Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UPLOAD GUIDELINES - New version

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MartinezRoe7
    replied
    Hello everyone!

    I wanted to ask since I've seen in the forum (and when you upload a photo) that you can't upload more than twice the same registration, regardless of the date. But if you can upload it if it is the same license plate but another airport .. is like that?

    I write this since I realized today that in the same airport a spotter has three times the same plane and the same registration (although different angles), taken the same year.

    Personally I have limited myself not to take or upload photos of the same plane since I have it 3 times, but if it could be, I would like to be clarified.

    Is it a rule that must be respected or does the filter not exist in it?

    Since I am attentive to your answers. Excuse me if this is not the forum where I should expose my doubt.

    Regards from SCEL and happy new year 2018 (thanks for the help!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Originally posted by mohamadrezazeinloo View Post
    Hi, my friends i can not upload more than 5 photos. What is it?
    Hi,
    Please read : https://forums.jetphotos.com/showthr...-Starter-Queue

    Regards
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • mohamadrezazeinloo
    replied
    Hi, my friends i can not upload more than 5 photos. What is it?

    Leave a comment:


  • razashaikh
    replied
    As a beginner got the clear idea regarding site rules. Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Originally posted by pawelm View Post
    Guys, is this rule still valid?
    Yes

    Leave a comment:


  • pawelm
    replied
    7. Please note that new routes are not considered as hot.
    Guys, is this rule still valid?

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Originally posted by BartB65 View Post
    So basically, you're saying that a 1920x1080 is better than a full frame 32 MP ? Interesting. Also that you apparently had 1920 pixels wide images when nobody even knew what a pixel was yet.
    Pardon me? At this time, scanning slides for wallsize prints created photos, where actual 32MP cameras are a toy.

    But now I know, what kind of person I'm dealing with. Good thing you leave. Saves me the time to put you in my ignore list.

    Leave a comment:


  • PMN
    replied
    Originally posted by BartB65 View Post
    [-Edit-] Never mind. Not going to waste my time on yet another photo forum where the silverbacks try to impress new members.
    Oh, the irony...

    Leave a comment:


  • BartB65
    replied
    Originally posted by PMN View Post
    Apart from the fact your arrogance is nothing short of spectacular, you don't seem to realise this is the Internet and people generally view images on the Internet on computer screens. Exactly how do you propose people view such high resolution images natively? By only being able to see the engine or a few windows at a time? People generally want to view the entire image, not just a part of it in which case it makes sense to use smaller pixel dimensions.

    By the way, I wouldn't upload any of my medium format film work to the Internet at full resolution because it's utterly pointless, and my high end commercial scanners are capable of creating far bigger files than DSLRs like the 5DS or D850. Nor would I upload anything I've been paid to shoot commercially at full size to the Internet - again, because it's utterly pointless.

    I have no idea what point you're trying to prove but if you're trying to make yourself look big and clever you're achieving the precise opposite.
    [-Edit-] Never mind. Not going to waste my time on yet another photo forum where the silverbacks try to impress new members. I'm out.

    Leave a comment:


  • PMN
    replied
    Originally posted by BartB65 View Post
    So basically, you're saying that a 1920x1080 is better than a full frame 32 MP ? Interesting. Also that you apparently had 1920 pixels wide images when nobody even knew what a pixel was yet.

    (Please, don't do the "I have so many years experience" thing here. You risk being outranked. Like now.)

    All joking aside: I agree with you that a smaller image may SEEM sharper when uploaded in the smaller format. However, downsizing an image means loss of information. Always. Therefor, I argue that a big file is always a better image. As an original, that is.

    The reason I wonder about all this is the fact that this JP-policy leaves the database with images in a format that causes them not to be as good as they could have been. That can't be what you're aiming for...
    Apart from the fact your arrogance is nothing short of spectacular, you don't seem to realise this is the Internet and people generally view images on the Internet on computer screens. Exactly how do you propose people view such high resolution images natively? By only being able to see the engine or a few windows at a time? People generally want to view the entire image, not just a part of it in which case it makes sense to use smaller pixel dimensions.

    By the way, I wouldn't upload any of my medium format film work to the Internet at full resolution because it's utterly pointless, and my high end commercial scanners are capable of creating far bigger files than DSLRs like the 5DS or D850. Nor would I upload anything I've been paid to shoot commercially at full size to the Internet - again, because it's utterly pointless.

    I have no idea what point you're trying to prove but if you're trying to make yourself look big and clever you're achieving the precise opposite.

    Leave a comment:


  • BartB65
    replied
    Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    A bad image at 1280 would look terrible at 1920...
    It would be a more honest way to judge them then (And you just gave the best argument to not let new users upload smaller files...)

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex - Spot-This !
    replied
    Originally posted by BartB65 View Post
    .....
    The reason I wonder about all this is the fact that this JP-policy leaves the database with images in a format that causes them not to be as good as they could have been. That can't be what you're aiming for...
    A bad image at 1280 would look terrible at 1920...

    Leave a comment:


  • BartB65
    replied
    Originally posted by LX-A343 View Post
    Now it's my turn: you can't be serious!! It is far easier to get a decent photo with a width of 1200px than with 1900px. Trust me! That's about 30 years experience talking to you.
    So basically, you're saying that a 1920x1080 is better than a full frame 32 MP ? Interesting. Also that you apparently had 1920 pixels wide images when nobody even knew what a pixel was yet.

    (Please, don't do the "I have so many years experience" thing here. You risk being outranked. Like now.)

    All joking aside: I agree with you that a smaller image may SEEM sharper when uploaded in the smaller format. However, downsizing an image means loss of information. Always. Therefor, I argue that a big file is always a better image. As an original, that is.

    The reason I wonder about all this is the fact that this JP-policy leaves the database with images in a format that causes them not to be as good as they could have been. That can't be what you're aiming for...

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Originally posted by BartB65 View Post
    Ok, fair enough, but then I counter that by saying that a high-end full-frame 6720 pixels wide image will not benefit from being downsized to 1280 pixels. Sharpness, detail, contrast, everything the camera worked so hard for is being downgraded. I'd say that in 2017, 1920 pixels should be the very bare minimum for uploading images that are screened as thoroughly as you guys seem to do.
    Now it's my turn: you can't be serious!! It is far easier to get a decent photo with a width of 1200px than with 1900px. Trust me! That's about 30 years experience talking to you.

    Leave a comment:


  • BartB65
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Quite serious. The percentage of images submitted at 1920 that are accepted is much lower than that of images submitted at smaller sizes like 1280. It is very difficult to hide the flaws in an image at higher resolution, which is why we allow only proven uploaders to submit at larger resolutions.
    Ok, fair enough, but then I counter that by saying that a high-end full-frame 6720 pixels wide image will not benefit from being downsized to 1280 pixels. Sharpness, detail, contrast, everything the camera worked so hard for is being downgraded. I'd say that in 2017, 1920 pixels should be the very bare minimum for uploading images that are screened as thoroughly as you guys seem to do.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X