love that. I might try one of mine again, maybe I'll get the screener you got next time.
Cheers,
Mark
Warton GR4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 10:18 AM   #11
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by railfanzone View Post
Didn't have a problem getting this 6x6 scan from my Rolleiflex TLR in...

Image © Thomas J. Nanos - www.nanosphoto.com
PhotoID: 236415
Photograph © Thomas J. Nanos - www.nanosphoto.com
I have all kinds of 6X6 TLR, 645 Evan K64, some day a scanner.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.