[SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by D-Mac, Sep 8, 2008.

  1. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    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.

    The fact is no project can hope to succeed if it does not adopt the best
    practices possible right from the start. This Shootin is a left-over
    from a few mates showing each other their photos that eventually died
    when "the few mates" became sick of personal attackers for unbelievably
    trivial reasons, hosing on them and left.

    I don't know if any of you can see the mockery of an excuse for a
    competition your are participating in but photographers - many of whom
    enter and win International and local competitions - in the rest of the
    world are probably having a good old laugh at your expense.

    You can accuse me of being a sour old bastard if you like but I have
    (until the latest round of changes occurred) been a fairly regular
    contributor when a handler I respect is in charge of it.

    I would probably continue were it not for the fact anyone who has ever
    entered in Photographic competitions is bound to ask the exact same
    questions I posed after the last upload, which I attempt to address now.

    The Aussie sheep who enjoy being idiots more than photographers and a
    few International jerks who can't contain their bladder, much less their
    tongues couldn't hold back with ridiculing me for even suggestion there
    should be some standardisation in submissions and the whole thing needed
    an unbiased manager willing to institute recognised standard.

    The idea you can get a pair of scissors and attack a picture until it
    has all the offensive bits cut out without regard for the aspect ratio
    is about as logical as the poor composition that encouraged it in the
    first place.

    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.

    A reply from group's resident idiot, Frank Ess, who thinks getting rid
    of me is somehow going to cure his terminal case of stupidity is a
    classic example of why it never will.

    Moreover, it highlights the theme many of these undisciplined,
    non-competitive competitions all seem to have in common. Don't bother
    with rules and no one will cry foul.

    No competition, no structure, make up rules as you go and stick your
    nose up at every legitimate competition's adoption of standardised
    aspect ratios for submissions. Who needs conformity? SI does. It also
    need stable management. Unlike the present management who in one group
    gives an Indian developer a hard time for introducing a real alternative
    archive format, claiming it need to be standardised but ignoring
    entirely the same argument when it comes to his pet project.

    Do you all think "Real" photographic competitions insist on aspect ratio
    compliance just to piss Mark Thomas off?

    No... They do it so that real photographic skills can't be hidden with
    scissors and careless snipping. If you can't compose a picture inside
    the viewfinder of your camera, what makes you think a knowledgeable
    judge will pass favourable comments when they know full well the stunt
    you just tried to pull?

    A mere 2 references from the 50,000.
    -----------------
    From: http://vsni.co.uk/yourvsni/gallery/terms.php

    Photograph size - aspect ratios and dimensions
    A photograph's aspect ratio is the ratio of its height to its width. If
    you do not crop your photographs or use your camera's panoramic setting,
    the aspect ratio should conform to the required standards automatically.

    Please ensure all submissions conform to one of the following aspect
    ratios: Portrait format must not exceed a height-to-width ratio of 2:1
    Landscape format must not exceed height-to-width ratio of 1:3

    Please note that if your photograph is not in one of the required aspect
    ratios it may not be displayed as you intended, or it may be rejected.

    -----------------
    From the BBC no less:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/apictureofbritain/pop_comp_rules.shtml


    Photograph size - aspect ratios and dimensions

    * A photograph's aspect ratio is the ratio of its height to its
    width. If you do not crop your photographs or use your camera's
    panoramic setting, the aspect ratio should conform to the required
    standards automatically.
    * Please ensure all submissions conform to one of the following
    aspect ratios:

    Portrait format must not exceed a height-to-width ratio of 2:1
    Landscape format must not exceed height-to-width ratio of 1:3
    * Please note that if your photograph is not in one of the required
    aspect ratios it may not be displayed as you intended, or it may be
    rejected.
    --------------------

    And another issue that "35mm" is not a square format.

    16:1 is recognised as a Panorama format in a small number of
    competitions. Most will simply not take entries in this format.

    It's up to you lot in the end. How the hell 3 gnats ass's is going to
    make up for one decent shot of the gnat is something I'll leave out for
    now but none the less needs to be addressed right alongside how many of
    you have each other in their kill file.
     
    D-Mac, Sep 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. D-Mac

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:51:02 +1000, D-Mac <> 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.
    : [etc., etc.]
    :
    : 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.

    That's NOT what your examples (below) say. Didn't you read them?

    : A reply from group's resident idiot, Frank Ess, who thinks getting rid
    : of me is somehow going to cure his terminal case of stupidity is a
    : classic example of why it never will.
    : [etc., etc.]
    :
    : Do you all think "Real" photographic competitions insist on aspect ratio
    : compliance just to piss Mark Thomas off?
    :
    : No... They do it so that real photographic skills can't be hidden with
    : scissors and careless snipping. If you can't compose a picture inside
    : the viewfinder of your camera, what makes you think a knowledgeable
    : judge will pass favourable comments when they know full well the stunt
    : you just tried to pull?

    You're making that up. Your own examples don't say that; they don't even imply
    it.

    : A mere 2 references from the 50,000.
    : -----------------
    : From: http://vsni.co.uk/yourvsni/gallery/terms.php
    :
    : Photograph size - aspect ratios and dimensions
    : A photograph's aspect ratio is the ratio of its height to its width. If
    : you do not crop your photographs or use your camera's panoramic setting,
    : the aspect ratio should conform to the required standards automatically.
    :
    : Please ensure all submissions conform to one of the following aspect
    : ratios: Portrait format must not exceed a height-to-width ratio of 2:1
    : Landscape format must not exceed height-to-width ratio of 1:3
    :
    : Please note that if your photograph is not in one of the required aspect
    : ratios it may not be displayed as you intended, or it may be rejected.
    :
    : -----------------
    : From the BBC no less:
    : http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/apictureofbritain/pop_comp_rules.shtml
    :
    :
    : Photograph size - aspect ratios and dimensions
    :
    : * A photograph's aspect ratio is the ratio of its height to its
    : width. If you do not crop your photographs or use your camera's
    : panoramic setting, the aspect ratio should conform to the required
    : standards automatically.
    : * Please ensure all submissions conform to one of the following
    : aspect ratios:
    :
    : Portrait format must not exceed a height-to-width ratio of 2:1
    : Landscape format must not exceed height-to-width ratio of 1:3
    : * Please note that if your photograph is not in one of the required
    : aspect ratios it may not be displayed as you intended, or it may be
    : rejected.
    : --------------------
    :
    : And another issue that "35mm" is not a square format.
    :
    : 16:1 is recognised as a Panorama format in a small number of
    : competitions. Most will simply not take entries in this format.
    :
    : It's up to you lot in the end. How the hell 3 gnats ass's is going to
    : make up for one decent shot of the gnat is something I'll leave out for
    : now but none the less needs to be addressed right alongside how many of
    : you have each other in their kill file.

    Those are NOT strict prescriptions for aspect-ratio compliance. They're "not
    to exceed" limits unrelated to the pictures' original aspect ratios and are
    very generous at that. None of the pictures submitted to the SI fail to comply
    with those limits.

    Why are you continuing this preposterous rant? Why do you give a rat's ass
    what aspect ratios other people use or other competitions prescribe?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. D-Mac

