[SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.

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?

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

"D-Mac" wrote in message
...
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..........

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?

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:16:37 +1000, D-Mac wrote:

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.

Yes, there is. You are far enough along to recognize that these are
important in communication, but you pay mind to neither.

Read it again Tony. I did not say the SI was a competition. I said it
was an excuse for one.

Saying "An excuse for a competition" is a statement that there is/was
a competition, but it is/was significantly lacking in some aspect. We
might say "He's a poor excuse for a wedding photographer" with the
same intent: he calls himself a wedding photographer, but he's
totally inept at the job.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

D-Mac wrote:
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.

Since English is apparently not your first language, I'll kindly explain
it to you that the excerpts from Google results you provided (see below)
clearly state that it is perfectly allowable to change the aspect ratio
of the image, as long as the image does not get excessively "elongated"
in either direction. This is exactly what the standard "must not exceed"
wording is intended to convey in the quotes below.

(BTW, it is "ratio", not "ration" as you often spell it in your messages
for some reason. "Ration" is a completely different thing.)

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/apictureof...mp_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.
--------------------