DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Accepting 3:2 Ratio'd Images...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 20, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/30/2002 09:01:28 PM · #1
In trying to accept 3:2 (in addition to the current 4:3 (640x480))ratio'd images, we've ran into a problem setting a standard image size. Originally, after speaking with Reuben we were planning on using 640x427. After speaking with Josh, we determined his images would resize to 640x417.

It seems like we're going to have to accept a range of sizes. Does anyone have any suggestions for this?


* This message has been edited by the author on 3/30/2002 9:24:29 PM.
03/30/2002 09:22:49 PM · #2
640x417 is not 3:2. 3:2 means width = 1.5*height. Notice that 427*1.5 is 625.5, which is not very close to 640. 640x427 is about as close as you can get to this with 640 width (but 640x426 will work as well). You should accomodate 3:2 images, not screwed up 3000 dollar cameras.

Originally posted by langdon:
In trying to accept 3:2 (in addition to the current 4:3 (640x480))ratio'd images, we've ran into a problem setting a standard image size. Originally, after speaking with Reuben we were planning on using 640x426. After speaking with Josh, we determined his images would resize to 640x417.

It seems like we're going to have to accept a range of sizes. Does anyone have any suggestions for this?



03/30/2002 09:55:38 PM · #3
There seems to be a lot of disgruntled people who have things against people with "3000 dollar cameras."

1) Why?
2) It's never about the camera, anyway, especially when the contest is asking for photos of 640x480.

My suggestion to the whole aspect ratio deal is this:

Perhaps set a maximum size (e.g. 640x640) and then allow people submit pictures within that size. I am sure we would see much more creative pictures (e.g. square ones instead of 3x2) when people can actually crop to get a better composition.
03/30/2002 10:17:08 PM · #4
When a decision is made I'll begin to play. I think the max size is the best route to take. The only problem those who are unhappy over the 3:2 ratio of the high dollar cameras is the possibility that they've not worked in 35mm previously, or they're simply afraid of change. Sorry for the slam, but it seems to me that being inclusive rather than exclusive is the goal of this site. I could care less the ratio, you still have to compose, focus and allow for correct exposure. Lets get on with it.
03/30/2002 10:18:43 PM · #5
Originally posted by ziggykor:
When a decision is made I'll begin to play. I think the max size is the best route to take. The only problem those who are unhappy over the 3:2 ratio of the high dollar cameras is the possibility that they've not worked in 35mm previously, or they're simply afraid of change. Sorry for the slam, but it seems to me that being inclusive rather than exclusive is the goal of this site. I could care less the ratio, you still have to compose, focus and allow for correct exposure. Lets get on with it.

I second that.
03/30/2002 10:50:45 PM · #6
Again, the easy way is to make the requirement no more than 640 pixels on the long dimension, and no more than 480 on the short one.
03/30/2002 11:46:33 PM · #7
I personally don't want the site to turn into a creative cropping contest, and just setting max dimensions leaves the door open for that. I'm a designer, so I've got absolutely nothing against all shapes and sizes of images -- but I think this site should be more about the photography than what clever things you can do to the photo after it's on your computer.

Drew
03/31/2002 12:21:53 AM · #8
Originally posted by drewmedia:
but I think this site should be more about the photography than what clever things you can do to the photo after it's on your computer.

I'm here to learn about photography and welcome the chellenge of needing to get near perfect composition on the shots I take. I'm learning to scan my viewfinder perimeter, pay more attention to subject placement, etc... exactly because I can't just crop what I don't like for the challenge. It is making me a better photographer.

How about this? Requirement is to submit a photo with the wide side at 640, and the short side at the proper ratio for the pixel dimensions your registered camera shoots at. If there is a 3:2 camera that shoots at a slightly skewed 3:2 versus another, it is in the specs for that camera what X:Y dimensions it shoots in. Submission must be a resize of the same ratio with the wide side at 640.

Thoughts?

