| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/30/2004 08:30:36 AM · #1 |
I was looking at some of the old challenges, and I noticed that there "seems" to be a lot of square format (640x640) submissions in the top 3 of the challenges. I'm guessing that the 3:2 format is the much more popular submission ratio overall. I wonder if we tend to vote "larger" submissions higher just because they're larger?
Anyone else ever think about this, or am I the only freak here?
Kris
ps ... I took a killer "rusted" picture yesterday and now I can't wait for the voting to start. I've never been so happy with one of my submission (it'll prolly get a 4 :) |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 08:43:57 AM · #2 |
I've often noticed this as well. I concluded that the larger pics that contained high detail "wowed" the voters, and got higher scores as a result. You'll note that I have used the square format in several of my submissions, most recently my 2nd-place March Free Study shot.
You can see the opposite effect on pics that are much wider than high (or vice versa). Although the format may work very well for them, they contain less visual information, less perceived detail, and don't tend to do as well as their content indicates they should. For a panorama that's, say, 640px wide by 160px high, it is almost like voting on a string of thumnails.
It's one reason I lobbied recently for an increase in allowable image dimensions.
|
|
|
|
04/30/2004 09:04:26 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's one reason I lobbied recently for an increase in allowable image dimensions. |
I would like to see a move to 800 pixels.
I don't think I've given any thought to the squareness of winning photos but I would tend to agree that bigger is usually better. Having just now looked through some of the older challenges I can't really see an overwhelming number of square formatted photos. |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 09:09:52 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I can't really see an overwhelming number of square formatted photos. |
Noticeable amount ... not overwhelming ... and maybe not even noticeable to anyone but me ... who knows |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 09:11:55 AM · #5 |
| Is your killer rusted a square one hooper? You any relation to Dennis? |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 09:15:49 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 09:28:32 AM · #7 |
| good answer hopper, from now on I'm adding a point to all the square ones in every challenge |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 11:34:46 AM · #8 |
for the most part i enter the photo in the same ratio the camera took it at
1.5:1 - and dont tend to crop them. if you are narrow minded enough not to take into consideration that the actual print size of the photo would likely be much larger than what is diplayed here ( and therefore hold more detail ) - i question your votes.
personally i dislike the square format quite abit - but the shape of the photo has no bearing on whether i vote it well or not.
|
|
|
|
04/30/2004 11:39:40 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I would like to see a move to 800 pixels.
|
I'm not sure that this would be a good idea - sure on a landscaped shot that would be pretty useful, but anything presented portrait might have fitting on a screen issues, what with the number of toolbars and the size of an average screen. 640 high images also JUST go beyond the size of my screen (probably only be a couple of pixels), so anything larger than that would severley be disadvantaged in a competitve environment. |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 01:44:08 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by redmoon:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I would like to see a move to 800 pixels.
|
I'm not sure that this would be a good idea - sure on a landscaped shot that would be pretty useful, but anything presented portrait might have fitting on a screen issues, what with the number of toolbars and the size of an average screen. 640 high images also JUST go beyond the size of my screen (probably only be a couple of pixels), so anything larger than that would severley be disadvantaged in a competitve environment. |
just a thought, you could change your resolution to fit 640pix images portrait style. |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 04:09:25 PM · #11 |
| Maximum dimensions of 800 wide by 640 high would fit. But the arguments against are the larger files would make voting more time comsuming; and the larger images would be more siutable for riping off. |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 07:06:54 PM · #12 |
Can they make it so there is simply a pixel limit, e.g. 640 x 480 = 307 200 pixels, so make the allowed maximum, say, 320 000?
|
|
|
|
04/30/2004 07:26:59 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Maximum dimensions of 800 wide by 640 high would fit. But the arguments against are the larger files would make voting more time comsuming; and the larger images would be more siutable for riping off. |
The "file size" argument needn't come into play. Even at 800x800, a 150kb file is still acceptable quality. Look here to see how different compression settins affect the quality of a high-detail (worst case) image.
