Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 160

Thread: UPLOAD GUIDELINES - New version

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis,USA
    Posts
    62

    Default

    My apologies if its the incorrect thread for the question, but was reading on the manipulations/cloning related information.

    My question if i use clone to get rid of the halos (cloning blue sky near the halos), would it also lead to a rejection and its after effects.

    Thanks for your time.

    Thanks,
    Ninad

  2. #22
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninadranade View Post
    My apologies if its the incorrect thread for the question, but was reading on the manipulations/cloning related information.

    My question if i use clone to get rid of the halos (cloning blue sky near the halos), would it also lead to a rejection and its after effects.

    Thanks for your time.

    Thanks,
    Ninad
    1) most certainly yes
    2) much better solution is to avoid halos in the first place

  3. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    1.2.9 Date


    For photos taken with with a digital camera the exact date is expected to be given. Not submitting the exact date (Month/Day/Year) can lead to a rejection of the photo. Changing of the date is seen as a manipulation of the image.


    Providing a less specific date (Month/Year), will be accepted in some cases. For example when a photo has been taken on a photography sensitive location. In such a case, the photographer is expected to provide the reason for not submitting the exact date, in the Comments to Screeners field.
    Alex, thanks for the guidelines update on a new thread.

    Regarding the quote above, the new website doesn't allow the omission of the specific day. Could this be allowed? This may sound a bit odd to many of you, but under certain circumstances, date can be as sensitive as location, and jetphotos already allows "Undisclosed location" (item 1.2.2).

    Thanks in advance.

  4. #24
    Junior Member FederalAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    85

    Default

    I'm not sure if this is the correct to place to ask this but, how may I upload in 1600px instead of 1200px?

    Thanks!

  5. #25
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FederalAce View Post
    I'm not sure if this is the correct to place to ask this but, how may I upload in 1600px instead of 1200px?

    Thanks!
    You can request it through the link on your photographer page, but we generally approve larger limits only if you have a relatively high acceptance ratio. Currently your acceptance rate is quite low, so there is not much chance it would be accepted.

  6. #26
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,879

    Default

    The maximum size of 1280 px wide is available to you. We raised it in January 2017.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  7. #27
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11

    Default

    As a new user, I'd like to ask why my uploads fail if the file is wider than 1280 pixels? My shots are very hi-res, and 1920 seems to be a minimum to me, if you really have to limit the size?
    Also, I see images from other users in sizes of 1680 wide, so it's obviously not a "site-wide" limit?

  8. #28
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BartB65 View Post
    As a new user, I'd like to ask why my uploads fail if the file is wider than 1280 pixels? My shots are very hi-res, and 1920 seems to be a minimum to me, if you really have to limit the size?
    Also, I see images from other users in sizes of 1680 wide, so it's obviously not a "site-wide" limit?
    For new uploaders, the size limit is 1280 px. You can request a larger size limit through the link on your photographer page, but we generally approve larger limits only if you have a relatively high acceptance ratio and a certain number of good quality shots.
    Last edited by LX-A343; 11-02-2017 at 09:39 PM.

  9. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LX-A343 View Post
    For new uploaders, the size limit is 1280 px. You can request a larger size limit through the link on your photographer page, but we generally approve larger limits only if you have a relatively high acceptance ratio and a certain number of good quality shots.
    Thanks for the clarification. Makes no real sense to me though. This way I would have to upload relatively low-res pictures, and after you established that they are indeed good images, you're stuck with the low-res versions of images of which the originals are good enough to be printed billboard-size.

  10. #30
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,426

    Default

    It's actually just that large size image hard harder to edit and get accepted. People have first to prove that they can get smaller pics accepted before we can allow larger, more difficult size.

    Alex

  11. #31
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
    It's actually just that large size image hard harder to edit and get accepted. People have first to prove that they can get smaller pics accepted before we can allow larger, more difficult size.
    You can't be serious. Never mind.

  12. #32
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BartB65 View Post
    You can't be serious. Never mind.
    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.

  13. #33
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote 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.

  14. #34
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,545

    Default

    Quote 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.

  15. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote 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...

  16. #36
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,426

    Default

    Quote 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...

  17. #37
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote 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...)

  18. #38
    Senior Member PMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bradford, UK
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    Quote 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.
    Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

    My images on Flickr

  19. #39
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote 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.

  20. #40
    Senior Member PMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bradford, UK
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    Quote 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...
    Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

    My images on Flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •