> 1 <
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos  
|
2007-07-20 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
I tried to post a photo of the nose of a Grumman US-2B in AMARC to this site today however the upload software here would not allow it. The photo is roughly 1024 pixels vertical by 768 horizontal (wide). The upload page refused to accept it because it only recognises photos which are at least 800 pixels wide
This is a very similar shot on Airliners.Net: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0595554/L/ I just wonder whether this rule needs amending perhaps? It is quite possible that this format would be better for tail fin art shots as well as aircraft in a vertical climb attitude whilst performing aerobatics. These would not be accepted under the current criteria. Michael Appears to be thinking... |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos 
|
2007-07-20 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
That is really there to keep people from uploading photos that are only 400 or 500px wide. I will have another look at it to take the height into account. If possible, I will announce it here, so watch this space.
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
Jez
See my 546 Photos 
|
2007-07-20 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
This does cause a bit of a problem, as I have already mentioned to Ray. As a fan of the portrait shot it would mean that I would have to produce a separate file specifically for Airfighters. It would of course be ideal to just output images that are either 1024 wide, or 1024 high with the correct aspect ratio and then contributors are free to upload any image to any site. The way it currently stands is that none of my portrait shots are getting uploaded to Airfighters.
|
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2007-07-20 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I understand guys. Give me a couple of days so I can change the upload script.
Are all portrait shots going to be 1024 high, or at least 1024px tall? Or that should be the requirement, right? Otherwise it shouldn't allow it? -Ray |
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos
|
2007-07-20 GMT-5 hours
|
|
1024 high or at least 1024px tall would certainly be fine for me anyway
 Michael Appears to be thinking... |
| Author | Message |
SnowJ
See my 666 Photos
|
2007-07-22 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I had some that, while I normally put up in 1024x768 format, were the reverse (i.e. 768x1024). The site wouldn't take it off the cuff, so I simply upsized it slightly to 900x1200, and it turned out that the photos in question looked just fine at that size. Just a thought.8)
Jaysen F. Snow - Sterling Aerospace Photography |
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos
|
2007-07-22 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Hello Jaysen, I think we have met before elsewhere on the 'Net :wink
Great idea regards upsizing images so that they get accepted, will definitely work with higher quality DSLR images and I will give it a try here. Thanks. The problem is my older film scans which I want to share here. I made a number of visits to the USA and some European countries in the mid to late 80's and although I have kept the original film negatives they are in poor condition and require a lot of work to eliminate dust spots etc, a couple of hours for each frame to be quite honest. I have done this with pretty well all my old films and get much pleasure from sharing them on sites like this, however they are all at 1024x768 format whether portrait or landscape and upsizing them will involve a LOT of work ie. starting from scratch again and just not sure I have the time to do this. To be realistic very few are portrait format anyway (like the US-2B) so perhaps just move on and not worry too much about them. Michael Appears to be thinking... |
> 1 <