As for image stealing, sure, it will go on, but it probably does already; the only way to stop it is not to post, which is really not an option. An 800x640 image is not significantly more saleable than a 640x640 image, IMO
|
|
|
|
04/30/2004 07:35:39 PM · #14 |
never-the-less if 800x800 is an option, and the square photos will still be there - but larger...
|
|
|
|
04/30/2004 08:02:46 PM · #15 |
| From time to time, if I really like one of the entries, I will set it as my background for a while. Is that steeling? I would be pleased if someone liked one of my shots that much. |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 10:55:58 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
From time to time, if I really like one of the entries, I will set it as my background for a while. Is that steeling? I would be pleased if someone liked one of my shots that much. |
I believe that would ordinarily be covered by fair use. Personally, as long as they aren't printing it on rolls of toilet paper I'm pretty happy. |
|
|
|
04/30/2004 11:08:18 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by redmoon:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I would like to see a move to 800 pixels.
|
I'm not sure that this would be a good idea - sure on a landscaped shot that would be pretty useful, but anything presented portrait might have fitting on a screen issues, what with the number of toolbars and the size of an average screen. 640 high images also JUST go beyond the size of my screen (probably only be a couple of pixels), so anything larger than that would severley be disadvantaged in a competitve environment. |
On my screen I can see images up to 887 pixels in height without scrolling. For people who use a low res display or have lots of browser crap it could be an option to open a voting window that would be free of the the toolbars or have them hit F11 or whatever their key is to go fullscreen. |
|
|
|
05/01/2004 08:32:44 AM · #18 |
Again, is there any real problem with having a pixel limit? That way, to have the biggest possible image, you would not need to resort to the square format.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2004 10:46:34 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by SquirreI:
Again, is there any real problem with having a pixel limit? That way, to have the biggest possible image, you would not need to resort to the square format. |
Here are the problems I see with just having a pixel limit (I assume a limit of 512,000 px, equivalent to 800x640):
1.) You could enter something at 240px H x 2133px wide for instance. Meets the 512,000px limit but no one I know can display it in its entirety.
2.) Too much math. Lots of folks here have severe math allergy, requiring them to multiply and/or divide might cause them physical harm.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2004 11:31:42 AM · #20 |
Good points. Even if there was a rule like "The aspect ratio can only be 1.8:1 at most" it would still be too much bother for the site owners to program in something that auto-resizes the pictures. E.g. oversize images ---> made smaller to comply with rules; elongated images ---> made smaller until largest dimension = 640.
Square pictures will continue to score highly, then.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2004 11:53:26 AM · #21 |
| my theory is that people know jj submits a lot of photos in square ratio. Perhaps subliminally, they realize it could be his, so they vote it higher. Most of the square image formats have been taken by great photographers, at least from what I have seen. |
|
|
|
05/01/2004 12:17:06 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by jrs915:
my theory is that people know jj submits a lot of photos in square ratio. Perhaps subliminally, they realize it could be his, so they vote it higher. Most of the square image formats have been taken by great photographers, at least from what I have seen. |
LOL, Damn, I must be great! Your post made me go count how many of my submissions have been in square format. Out of 22 submissions, 8 have been 640x640, and 3 more have been aspect ratios at or above 0.8 (640x512) but below 1.0)
edit:
BTW, no, I don't think folks vote square format higher because of any perceived or subliminal association with particular photog(s). One look at some of my scores will tell you that, LOL.
I've never really looked at my "preferences" for certain aspect ratios before, and this was quite an enlightening surprise. I really think I have been subconsciously maximizing photo size to increase detail. When I look at photos at 640x427 (the natural aspect ratio of my camera) they seem small and cramped.
Message edited by author 2004-05-01 12:19:59.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2004 01:20:58 PM · #23 |
| This thread started with an observation that there were quite a few photos of square format. Now it seems to have become a square format is evil type discussion. Personally I like a square photo. Just curious, what have the anti-square people got against square photos? |
|
|
|
05/01/2004 01:41:09 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
This thread started with an observation that there were quite a few photos of square format. Now it seems to have become a square format is evil type discussion. Personally I like a square photo. Just curious, what have the anti-square people got against square photos? |
I don't feel like Satan
But I am to them
--Neil Young
I've been using square crops a lot lately -- I find they help me isolate the subject better. A lot of subjects are round, not rectangular (e.g. faces), and fit a square better than a rectangle if the background is not of interest. I'd also rather use a square than an odd-sized rectangle for photos which don't compose well in a standard aspect ratio -- I much prefer the traditonal 35mm 3:2 ratio than the video-based 4:3 most cameras give you. |
|
|
|
05/01/2004 01:45:46 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've been using square crops a lot lately -- I find they help me isolate the subject better. A lot of subjects are round, not rectangular (e.g. faces), and fit a square better than a rectangle if the background is not of interest. I'd also rather use a square than an odd-sized rectangle for photos which don't compose well in a standard aspect ratio -- I much prefer the traditonal 35mm 3:2 ratio than the video-based 4:3 most cameras give you. |
I really don't like the 4:3 ratio for some reason, it feels (I know this sounds stupid) incomplete. I persoanlly prefer the 3:2 over 4:3. I have been toying around with greater widths that aren't quite panoramic.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 04:18:17 PM EDT.
