Travel Photography group posting on GLOBOsapiens

V/H? Portrait vs Landscape

Postings 1 - 6 of 6

rangutan Premium account Joined: Aug 04 Points: 34752 Posts: 1044 Posted: 2005-07-09 01:46:00    Vertical or Horizontal pics, classical 5"x8" or 8"x5", 600x800 or 800x600 pixels format? ...after 40 years of photography, many (real) slide shows and now a year at GLOBO the two possible orientation formats rip me apart where ever I go with my camera and for the web even more! Why couldn't the world agree with a square "Hassleblatt" or "Polaroid" format or even round format? I just feel that some brilliant "vertical" pictures are not considered for the GLOBO homepage just like they are sometimes omitted from a (real) slideshow because of thier format. A pity for travel and photographic art. What do members think? - please also post examples for discussion... [ This Message was edited by: rangutan on 2005-07-09 01:51 ] --- Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rangutan   justj Joined: Jul 05 Points: 20 Posts: 4 Posted: 2005-07-10 10:38:00    Being new to photography and having read many books recently on the subject I have not an answer for you. But I can say that bringing a camara with me on my last trip was well worth the weight; I am a backpacker. I believe though that each landscape somewhat shows you weather vertical or Hor. pictures are appropriate. I did find however that I generally take a few of each as well as a few in high color (for digital) and B&W even though I have been told to convert my pictures to B&W from Color using photoshop. So if you are using digital, why no just take a whole lot of diffrent pictures. I do not however know anything about the GLOBO needs. --- "I am not on vacation, being an explorer is something quite different" Reply    Reply with quote    Contact justj   mortimer Premium account Joined: Jun 04 Points: 15075 Posts: 528 Posted: 2005-07-10 13:57:00    Hi Rudi Generally speaking I think the portrait is more interesting... I just think that landscape is more common so portrait makes a picture more special... the people who point and shoot use normally just landscape because they don't think about what they're doing... you need to think when turning the camera by 90° so thats's the reason why those pictures are generaly better... but all these thoughts are very general! don't quote me on that I do also have seen great landscape shots... I also like panoramic shots but the don't work out here on globo because the picture size is to small. If we could have bigger pictures some pics would also work better some just really need size to get a good impression! Just some thoughts ;-) Martin --- Today is the first day of the rest of your life, enjoy it! Reply    Reply with quote    Contact mortimer   davidx Premium account Joined: Dec 04 Points: 34719 Posts: 440 Posted: 2005-07-10 14:23:00    I'm sure that's right. Unless I'm making an error the vertical ones have to be magnified far more to gve them the minimal width requirement. Then they cecome too blurred to rectify. I've kept back a number for that reason. However, I've no idea whether there's an answer! Cheers, David --- Grieve not for that which you cannot do but rejoice in that which you can. Reply    Reply with quote    Contact davidx   rangutan Premium account Joined: Aug 04 Points: 34752 Posts: 1044 Posted: 2005-07-11 05:16:00    Thanks Martin and David, you are both right and we are getting to the point. Martin, I noticed that the vertical (portrait) shots are better composed too and the subjects high-lighted much more. The fact that they are displayed larger (height 800pixels rather that 600 for lanscape pictures) is not an advantage but rather causes two disadvantages; they are overwelming when first opened, partially displayed if the monitor setting is to low, and secondly (agree David) the pic must be rescanned for the 600 width (specially if previosly cropped) or loose its quality if simply digitally enlarged. There is no easy solution to this unless Staff can reset the requirements and im sure there is a reason for the current settings. Rather, if we can all just be aware of the problem, also by rating, and that the monthly award is currently for " the best landscape picture". Compare these examples, the vertical (portrait) pictures are far superior but not rated accordingly! www.globosapiens.net/britman/picture-bora-bora-french-polynesia-17038.html www.globosapiens.net/britman/picture-setting-sail-from-bora-bora-17111.html www.globosapiens.net/wolfgang/picture-elephant-3151.html www.globosapiens.net/mortimer/picture-you-want-to-mess-with-me-10087.html http://www.globosapiens.net/mistybleu/picture-victorias-monument-3-20638.html http://www.globosapiens.net/mistybleu/picture-victorias-monument-2-20636.html ...i'll be puting a list together of the most underated vertical pictures sometime. Any more observed examples? [ This Message was edited by: rangutan on 2005-07-11 05:21 ] --- Rudolf "Rangutan" Graspointner Reply    Reply with quote    Contact rangutan   eirekay Premium account Joined: Aug 03 Points: 19539 Posts: 214 Posted: 2005-07-11 21:28:00    Like several posters here, I use which ever will best frame the subject. I have posted several verticle shots and some have been rated *****, so I am not certain whether verticle vs horizontal is really effecting the rating. It may be that I am now using a digital camera so the pixel format is naturally higher and I am actually having to reduce it to upload, elminating the scanning issue. I am with Rudi though - I miss the square "hasselblatt" (with a ziess lens?)! Memories of the high school yearbook come to mind! Eire --- Life is not measured by the breaths you take but by the moments that take your breath away. Profile Pic: Tikal, Guatemala Reply    Reply with quote    Contact eirekay