# Photo call, 2007 Calendar



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

Hi everyone.

Ok, so i need really good photo's of the following. If you have some, they are for the 2007 Calendar. As this is a fund raiser, you will not be paid for their use, you will however (if you buy a calendar) be able to show off to all your buddy's and say 'that's my frog right there..'

Realistically all photo's need to be 300 ppi minimum as anything less will be reflected in the quality of the printed calendar.

Even if you don't want a calendar, or disagree to the idea, but you have good photo's, please post them on here if you don't mind them being used.

All photo's used will be credited to the photographer.

This is what i need:

Front cover: D.Pumilio 'Blue Jeans' 
Jan: D.Auratus 'Panamanian, Hawaiian.. best photo option) 
Feb: E. Tricolor standard 
Mar: D.Tinctorious 'Best photo option' 
Apr: D. Reticulatus 
May: P. Terriblis (Mint or Yellow.. best photo) 
Jun: D.Galactonotus 
Jul: D. Amozonicus red 
Aug: D. Leucomelas 
Sep: D. Pumilio Darklands/Bastimentos (best photo) 
Oct: D. Histrionicus (columbian/equadorian best photo) 
Nov: D. Azurues 
Dec: D. Lamasi 
Rear cover: D. Lehmanni

Thanks everyone for any input.

Best regards

Steve


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

What size will the pictures be printed at? 
I ask because for example, the images are printed at 12" x 12", with results in needing an image that's 3600px x 3600px (assuming 1 dpi = 1 ppi which could easily be a bad assumption), which sounds like it's going to be too high of a resolution for most people's cameras. I'm asking for clairification, not to challenge the progress of this. I'd just hate to see alot of people spend time taking and submitting pics that can't be used because they're too small.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

Thats a good point Mike, all the company asks for is 300 dpi or higher. I will investigate that one and come back with an answer soon.

Thanks and Regards

Steve


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

I made a bad assumption.. well spotted Mike thanks.

The photo's we are looking for are 300 ppi (pixels per inch).

I will also edit the original message in this topic.

also we are looking at 11" x 8.5" calender page per side. (one side for photo the other for day/date info and advertisement).

Regards

Steve


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

You're more than welcome. Anything to see this baby fly.


----------



## back2eight (Dec 19, 2005)

I don't know anything about how to resize a pic or anything, but here is my best luec shot if you can use it. Do you want it posted here or emailed to you?


----------



## ralph (Sep 13, 2006)

11 x 8.5 inchs at 300 dpi ('dots per inch' or 'pixels per inch' -- same thing)...

=

*3300 pixels in width
2550 pixels in height*

I would suggest emailing the images, or uploading via FTP to you're own webspace or something similar.

*Please BEWARE of some free image hosting websites (photobucket, imageshack, etc.) for passing about images to be used in print, as some may compress jpegs, which diminishes image print quality.*


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

Ok so i asked the question to the calender company about the dpi ppi thing. I know there are some concerns about picture quality and wether a digital camera (average household one, not professional) would produce a photo at 300 ppi.

I'm not a photo buff, or a computer pixel buff and this is the response from the company. Can anybody put this ppi thing into perspective and tell me if our usual photo's will be good enough.

Quote' Steve,
300 dpi is what I would need at the size of the image you are wanting to print.
For example – if you want to print and 8.5 x 11 calendar image you image needs to be 8.75 x 11.25 @ 300 DPI . The extra .25 is for bleed.'

Help needed in translation to laymans terms please, i just don't get how to find out the ppi of a photograph!

Regards

Steve


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

Bleed is the amount of the picture that's going to get cut off when the calendar is cut. This is so the image will go to the edge of the paper when it's cut to size. 

If a graphic designer doesn't chime in to clear this up I'll email this thread to my ex and see if she can help us out.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

Thanks Mike,

As soon as i get this thing sorted i can tell people what to be looking for in their photo's. A few people have sent me some possablities so when the ppi thing is sorted i will start putting pictures on here for everyone to see.

Regards

Steve


----------



## wishIwereAnExpert (Jul 18, 2005)

Steve said:


> 300 dpi is what I would need at the size of the image you are wanting to print.
> For example – if you want to print and 8.5 x 11 calendar image you image needs to be 8.75 x 11.25 @ 300 DPI . The extra .25 is for bleed.'


Think about it this way. 8.75 X 11.25 inches is 93.5 square inches. 93.5 square inches X 300 DPI X 300 DPI is 841500 pixels, or .84 mega pixels. So, anyone with a decent camera (has to be more than .84 mega pixels), can get photos of this quality. 

The issue is getting those photos to you while keeping that quality. There, I don't really have any input. Might be best to burn it onto a CD and mail it to you...

HTH. (and that I'm right :roll

-Solly


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

Thanks Solly,

I reckon then if we choose the ones we like on here and then people send me the originals on cd, i can compile them on to one cd and send them for print. At last i understand, i sometimes need pictures for the hard of understanding!!!!