03/31/2002 01:36:11 AM · #9
Re: Disgruntled

I'm not disgruntled, and I don't have anything wrong with people owning nice cameras, I'm just giving you a hard time.

In any case, the Nikon D1 series are the only cameras anybody's noted on here that are not 3:2 or 4:3, so it doesn't make much sense to support the D1X ratio rather than 3:2, especially considering that to get a 3008x1920 image down to 3:2, you only have to crop 128 pixels in the width, which is only about 4.2 percent of the width. On the other hand, with my Kodak DC4800, which takes it's highest resolution images at the 3:2 dimensions of 2160x1440, one must crop 240 pixels to get down to 4:3, which is about 11.1 percent of the width.

Re: It's never about the camera, especially with 640x480

I agree that the camera is the least important factor, but you can't ignore it completely. Especially with the wide range of lenses you have to choose from comparatively.

I think your solution is good, but I really enjoy the framing aspect of the challenge. Also, if you're allowed to crop, the higher end cameras suddenly have an advantage that I think is not insignificant. A 5 MP camera yields many more cropping options than a 2 MP camera does.

I think the best solution is the following, however:

Find the highest resolution for each camera, and only accept images in that width:height ratio from users with that camera, with 640 width, and plus or minus 1 leeway on the height.


Originally posted by joshuamli:
There seems to be a lot of disgruntled people who have things against people with "3000 dollar cameras."

1) Why?
2) It's never about the camera, anyway, especially when the contest is asking for photos of 640x480.

My suggestion to the whole aspect ratio deal is this:

Perhaps set a maximum size (e.g. 640x640) and then allow people submit pictures within that size. I am sure we would see much more creative pictures (e.g. square ones instead of 3x2) when people can actually crop to get a better composition.



03/31/2002 03:52:06 AM · #10
Hmmm... I guess I see the point about higher res cameras having and edge if you can crop to non-standard shapes, but isn't "crop" first on the list of allowable edits? How does being forced to retain a certain aspect ratio make anyone a better photographer? It's not like cropping is some esoteric technique that requires years of practice and skill to master. Your site, tho.

Any word on B/W conversions?

* This message has been edited by the author on 3/31/2002 3:56:19 AM.
03/31/2002 10:30:59 AM · #11
Crop was put on the list of allowable edits mainly because some cameras' optical viewfinders do not show 100% of your image -- if I'm not mistaken, it's often ~85%.

Work with me on this poor example...

Image 1 (4:3 ratio):
<img border=0 src="//www.self-destruct.org/junk/recover_1.jpg]

Image 2 (cropped to my chosen size):
<img border=0 src="//www.self-destruct.org/junk/recover_2.jpg]

The second image places the emphasis on the shape of the picture just as much (if not more) than the photo itself. I think enforcing aspect ratios puts more photographic skill into the contest rather than design skill. My thoughts on it anyway...

Drew
03/31/2002 11:33:54 AM · #12
Hey Drew,
I see where you're coming from. I guess I just wonder how much you have to worry about anyone benefitting too much from odd aspect ratios given the limit of 640 on the long side. Your crop example would only be 211 pixels high - hard to show good detail at that vertical res. It does open up some compositional possibilities after the fact, but so does taking a 4:3 crop. There's only so far you can take it before you end up with something that's hobbled. Really not a big deal, but IMO cropping is the most important (and basic) editing technique, and one that everyone should learn. What is art, anyway, but life with the boring bits cut out.
Cheers.
03/31/2002 11:34:41 AM · #13
oh... and a very nice example, BTW. When's the rock and roll challenge?
03/31/2002 03:43:24 PM · #14
3:2? 640x480? There are eleven entries in the current challenge that are of a different size than the others. They are all good to me.
Are they all within the guidelines? I hope so! I guess I don't understand. Can someone please give the math examples so this dummy can resize my pics easy. I don't mind loosing a few pixels here and there if it makes you happier. It's looking to me like dig. phog. is a little more than composition,f stop,ISO,and shutter speed.
03/31/2002 03:50:07 PM · #15
Some are 640x480 and some are 480x640. They just look different because of the way they are posted.
03/31/2002 04:22:29 PM · #16
OOOOh. But why do some pictures look almost square and others look three times taller than wide? OOOOh, maybe that is the 1.5 to 1 multiplyer? Must be they are only 1 1/2 taller. Thanks,sorry.
03/31/2002 04:24:28 PM · #17
lol. now i prolly shouldnt be saying anything because i dont want to be the cause of anyone's bunched panties, but hey this is a discussion forum, so please take any comments in the spirit of a vibrant and open discussion 8) ...

