> 1 <

Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 74 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 2153
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#4846 2010-07-26 GMT-5 hours    
Hi Everyone,
Lately we've been having a lot of issues with photos being either very tall or very shallow. Unfortunately, a few have made it through as the screeners simply don't have the time to check the height of every photo. Please do your part to keep the aspect ratio at either 3:2 or 4:3 max. We prefer 3:2 but realize that for certain shots 4:3 may be a better fit. Any questions, or if you need help calculating what the height should be for a certain width, please don't be afraid to ask. We're here to help. Thanks for your cooperation.

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

Ghostbase


Photographers
See my 1,576 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 89
Location: Guildford
Occupation: Railway Guard / Conductor
Age:

#5027 2010-12-12 GMT-5 hours    
Can I check that I have this right?

Using 3:2 and 4:3 as the minimum and maximum aspect ratios...

At 1280 pixels width the minimum acceptable height is 853 pixels, maximum 960 pixels

At 1152 pixels width the minimum acceptable height is 768 pixels, maximum 864 pixels

At 1024 pixels width the minimum acceptable height is 683 pixels, maximum 768 pixels

And anything between these would be acceptable? However noted that 3:2 preferred.

Thankyou

Michael

"Rolling..." B-36H serial 51-5734 Film 'Strategic Air Command' 1955 - Six Turning and Four Burning!

Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 74 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 2153
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#5029 2010-12-12 GMT-5 hours    
Hi Michael,
That is correct on both counts. I personally prefer 1200x800 as I have a rather large screen with high resolution. Anything smaller looks a little too small to me. With monitors getting bigger all the time, I think everyone should try to aim for the larger sizes if possible.

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

Vasmadár


Photographers
See my 271 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 150
Location: EU, Hungary
Occupation:
Age: 27

#5030 2010-12-12 GMT-5 hours    
Hi guys. My favourite is 1600x1200.

Lets Fly! :)

Best Regards,

Péter

Author Message

YIFLY


Platinum Members
See my 6,507 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 48
Location: Near Gettysburg, PA
Occupation: US Correspondent Aviation Photo Journal
Age:

#5032 2010-12-14 GMT-5 hours    
What you are saying is, size does matter.

Happy Holidays,
Dave

“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” -Ernest Hemingway

Author Message

Ghostbase


Photographers
See my 1,576 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 89
Location: Guildford
Occupation: Railway Guard / Conductor
Age:

#5033 2010-12-14 GMT-5 hours    
Thanks for the replies...and the very different opinions

The majority of my film / slide scans have been posted at 1024 x 768 quite simply because that was the best quality I could get on my old film scanner. I could go back and re-scan them all on my new scanner at a larger size with better quality but just don't have the spare time to do it! I can also see the logic of Carl's practice on this.

Not sure I could post at 1600 x 1200. My old films / slides would not go to that size and I am still using a six year old plus DSLR with a 6 MB output so that would struggle to maintain quality at that size. Have looked at some of Péter's photos and admit the large size does show them very well.

I am going to give 1200 x 800 a try from now on, the advantage being it is very easy to remember that the height of the scan must be between 800 and 900!

Michael

"Rolling..." B-36H serial 51-5734 Film 'Strategic Air Command' 1955 - Six Turning and Four Burning!

Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 74 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 2153
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#5117 2011-01-12 GMT-5 hours    
An update went in a couple of hours ago that checks the aspect ratio of photos upon upload. If your photo is too tall or too shallow, a warning will be displayed. The screeners simply don't have the time to check dimensions for every photo. As of today, this will make it easy for them to see the dimensions and reject any offending photos. Please make sure your photos are between 3:2 and 4:3 in aspect ratio.

Like I said, this upgrade just went in, so if you are seeing any issues, please let me know ASAP. Thanks.

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 74 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 2153
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#5118 2011-01-12 GMT-5 hours    
I forgot to mention that the minimum photo width for landscape photos has been increased from 800px to 1024px.

