If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
[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? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.
"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.......... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] recognised aspect ratios for photographic competitions.
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. -------------------- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
JPEG files not being recognised by domestic DVD player | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 9 | November 17th 06 10:11 AM |
Help with developer and fixer ratios | Hugh | In The Darkroom | 6 | October 18th 05 09:29 PM |
Aspect ratios | Gav | Digital Photography | 15 | May 5th 05 08:56 PM |
Photo Printing Consoles and Odd Aspect Ratios | Pete | Digital Photography | 7 | September 8th 04 08:12 PM |
Lens Ratios | Tom Thackrey | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | July 13th 04 09:07 AM |