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:51:02 +1000, D-Mac <> 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.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 8, 2008
    #3
  4. Don Hirschberg
    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:51:02 +1000, D-Mac <> 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.
    > : [etc., etc.]
    > :
    > : 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.
    >
    > That's NOT what your examples (below) say. Didn't you read them?
    >
    > : A reply from group's resident idiot, Frank Ess, who thinks getting rid
    > : of me is somehow going to cure his terminal case of stupidity is a
    > : classic example of why it never will.
    > : [etc., etc.]
    > :
    > : Do you all think "Real" photographic competitions insist on aspect ratio
    > : compliance just to piss Mark Thomas off?
    > :
    > : No... They do it so that real photographic skills can't be hidden with
    > : scissors and careless snipping. If you can't compose a picture inside
    > : the viewfinder of your camera, what makes you think a knowledgeable
    > : judge will pass favourable comments when they know full well the stunt
    > : you just tried to pull?
    >
    > You're making that up. Your own examples don't say that; they don't even
    > imply
    > it.
    >
    > : A mere 2 references from the 50,000.
    > : -----------------
    > : From: http://vsni.co.uk/yourvsni/gallery/terms.php
    > :
    > : Photograph size - aspect ratios and dimensions
    > : A photograph's aspect ratio is the ratio of its height to its width. If
    > : you do not crop your photographs or use your camera's panoramic setting,
    > : the aspect ratio should conform to the required standards automatically.
    > :
    > : Please ensure all submissions conform to one of the following aspect
    > : ratios: Portrait format must not exceed a height-to-width ratio of 2:1
    > : Landscape format must not exceed height-to-width ratio of 1:3
    > :
    > : Please note that if your photograph is not in one of the required aspect
    > : ratios it may not be displayed as you intended, or it may be rejected.
    > :
    > : -----------------
    > : From the BBC no less:
    > : http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/apictureofbritain/pop_comp_rules.shtml
    > :
    > :
    > : Photograph size - aspect ratios and dimensions
    > :
    > : * A photograph's aspect ratio is the ratio of its height to its
    > : width. If you do not crop your photographs or use your camera's
    > : panoramic setting, the aspect ratio should conform to the required
    > : standards automatically.
    > : * Please ensure all submissions conform to one of the following
    > : aspect ratios:
    > :
    > : Portrait format must not exceed a height-to-width ratio of 2:1
    > : Landscape format must not exceed height-to-width ratio of 1:3
    > : * Please note that if your photograph is not in one of the required
    > : aspect ratios it may not be displayed as you intended, or it may be
    > : rejected.
    > : --------------------
    > :
    > : And another issue that "35mm" is not a square format.
    > :
    > : 16:1 is recognised as a Panorama format in a small number of
    > : competitions. Most will simply not take entries in this format.
    > :
    > : It's up to you lot in the end. How the hell 3 gnats ass's is going to
    > : make up for one decent shot of the gnat is something I'll leave out for
    > : now but none the less needs to be addressed right alongside how many of
    > : you have each other in their kill file.
    >
    > Those are NOT strict prescriptions for aspect-ratio compliance. They're
    > "not
    > to exceed" limits unrelated to the pictures' original aspect ratios and
    > are
    > very generous at that. None of the pictures submitted to the SI fail to
    > comply
    > with those limits.
    >
    > Why are you continuing this preposterous rant? Why do you give a rat's ass
    > what aspect ratios other people use or other competitions prescribe?
    >
    > Bob


    because he has a shitty up over the current success of the current SI, he
    wants to try and tarnish it in any way he can, even if it means trying a
    petty and frivolous rant about aspect ration.

    And why would Doug want to do this, because when the SI was in doubt before,
    he offered to host it, even gain sponsorship for it and try and make it some
    big international competition, and then he could claim it as his baby, make
    himself look like a hero and as he would own the server, he could quash all
    dissenting voices. When his plan was immediately seen through, he went off
    in a huff, though he did in fact submit an entry, and entry by the way that
    doesn't conform to his own rules of Aspect Ratio.

    Then AB took the tiller and produced one of the most successful SI's in ages
    from all accounts, so now Doug has his knickers in a twist, and came up with
    his ridiculous "Rules of AR" crap as a way of trying to (from what I can
    gather, AGAIN!!) browbeat the SI into submission, He tried it when AB mooted
    some rule changes, changes I mighty ad that bought the SI to life and made
    it fun for everyone (except Douggie of course) and I'm sure he will keep
    trying until it is either in need of CPR or until he can wrest control for
    himself.
    Doug is a petty little man with a withered and diseased heart, he would
    rather kill something that he wants but cant have instead of trying to make
    it better for everyone and sharing in the joy.