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

Jörg Pfeifer


Photo Screeners
See my 998 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 223
Location: Bavaria
Occupation:
Age: 43

#5119 2011-01-12 GMT-5 hours    
Great tool!! Thanks Ray

Regards,
Jörg


joerg@airfighters.com

Author Message

YIFLY


Platinum Members
See my 6,507 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 48
Location: Near Gettysburg, PA
Occupation: US Correspondent Aviation Photo Journal
Age:

#5120 2011-01-12 GMT-5 hours    
Just now uploaded my first image since the aspect ratio upgrade. Very nice. Thanks Ray. The site just keeps getting better and better. Bravo Zulu to you.
Dave

“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” -Ernest Hemingway

Author Message

Hunter Mk58


Platinum Members
See my 3,869 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 41
Location: near LSME
Occupation:
Age: 53

#5121 2011-01-12 GMT-5 hours    
Really great tool !
I tried to upload a picture with 1200 x 797 pixels. No chance! Your tool works perfect as this whole website does.
It's a very good job what you are doing here Ray. I think you spend a lot of your time, to make AIRFIGHTERS more perfect.
Thank you very much for that ::2thumbs_grin} and thank you for creating this database !!!

I wish back the good old times, when a picture was a picture and not only bits and bytes and when the people knew the meaning of the word respect. Respect is a very rare thing in our days…

Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 74 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 2153
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#5122 2011-01-12 GMT-5 hours    
You're welcome guys! Glad to see that all the efforts are appreciated.

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

Andreas


Platinum Members
See my 3,872 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 82
Location: Southern Bavaria
Occupation:
Age:

#5123 2011-01-12 GMT-5 hours    
would you mind reducing the 1024pix to 1000pix?
Becuase I think a lot of people did upload 1000pix wide before (well, at least I did...) and so I could keep this size in my workflow.
Furthermore many internet users still use a 1024pix width screen, and with 1000pi width they do not need to scroll to look at the image with some brders being around.

Regards

Andreas
Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 74 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 2153
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#5124 2011-01-13 GMT-5 hours    
Ok, fair enough, 1000px width is a popular size. 1000x667 is the new minimum.

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

Andreas


Platinum Members
See my 3,872 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 82
Location: Southern Bavaria
Occupation:
Age:

#5125 2011-01-13 GMT-5 hours    
Thanks a lot Rax, I really appreciate this!

Andreas
Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 74 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 2153
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#5126 2011-01-13 GMT-5 hours    
You're welcome. Now lets see some more great uploads. :wink

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

Andreas


Platinum Members
See my 3,872 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 82
Location: Southern Bavaria
Occupation:
Age:

#5127 2011-01-14 GMT-5 hours    
Already did yesterday, more to come

View large    View medium
Click here for medium size photo!

Photo © Andreas Zeitler - Flying-Wings
View large    View medium
Click here for medium size photo!

Photo © Andreas Zeitler - Flying-Wings

Author Message

Guido132


Photographers
See my 62 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 15
Location: Herk-de-Stad
Occupation: European AIS Database - EAD
Age: 51

#5128 2011-01-15 GMT-5 hours    
I've also uploaded a couple new ones as well as one re-upload after improvement. All works great. Thanks!!

Author Message

joopgr


Photographers
See my 4,832 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 197
Location: Waalre
Occupation: Civil Engineer
Age:

#5451 2011-07-10 GMT-5 hours    
I'd really appreciate the minimum highth would be 860 in stead of 863 (x1024).
The dimensions of the Nikon DX sensor makes 1024 wide pictures always 860 high. This means I (and all Nikon users) have to crop each and avery picture to make is fit with the minima.
Now i have some 860 high pictures in the queue that take long to be screened. They do make it, I noticed, but if the minimum highth is reduced by 3 pixels I'm sure this woould save the photographers (and the screeners) some work.

Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 74 Photos

  Online status  

 
Posts: 2153
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#5452 2011-07-10 GMT-5 hours    
Hi Joop,
Actually, you'll be fine. Because of sensor differences, we allow +-3px in height. No need for the extra cropping.

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

> 1 <