No announcement yet.

Impending Change to Photo Cropping Rules

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I can imagine the scene. Somebody looks at you and your hasselblad and you say .... "Size matters, didn't you know that?"
    My photos on Flickr


    • #32
      All of these photos rejected because of Cropping / Photo edges. I always keep my photos in 1024 X 768 ratio. Let see how is the appeal goes. Thanks.


      • #33
        I know of two photographers who use medium format for aviation. One is using an old camera and the other is on one of the new digital medium format cameras. They are rare but the quality is amasing.


        • #34
          Bad photo size is something I don't think I've had a rejection for


          • #35
            new photo sizes

            recently received the new cropping rules for pictures.....

            there is a problem though - when I resize a file in Photoshop CS2 (Cameras Canon 300D and 30D) file image sizes 3072x2048 and 3504x2336
            the size comes out as 1600x1067 or 1280x853 or 1024x683

            and always has.... (been doing this for four years now)

            BUT - this as you can see is NOT one of the new sizes

            and since I dont do any other 'cropping/resizing' to my files this new size you stipulate will involve considerable effort on my part as the 1280x960 size is NOT what I get when resizing my files........

            Perhaps you could rethink this new 'standard' as it conflicts with the way my software resizes the pictures............

            Bob Leask (musice)


            • #36
              Hi Bob,
              there is no need to rethink the new rule. It says:
              Photos should be uploaded between 4:3 or 3:2 format.
              ... followed by a few TYPICAL sizes, not the only ones accepted.

              Your examples above are all acceptable:
              1600x1067 or 1280x853 or 1024x683 are all a 3:2 size ratio

              Now, your photos rejected for "cropping" had 1280x842 (2x) and 1280x837 (1x), which is slightly below 1280x853

              Hope, this clears it up.
              My photos on Flickr


              • #37
                Oh golly, another step down the road to mindless photography.

                Have you looked at how much space is wasted at the top and bottom of a picture?

                Allowing letterbox formats would get the best use out of a picture, cutting down on needless grass, tarmac, concrete or sky.


                • #38
                  I fail to see the "mindless photography" in the change, but IMO the most mindless photography is to simply cut off a photo around the main subject.

                  I guess, you simply cut off parts of a slide away before a slide show

                  My photos on Flickr


                  • #39
                    I am having a hard time sizing MD88's and 717's to the new ratio. I used to size them at 1024/600 . 1024/683 makes them look too fat. Any idea what I can do ?


                    • #40
                      I don't think, the B717 looks fat:

                      My photos on Flickr


                      • #41
                        I was refering to when I take them side-on. Whenever I save them at 1024/683 they look too fat. I was looking for help,not criticism.


                        • #42
                          I just posted a link to the thousands of B717 shots just to give you an idea.

                          Just add some space above and below the aircraft. I don't see, how this makes the B717/Md80 or F100 for that matter any fatter.
                          My photos on Flickr


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by United_Fan
                            makes them look too fat.
                            who you callin' fat?!?!
                            here's a tip for you all: divide the picture size(1024 x 683 for example) and compare it to 4 divided by 3, and 3 divided by 2 and if it is close then it will most likely be ok.



                            • #44
                              Originally posted by LX-A343
                              I guess, you simply cut off parts of a slide away before a slide show Gerardo
                              No, you didn't but you DID when you made a print, few if any of the common print stock sizes matched the aspect ratio of the frames used in film cameras.

                              I am not a great fan of an open slather on aspect ratios, many use that "creativity" to save a poorly shot image but I do believe 16:9 should be allowed.




                              • #45
                                So,when I do a 'side-on' shot of a MD80 or the like,crop it close to the nose and tail,resize it to 1024x683 and it looks too short,what do you suggest?