    --
    "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
     
    Atheist Chaplain, Sep 8, 2008
    #4
  5. D-Mac

    Doug Jewell Guest

    D-Mac wrote:
    <snipped lots of bullshit>
    > Photograph size - aspect ratios and dimensions
    > A photograph's aspect ratio is the ratio of its height to its width. If
    > you do not crop your photographs or use your camera's panoramic setting,
    > the aspect ratio should conform to the required standards automatically.
    >
    > Please ensure all submissions conform to one of the following aspect
    > ratios: Portrait format must not exceed a height-to-width ratio of 2:1
    > Landscape format must not exceed height-to-width ratio of 1:3
    >
    > Please note that if your photograph is not in one of the required aspect
    > ratios it may not be displayed as you intended, or it may be rejected.

    Ahem - notice that they are MAXIMA only? ie if it is
    portrait it can be any aspect ratio, so long as the height
    is not more than double the width. Common frame sizes of
    5x7, 8x10, 10x13, 10x15, 11x14, 16x20 etc all comply with that.
    Likewise if it is in landscape format, the width mustn't be
    more than 3 times the height. Once again all the common
    frame sizes comply. Plus the common panorama size of 4x10
    when printed from APS also complies.
    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.
    >
    > -----------------
    > From the BBC no less:
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/apictureofbritain/pop_comp_rules.shtml
    >
    >
    > Photograph size - aspect ratios and dimensions
    >
    > * A photograph's aspect ratio is the ratio of its height to its
    > width. If you do not crop your photographs or use your camera's
    > panoramic setting, the aspect ratio should conform to the required
    > standards automatically.
    > * Please ensure all submissions conform to one of the following
    > aspect ratios:
    >
    > Portrait format must not exceed a height-to-width ratio of 2:1
    > Landscape format must not exceed height-to-width ratio of 1:3
    > * Please note that if your photograph is not in one of the required
    > aspect ratios it may not be displayed as you intended, or it may be
    > rejected.
    > --------------------
    >
    > And another issue that "35mm" is not a square format.
    >
    > 16:1 is recognised as a Panorama format in a small number of
    > competitions. Most will simply not take entries in this format.
    >
    > It's up to you lot in the end. How the hell 3 gnats ass's is going to
    > make up for one decent shot of the gnat is something I'll leave out for
    > now but none the less needs to be addressed right alongside how many of
    > you have each other in their kill file.
     
    Doug Jewell, Sep 8, 2008
    #5
  6. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    Robert Coe wrote:

    >
    > Those are NOT strict prescriptions for aspect-ratio compliance. They're "not
    > to exceed" limits unrelated to the pictures' original aspect ratios and are
    > very generous at that. None of the pictures submitted to the SI fail to comply
    > with those limits.
    >
    > Why are you continuing this preposterous rant? Why do you give a rat's ass
    > what aspect ratios other people use or other competitions prescribe?
    >
    > Bob


    Do you know what an aspect ratio is Bob?

    It is nothing to do with how much you trim a photo down. I often make a
    portrait aspect ration photo from a landscape picture. I hear a lot of
    complaints from US photographers that they can't get A4 aspect ratio
    picture frames. It's all about standard sizes and if your shots are so
    small, you can't crop them whilst maintaining the aspect ratio, perhaps
    you ought to reflect on that?
     
    D-Mac, Sep 8, 2008
    #6
  7. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    tony cooper wrote:
    > On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:51:02 +1000, D-Mac <> 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.
     
    D-Mac, Sep 8, 2008
    #7
  8. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest


    > 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.

    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.

    "If you provide an uncropped image it will automatically be the correct
    aspect ratio", regardless of the size of the picture.

    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.

    Seriously mate, if you run a lab and don't comprehend this, it's time
    you thought about throwing in the towel.
     
    D-Mac, Sep 8, 2008
    #8
  9. D-Mac

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Hypocrisy? Surely not. Re: [SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographiccompetitions.

