Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > [SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.

Reply
Thread Tools

[SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.

 
 
Doug Jewell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2008
D-Mac wrote:
>
>> Doug, you are just making crap up now. I've entered quite a few
>> exhibitions, and while very few will specify an exact size of print
>> (I've only ever seen 5x7 or 8x10), more common is that they specify an
>> exact size of matt (frequently 14x11) and a minimum print size
>> (frequently 5x7), but so long as your image is matted within the matt
>> size it doesn't matter what size it is. Apart from one competition
>> where a roll of film was provided and entries had to be submitted on
>> that roll (ie no modification of images whatsoever), I've never seen
>> an exhibition or a competition that has explicitly demanded aspect
>> ratio, or no cropping.
>>>

>
> Perhaps you are the first person to understand that "aspect ratio" is
> not the size of a photo but the ratio of it. Pity you missed the point
> of the rest of my post.

Of course I understand aspect ratios. Pity you snipped most
of my post and ignored the bit about aspect ratios.
>
> It matters little if a photo is 16"x20" or 16"x24" The aspect ratio
> which allows those dimensions to be equal magnifications of the original
> film or sensor size is what matters.

So which camera (film or digital) has an inbuilt aspect
ratio of 4:5 to match 16x20 or 8x10?
(I know the answer to that question BTW)
If you are going to print at one of the most common
enlargement sizes (8x10) then assuming you didn't take the
photo with one of those very few 4:5 cameras, you will have
no choice but to crop. Cropping is not bad, and for most
common print sizes it is a necessity. There is nothing wrong
with taking a photo with a particular aspect ratio in mind,
(even if it is different to the native ratio of the camera),
nor is there nothing wrong with cropping out parts of a
photo to end up with a different aspect ratio.
>
> "If you provide an uncropped image it will automatically be the correct
> aspect ratio", regardless of the size of the picture.

uh-huh. You will note that the original quote you provided,
said that their MAXIMUM allowable aspect ratio is 2:1
(portrait) or 3:1 (landscape). Since the only cameras to
have a native aspect ratio outside of that are a handful of
dedicated panorama cameras, in 99.99% of cases if you don't
crop your image you will fall inside the allowable aspect
ratio. Most cameras have a 1.5:1, or 1.33:1 aspect ratio,
some digitals are 16:9 (1.78:1), a lot of LF cameras at 5:4
(1.25:1). You will note that ALL of these are less than 2:1
or 3:1. Even the 6x17 panorama cameras fall inside the 3:1
requirement.
>
> If you cropped a 36" x 24" photo down to 8"x12" (roughly speaking) it
> will have the same aspect ratio as a 35mm film or APS sensor.

well duh - 36x24 & 8x12 are both 3:2 (1.5:1) aspect ratio,
which is the same ratio as 35mm's nominal 36x24mm frame
size, which is also the same ratio as Canon's APS-C sensors,
which is also the same ratio (near enough) as Nikon's DX format.
>
> Seriously mate, if you run a lab and don't comprehend this, it's time
> you thought about throwing in the towel.

Those voices in your head are talking too loud again Douggy.
I didn't say anything whatsoever about 36x24, 8x12 etc, nor
did I say anything about them matching film.
What I did say, is that all common print sizes fit within
the 2:1 portrait or 3:1 landscape requirements that was the
requirement of whatever it was you quoted from.
Now lets get back to you for a moment douggy - it was you
who said, and I quote:

"And how come there is no aspect ratio conventions adhered
to? Mark Thomas seems to feel his idea of correct is to just
crop a photo until it "looks" right without any regard for
the exhibition conventions of aspect ratios.

"Landscapes are 3:2, not half a Panorama. Portraits are 4:3,
not lopped off to any old dimension that suits the guy who
couldn't make up his mind in the viewfinder."

"Get some shooting rules based on international exhibition
standards. "

Now, where did you get those requirements from? The website
that you used as a defence of your position said that the
maximum aspect ratio was 3:1 for landscape and 2:1 for
portrait. Where did it say that landscape must be 3:2 and
portrait must be 4:3?

Where do the most common enlargement sizes of 5x7 and 8x10
fit into your rules?

Come on douggy, get off the douggy drugs and show us one
exhibition (preferably not hosted by you), that specifies
that landscapes must be 3:2 and portraits must be 4:3.
So far you've only proved that variable aspect ratios within
a fairly broad range (and well outside the native ratio of
any common camera) are allowable for a couple of exhibitions.
As I stated, most exhibitions I've been involved with do
have some limitations on actual size, and occasionally will
specify an exact size, but I've never seen any that specify
exact aspect ratios. If you know different, then please
inform us.
BTW, how's the linear pano of manly harbour coming along?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doug Jewell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2008
D-Mac wrote:
>
>> Doug, you are just making crap up now. I've entered quite a few
>> exhibitions, and while very few will specify an exact size of print
>> (I've only ever seen 5x7 or 8x10), more common is that they specify an
>> exact size of matt (frequently 14x11) and a minimum print size
>> (frequently 5x7), but so long as your image is matted within the matt
>> size it doesn't matter what size it is. Apart from one competition
>> where a roll of film was provided and entries had to be submitted on
>> that roll (ie no modification of images whatsoever), I've never seen
>> an exhibition or a competition that has explicitly demanded aspect
>> ratio, or no cropping.
>>>

>
> Perhaps you are the first person to understand that "aspect ratio" is
> not the size of a photo but the ratio of it. Pity you missed the point
> of the rest of my post.

