[SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.

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 ******* 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 **** 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/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.
--------------------

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.

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 **** 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/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.
: --------------------
:
: 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

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

Don Hirschberg
"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
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 **** 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/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.
: --------------------
:
: 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 ****ty 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."

"tony cooper" wrote:

I don't know if the Shoot-In was a competition at one time, but this
last one wasn't.

Absolutely correct. It has *never* been a competition. And it has never been
one on purpose. That's why Lisa titled it as the "Shoot-In" and not
"Shoot-Out". It's nothing more than a well-meaning show-and-tell exercise.
An excuse for interested participants to actually get out and *use* some of
that fun camera equipment they've all worked so hard to collect.

Nothing more.

Ken

D-Mac wrote:
snipped lots of bull****
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/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.
--------------------

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.