    I *really* hate to do this to D-Mac, but surely he must have figured
    someone might take a quick look at his previous SI submissions? (O:

    I won't bother requoting his ridiculous post.. Suffice to say that
    others have pointed out that those links do NOT refer to any specific
    aspect ratios, and merely provide *limits*.

    But I WILL point out many of D-Mac's submissions to the SI which,
    *naturally*, breach his own fantasies about aspect ratios:

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025088
    750 / 377 = 1.989

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/79617184
    720 / 466 = 1.55

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76894980
    720 / 500 = 1.44

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/73110177
    650 / 437 = 1.48

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/73632188
    640 / 511 = 1.25

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/27848862
    681 / 480 = 1.42

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/26507811
    793 / 451 = 1.76

    ....

    Umm, any questions? That's Douglas "St James" MacDonald for you.
     
    Mark Thomas, Sep 8, 2008
    #9
  10. D-Mac

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Hypocrisy? Surely not. Re: [SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographiccompetitions.

    I *really* hate to do this to D-Mac, but surely he must have figured
    someone might take a quick look at his previous SI submissions? (O:

    I won't bother requoting his ridiculous post.. Suffice to say that
    others have pointed out that those links do NOT refer to any specific
    aspect ratios, and merely provide *limits*.

    But I WILL point out many of D-Mac's submissions to the SI which,
    *naturally*, breach his own fantasies about aspect ratios:

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025088
    750 / 377 = 1.989

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/79617184
    720 / 466 = 1.55

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76894980
    720 / 500 = 1.44

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/73110177
    650 / 437 = 1.48

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/73632188
    640 / 511 = 1.25

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/27848862
    681 / 480 = 1.42

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/26507811
    793 / 451 = 1.76

    ....

    Umm, any questions? That's Douglas "St James" MacDonald for you.
     
    Mark Thomas, Sep 8, 2008
    #10
  11. D-Mac

    Doug Jewell Guest

    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?
     
    Doug Jewell, Sep 8, 2008
    #11
  12. D-Mac

    Doug Jewell Guest

    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?
     
    Doug Jewell, Sep 8, 2008
    #12
  13. D-Mac

    Roy G Guest

    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
     
    Roy G, Sep 8, 2008
    #13
  14. D-Mac

    Roy G Guest

    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
     
    Roy G, Sep 8, 2008
    #14
  15. D-Mac

    PeteD Guest

    "D-Mac" <> wrote in message
    news:ga2g00$hm8$-online.de...
    > tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:51:02 +1000, D-Mac <> 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..........
     
    PeteD, Sep 8, 2008
    #15
  16. D-Mac

    PeteD Guest

    "D-Mac" <> wrote in message
    news:ga2g00$hm8$-online.de...
    > tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:51:02 +1000, D-Mac <> 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..........
     
    PeteD, Sep 8, 2008
    #16
  17. D-Mac

    Böwser Guest

    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?
     
    Böwser, Sep 8, 2008
    #17
  18. D-Mac

    Böwser Guest

    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?
     
    Böwser, Sep 8, 2008
    #18
  19. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Re: recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.

    On Sep 7, 10:51 pm, D-Mac <> 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?
     
    Annika1980, Sep 8, 2008
    #19
  20. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    Re: recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.

    On Sep 7, 10:51 pm, D-Mac <> 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?
     
    Annika1980, Sep 8, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Scot Gardner

    More American Graffiti: Aspect Ratios Correct.

    Scot Gardner, Sep 3, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    688
    Scot Gardner
    Sep 3, 2003
  2. Waterperson77

    one of my favorite dvd aspect ratios

    Waterperson77, Dec 16, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    498
    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little
    Dec 19, 2003
  3. Edward Holub
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    502
    Joshua Zyber
    Jan 29, 2004
  4. Bob D.
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,193
    Richard C.
    Oct 4, 2004
  5. Curtin/Dobbs

    Harry Potter 1-thru-4 Aspect Ratios

    Curtin/Dobbs, Dec 2, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,184
    Jeff Rife
    Dec 4, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page