Of course I understand aspect ratios. Pity you snipped most
of my post and ignored the bit about aspect ratios.
>
> It matters little if a photo is 16"x20" or 16"x24" The aspect ratio
> which allows those dimensions to be equal magnifications of the original
> film or sensor size is what matters.

So which camera (film or digital) has an inbuilt aspect
ratio of 4:5 to match 16x20 or 8x10?
(I know the answer to that question BTW)
If you are going to print at one of the most common
enlargement sizes (8x10) then assuming you didn't take the
photo with one of those very few 4:5 cameras, you will have
no choice but to crop. Cropping is not bad, and for most
common print sizes it is a necessity. There is nothing wrong
with taking a photo with a particular aspect ratio in mind,
(even if it is different to the native ratio of the camera),
nor is there nothing wrong with cropping out parts of a
photo to end up with a different aspect ratio.
>
> "If you provide an uncropped image it will automatically be the correct
> aspect ratio", regardless of the size of the picture.

uh-huh. You will note that the original quote you provided,
said that their MAXIMUM allowable aspect ratio is 2:1
(portrait) or 3:1 (landscape). Since the only cameras to
have a native aspect ratio outside of that are a handful of
dedicated panorama cameras, in 99.99% of cases if you don't
crop your image you will fall inside the allowable aspect
ratio. Most cameras have a 1.5:1, or 1.33:1 aspect ratio,
some digitals are 16:9 (1.78:1), a lot of LF cameras at 5:4
(1.25:1). You will note that ALL of these are less than 2:1
or 3:1. Even the 6x17 panorama cameras fall inside the 3:1
requirement.
>
> If you cropped a 36" x 24" photo down to 8"x12" (roughly speaking) it
> will have the same aspect ratio as a 35mm film or APS sensor.

well duh - 36x24 & 8x12 are both 3:2 (1.5:1) aspect ratio,
which is the same ratio as 35mm's nominal 36x24mm frame
size, which is also the same ratio as Canon's APS-C sensors,
which is also the same ratio (near enough) as Nikon's DX format.
>
> Seriously mate, if you run a lab and don't comprehend this, it's time
> you thought about throwing in the towel.

Those voices in your head are talking too loud again Douggy.
I didn't say anything whatsoever about 36x24, 8x12 etc, nor
did I say anything about them matching film.
What I did say, is that all common print sizes fit within
the 2:1 portrait or 3:1 landscape requirements that was the
requirement of whatever it was you quoted from.
Now lets get back to you for a moment douggy - it was you
who said, and I quote:

"And how come there is no aspect ratio conventions adhered
to? Mark Thomas seems to feel his idea of correct is to just
crop a photo until it "looks" right without any regard for
the exhibition conventions of aspect ratios.

"Landscapes are 3:2, not half a Panorama. Portraits are 4:3,
not lopped off to any old dimension that suits the guy who
couldn't make up his mind in the viewfinder."

"Get some shooting rules based on international exhibition
standards. "

Now, where did you get those requirements from? The website
that you used as a defence of your position said that the
maximum aspect ratio was 3:1 for landscape and 2:1 for
portrait. Where did it say that landscape must be 3:2 and
portrait must be 4:3?

Where do the most common enlargement sizes of 5x7 and 8x10
fit into your rules?

Come on douggy, get off the douggy drugs and show us one
exhibition (preferably not hosted by you), that specifies
that landscapes must be 3:2 and portraits must be 4:3.
So far you've only proved that variable aspect ratios within
a fairly broad range (and well outside the native ratio of
any common camera) are allowable for a couple of exhibitions.
As I stated, most exhibitions I've been involved with do
have some limitations on actual size, and occasionally will
specify an exact size, but I've never seen any that specify
exact aspect ratios. If you know different, then please
inform us.
BTW, how's the linear pano of manly harbour coming along?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roy G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2008
I have no interest in this competition or non-competition whatsoever.

I must say that this is a really stupid argument.

If there are rules within the organisation about entry sizes, then those
rules should be adhered to.

However, to claim mainstream photo competitions specify aspect ratios as a
rule, is complete and utter rubbish.

International and National Competitions run by Photographic Federations and
Clubs will specify a Maximum size, (usually 50 x 40 cms), of Mount Board,
but they will make no mention of aspect ratio or even Print Size.

If anyone disagrees with this statement of fact, they can easily check by
going to their National Federation Web Site which will have a page on
Competition Rules.

Roy G


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roy G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2008
I have no interest in this competition or non-competition whatsoever.

I must say that this is a really stupid argument.

If there are rules within the organisation about entry sizes, then those
rules should be adhered to.

However, to claim mainstream photo competitions specify aspect ratios as a
rule, is complete and utter rubbish.

International and National Competitions run by Photographic Federations and
Clubs will specify a Maximum size, (usually 50 x 40 cms), of Mount Board,
but they will make no mention of aspect ratio or even Print Size.

If anyone disagrees with this statement of fact, they can easily check by
going to their National Federation Web Site which will have a page on
Competition Rules.

Roy G


 
Reply With Quote
 
PeteD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2008

"D-Mac" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ga2g00$hm8$(E-Mail Removed)-online.de...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:51:02 +1000, D-Mac <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> There seems to be a few antagonists in SI who think they can invent
>>> rules as they go or just ignore existing standards altogether and SI
>>> will percolate along nicely with some of the entrants kill-filed by
>>> other... Here's the flash: That ain't going to happen.
>>>
>>> I don't know if any of you can see the mockery of an excuse for a
>>> competition

>>
>> Since when is the Shoot-In a competition? To me, a competition is
>> where the entrants compete against each other for a prize or some sort
>> of recognition. In this last Shoot-In, there was no competition and
>> there was no
>> prize. It was simply an assembly of photographs submitted for review.
>> There were no judges, and the critiques were voluntary. I don't know if
>> the Shoot-In was a competition at one time, but this
>> last one wasn't.

>
> There is comprehension and there is understanding of the English language.
>
> Read it again Tony. I did not say the SI was a competition. I said it was
> an excuse for one.


Perhaps you should also read your heading matey, mate, mate..........

 
Reply With Quote
 
PeteD
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2008

"D-Mac" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ga2g00$hm8$(E-Mail Removed)-online.de...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:51:02 +1000, D-Mac <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> There seems to be a few antagonists in SI who think they can invent
>>> rules as they go or just ignore existing standards altogether and SI
>>> will percolate along nicely with some of the entrants kill-filed by
>>> other... Here's the flash: That ain't going to happen.
>>>
>>> I don't know if any of you can see the mockery of an excuse for a
>>> competition

>>
>> Since when is the Shoot-In a competition? To me, a competition is
>> where the entrants compete against each other for a prize or some sort
>> of recognition. In this last Shoot-In, there was no competition and
>> there was no
>> prize. It was simply an assembly of photographs submitted for review.
>> There were no judges, and the critiques were voluntary. I don't know if
>> the Shoot-In was a competition at one time, but this
>> last one wasn't.

>
> There is comprehension and there is understanding of the English language.
>
> Read it again Tony. I did not say the SI was a competition. I said it was
> an excuse for one.


Perhaps you should also read your heading matey, mate, mate..........

 
Reply With Quote
 
B÷wser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2008
Doug,

I'm not sure why the aspect ration matters to you, or anyone. Why don't you
just submit some pix based on what you like and leave it at that? Are you so
anal that you need to make sure that every shot conforms to some arbritary
and archaic standards that might have been created for a totally different
purpose?

 
Reply With Quote
 
B÷wser
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2008
Doug,

I'm not sure why the aspect ration matters to you, or anyone. Why don't you
just submit some pix based on what you like and leave it at that? Are you so
anal that you need to make sure that every shot conforms to some arbritary
and archaic standards that might have been created for a totally different
purpose?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2008
On Sep 7, 10:51*pm, D-Mac <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> A quick Google for "photo competition aspect ratio" produces the usual
> 50,000 results with a surprisingly common thread in all of them. Aspect
> ratio must be unchanged from the original.


Actually, a proper Google search of "photo competition aspect
ratio" (with the quotes) returns exactly one hit ..... this post!

Do we need to school you in how to properly do Google searches as
well?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-08-2008
On Sep 7, 10:51*pm, D-Mac <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> A quick Google for "photo competition aspect ratio" produces the usual
> 50,000 results with a surprisingly common thread in all of them. Aspect
> ratio must be unchanged from the original.


Actually, a proper Google search of "photo competition aspect
ratio" (with the quotes) returns exactly one hit ..... this post!

Do we need to school you in how to properly do Google searches as
well?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Harry Potter 1-thru-4 Aspect Ratios Curtin/Dobbs DVD Video 7 12-04-2005 05:26 AM
What are the common aspect ratios movies use? Bob D. DVD Video 16 10-04-2004 09:13 PM
HELP! Question about aspect ratios of LCD flat panel TV Edward Holub DVD Video 1 01-29-2004 05:20 AM
one of my favorite dvd aspect ratios Waterperson77 DVD Video 8 12-19-2003 05:16 AM
More American Graffiti: Aspect Ratios Correct. Scot Gardner DVD Video 0 09-03-2003 04:09 AM



Advertisments