Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 23 Sep 2011 (Friday) 18:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Question: Would 240ppi be enough for a 12x12 calendar?

 
tigersharkdude
Member
55 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Tennessee
     
Sep 23, 2011 18:39 |  #1

Hi all, I am in charge of calendar design for national forum and have a question. Would 240ppi be enough to print a 12x12 calendar with? Also my current layout is at 2880x2880 @ 240/ppi....would you think this is adequate?

Also, here is the basic layout for each month for the calendar.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i281.photobucke​t.com …amplecalenderpi​cbw2-2.jpg (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Avatar
19,129 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Northern Illinois, US
     
Sep 23, 2011 19:22 |  #2

240 ppi is enough print resolution for anything.

If this calendar is going to be mass-produced, the offset printing process will cost you alot in IQ. It won't matter if it's 240 or 60.


"If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
Chicago area POTN events (external link)
Flash Photography 101 | The EOS Flash Bible  (external link)| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flash (external link) | How to Use Flash Outdoors| Excel-based DOF Calculator (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SkipD
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,476 posts
Likes: 164
Joined Dec 2002
Location: Southeastern WI, USA
     
Sep 23, 2011 19:25 |  #3

Few people would complain about that resolution.

I do have a question, though. Why do you tilt the camera for some of the images (particularly the last one above)? I see absolutely no compositional advantage and, when there are obvious references to real-world vertical and horizontal planes, shots like that one look really strange to me. When there are no natural references, there are times when a camera-tilted shot makes sense, of course.


Skip Douglas
A few cameras and over 50 years behind them .....
..... but still learning all the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tigersharkdude
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
55 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Tennessee
     
Sep 23, 2011 21:02 |  #4

SkipD wrote in post #13153206 (external link)
Few people would complain about that resolution.

I do have a question, though. Why do you tilt the camera for some of the images (particularly the last one above)? I see absolutely no compositional advantage and, when there are obvious references to real-world vertical and horizontal planes, shots like that one look really strange to me. When there are no natural references, there are times when a camera-tilted shot makes sense, of course.

those are just picture's that I had easily at my disposal, and IMHO the angle of that picture works very well. I took several at horizontal level and the picture was "blah" but with the angle of the car and the lines in the brick and wood it worlks

And thanks for the response on the 240ppi, I just wasnt sure if it was "enough". I couldnt find anything really on that subject




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 561
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Sep 23, 2011 23:59 |  #5

When you say "240 ppi", are you referring to the "resolution" figure that Lightroom and Photoshop by default throw up in the Export and Image Size dialog boxes?

I assume that's the case because with them that's a default figure but you should realize that it means nothing unless and until you convert/resize/reasmpl​e your image to an actual print size in inches. Then, you will have a "resolution" that will eighter be something you will assign and resample to or will be a figure that reflects your "native resolution" without resampling.

Without resampling, those dialogs will show what your image "would" be in inches at 240 ppi, but it probably won't reflect a desired print size. Like I said, it's just a default, a "tag" that software has to put in there but gets ignored by most "normal" printing operations.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tigersharkdude
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
55 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Tennessee
     
Sep 24, 2011 10:16 |  #6

tonylong wrote in post #13154140 (external link)
When you say "240 ppi", are you referring to the "resolution" figure that Lightroom and Photoshop by default throw up in the Export and Image Size dialog boxes?

I assume that's the case because with them that's a default figure but you should realize that it means nothing unless and until you convert/resize/reasmpl​e your image to an actual print size in inches. Then, you will have a "resolution" that will eighter be something you will assign and resample to or will be a figure that reflects your "native resolution" without resampling.

Without resampling, those dialogs will show what your image "would" be in inches at 240 ppi, but it probably won't reflect a desired print size. Like I said, it's just a default, a "tag" that software has to put in there but gets ignored by most "normal" printing operations.