it's true that 90% of it (quality of a pic) is the photographer. but given the same photographer, same image, 2 different cameras, the pic from the high end pro cam is just going to look *better,* esp than the one from an older, consumer cam. why? more dynamic range, better color rendition, and less noise, less interpolation, better low light sensitivity, faster shutter speeds, better optics, more accurate white balance adjustments ... to just to name a few minor things ; ) ..

why seeming disgruntlement on anyone's part? well, for the record, i personally dont feel anything like that, but then again i love my camera and am extremely content with it's capabilities. but just to speculate as to some possible reasons others might seem that way, i would just guess that a given person might feel a) envious and jealous because face it, if money was no object, we would all have top of the line cameras, and b) might feel like there was an unfair competitive edge given to people who had the dosh to spend on the extra-fine gear.

hope that answers your question a little, again, these are just guesses based on speculation in the spirit of discussion! (whew what a long sentence!)


03/31/2002 05:58:53 PM · #18
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
lol. now i prolly shouldnt be saying anything because i dont want to be the cause of anyone's bunched panties, but hey this is a discussion forum, so please take any comments in the spirit of a vibrant and open discussion 8) ...

it's true that 90% of it (quality of a pic) is the photographer. but given the same photographer, same image, 2 different cameras, the pic from the high end pro cam is just going to look *better,* esp than the one from an older, consumer cam. why? more dynamic range, better color rendition, and less noise, less interpolation, better low light sensitivity, faster shutter speeds, better optics, more accurate white balance adjustments ... to just to name a few minor things ; ) ..

why seeming disgruntlement on anyone's part? well, for the record, i personally dont feel anything like that, but then again i love my camera and am extremely content with it's capabilities. but just to speculate as to some possible reasons others might seem that way, i would just guess that a given person might feel a) envious and jealous because face it, if money was no object, we would all have top of the line cameras, and b) might feel like there was an unfair competitive edge given to people who had the dosh to spend on the extra-fine gear.

hope that answers your question a little, again, these are just guesses based on speculation in the spirit of discussion! (whew what a long sentence!)




Kollin,

(Disclaimer: Use of Magnetic9999"s first name was not an attempt to solicit better votes in the future nor was it an attempt to becomes familar with said Magnetic9999. Use of the gender specific "kollin" was unavoidable due to the lack of a neutral gender spelling. Any statement made in this response are solely the opinion of the responder and in no way relect the position of the admins. misspellings are due to the responder's inablity to spell and should not reflect badly on the keyboard. If for any reason someone's sensiblities should be bruised by said response, responder will make an immediate and complete public appology, Liabiliy for such remarks shall include but are not limited to; restitution of medical bills incured do to mental anguish. This disclaimer in no way limits the rights of the aggrieved party to seek representation and pursue a course of action through the judicial system of the United States of America or any of her/his recognized
allies.)

Oh Heck, Kollin, I forgot what I was going to say!

Oh Yeah! I agree
03/31/2002 07:37:39 PM · #19
Originally posted by David Ey:
I support short,rednecked people.

Thanks. Only I gotta warn you, there's no money in it. Maybe a good joke or a roadkill shot or two but no money.
04/01/2002 06:37:44 AM · #20
lmao

Originally posted by mcorwin:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
[i]lol.

Oh Heck, Kollin, I forgot what I was going to say!

Oh Yeah! I agree



Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/20/2019 08:11:14 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/20/2019 08:11:14 PM EDT.