I resized the above picture to 12"x12" and the original image changed from 300ppi to 240ppi. If you know of any links I could check out for better info on the layout of the above-mentioned calendar I will gladly read them. i cant find anything about the details needed to layout a calender, so I am just trying to piece info. I can find together.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Avatar
19,129 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Northern Illinois, US
     
Sep 24, 2011 10:37 |  #7

You can resize to certain print dimensions with a certain ppi setting,
or you can resize to certain pixel dimensions.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Same result if you're good at math.

I prefer to do the math myself (control freak that I am), so 12 x 240 = 2880. I would resize to 2880 x 2880 pixels.


"If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
Chicago area POTN events (external link)
Flash Photography 101 | The EOS Flash Bible  (external link)| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flash (external link) | How to Use Flash Outdoors| Excel-based DOF Calculator (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 561
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Sep 24, 2011 12:24 |  #8

I don't know about calendar layouts but 240ppi is perfectly fine for printing, so your 2880x2880 can print with no muss or fuss.


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tigersharkdude
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
55 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Tennessee
     
Sep 24, 2011 16:05 |  #9

Curtis N wrote in post #13155574 (external link)
You can resize to certain print dimensions with a certain ppi setting,
or you can resize to certain pixel dimensions.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Same result if you're good at math.

I prefer to do the math myself (control freak that I am), so 12 x 240 = 2880. I would resize to 2880 x 2880 pixels.

Thanks. Calender entry rule is, landscape style photos only and the shortest side can be no less than 2830. gave them a general rule that all photos must be at least 8mp or better. My OLD camera was a kodak P&S that was 8mp and i could print 11x14 without distortion.

Thanks for all of the help peeps!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 561
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Sep 24, 2011 17:15 |  #10

tigersharkdude wrote in post #13156707 (external link)
Thanks. Calender entry rule is, landscape style photos only and the shortest side can be no less than 2830. gave them a general rule that all photos must be at least 8mp or better. My OLD camera was a kodak P&S that was 8mp and i could print 11x14 without distortion.



Thanks for all of the help peeps!

Hmm, would that not rule out your square photo?


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tigersharkdude
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
55 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Tennessee
     
Sep 24, 2011 18:13 |  #11

tonylong wrote in post #13156904 (external link)
Hmm, would that not rule out your square photo?

My photo started out landscape layout, it was made to fit in the 12x12 frame above. The smaller pictures were resized to fit the frame as well, the reason that all pictures need to fit the criteria is the entrant is not choosing how the pics would be arranged.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 561
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Sep 24, 2011 18:18 |  #12

Well then, whatever "fits":)!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Avatar
19,129 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Northern Illinois, US
     
Sep 24, 2011 21:17 |  #13

tigersharkdude wrote in post #13156707 (external link)
Thanks. Calender entry rule is, landscape style photos only

Many "landscape style" photos are actually vertical (more height than width).

Do they want horizontal images or landscape images? Do they even know what they want?


"If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
Chicago area POTN events (external link)
Flash Photography 101 | The EOS Flash Bible  (external link)| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flash (external link) | How to Use Flash Outdoors| Excel-based DOF Calculator (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tigersharkdude
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
55 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Tennessee
     
Sep 24, 2011 21:39 |  #14

Curtis N wrote in post #13157780 (external link)
Many "landscape style" photos are actually vertical (more height than width).

Do they want horizontal images or landscape images? Do they even know what they want?

This is just for a forum I'm on, not going to be "mass produced". Probably less than 100 people will buy one, Im doing it solely for "experience". In general when the average person takes vertical/portrait shots they dont look as good as horizontal/landscape..​..hence why I told them horizontal/landscape style photo's only.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 561
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Sep 24, 2011 21:43 |  #15

tigersharkdude wrote in post #13157866 (external link)
This is just for a forum I'm on, not going to be "mass produced". Probably less than 100 people will buy one, Im doing it solely for "experience". In general when the average person takes vertical/portrait shots they dont look as good as horizontal/landscape..​..hence why I told them horizontal/landscape style photo's only.

So you're the one making the rules/guidelines?


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,781 views & 0 likes for this thread
Question: Would 240ppi be enough for a 12x12 calendar?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is GregoryIrish1960
832 guests, 214 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.