I will start putting up the entrants and their photo's then.

Regards

Steve


----------



## wishIwereAnExpert (Jul 18, 2005)

Another way to (more simply) state things, is that all images need to be 2625 X 3375 pixels or bigger. And they have to be cropped to be in that aspect ratio, so they don't get oddly stretched by the printer.

If the aspect ratio is wrong, it'll either get an out-of-proportion stretch, or we'll get ugly empty spaces above and below (or left and right of) the photo

So, some that WOULD work:

2625 X 3375
3937 X 5062 
5250 X 6750

Some that WOULD NOT work:

2000 X 3000
2500 X 3500
2700 X 3000
3000 X 6000

Please crop the photos properly before putting them up for vote so we see what we actually get.

-Solly


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

Ok Solly i will try my hardest. Can i do that with paint as i dont have adobe photoshop or anything similar either here or at home and i really want this thing to look GOOD!

Regards

Steve


----------



## wishIwereAnExpert (Jul 18, 2005)

I don't know MS paint, I'm on a mac. I'm sure someone will chime in.

-Solly


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2006)

Well, my photography skills are horrible but i'll definately be buying a calendar!  Too bad to, my terribilis are quite photogenic but they're still not much to look at being youngsters and all.


----------



## wishIwereAnExpert (Jul 18, 2005)

Steve-- 

I sent you a PM.

-Solly


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

It would be a bit of a pain to do it in paint. If have access to photoshop and would be willing to do the resizes. 



> think about it this way. 8.75 X 11.25 inches is *93.5 square inches*. 93.5 square inches X 300 DPI X 300 DPI is 841500 pixels, or *.84 mega pixels*. So, anyone with a decent camera (has to be more than .84 mega pixels), can get photos of this quality.


Check that again, it should be 8.86 megapixles, which most people won't have.


----------



## wishIwereAnExpert (Jul 18, 2005)

Oops, I can't multiply in my head :roll:

Multivariable calculus, easy. Arithmetic, hard (and unspellable...)

EDIT, I was right! Just off by an order of magnitude. So 8.41 megapixels.

-Solly


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

:lol: I can't either. I gave up on that a long time ago.


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

I'm not sure why they specify a size _and_ a dpi.

My wife is a pro-photographer and they just fool with 72 dpi images... of course they are HUGE, large enough to make 30x40 prints and even larger with no loss of detail at all. So it isn't all in the dpi.


----------



## wishIwereAnExpert (Jul 18, 2005)

I'm thinking 8.2 megapixel cameras (Canon 20D, Rebel XT, Nikon D80) would be fine. 

-Solly


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

I've got a 7.2MP camera that I am sure would crank out an image that could be printed 8.5x11 and look perfect. Now if I could only get a good shot! =)

Here is a so-so one, cropped in a little, I caught the glass of the top when I shot it...










The focus is just a little soft and the light is reflecting off of his leg a little funny, or it would be a great shot. Of course the wood of my bookcase in the background isn't a real plus either! =)


----------



## reggorf (Oct 24, 2006)

so if my camera is only a 6.1 mega pixel, i can't submit any of pictures? just curious, since i already emailed a bunch of pics to steve.


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

They will probably be ok.


----------



## wishIwereAnExpert (Jul 18, 2005)

In terms of "would it look OK" both 7.2 and 6.1 would look fine at 8.5 X 11, I should think. In terms of "would it be to the calender manufacturer's specs," no, neither would.

-Solly


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

True, I'm just wondering if they are communicating what they really mean...

for instance, my camera records images at a resolution of 2048x1536. I can't imagine needing anything larger than that for a 8.5"x11" print

EDIT: hmmm I just realised I had it set on the 3MP setting. 

I bumped it all the way up: 3072x2304 not bad! At that resolution the file is 3MB big.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

If an image isn't to the printer's spec initially, we can make it to spec provided it still looks ok after the alterations. 

Is there a rule of thumb for how much you can enlarge a digital image?


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

Hi guys,

Here is the link to the 'reqiurements' section in the calender print bit. They recommend 300 ppi, but it's not obligitory, we will have to convert the pictures to CMYK though for the print process. The site says this can be done with adobe photoshop or the like.

See what you think.

http://www.printpelican.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=calendars.calendar&product_id=19

Look at step 2

and in techtips

http://www.printpelican.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=techtips.PicsColorRes&

Regards

Steve


----------



## wishIwereAnExpert (Jul 18, 2005)

That rule of thumb would have to be proportional to the res, obviously...I can tell you from experience that I use a 6.1 MP camera (D50), and that 4 X 6 looks fine, and 16 X 24 is a tiny bit grainy but OK. Not something I'd want on a calender, though. I haven't done any prints between those sizes, so can't comment on the 8.5 X 11.

-Solly


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

I'm going to take a few images to my wife's studio and play around with them in photoshop (don't have it available for the new intel based macs yet... grrr!) and see what happens. Also going to read the links above and see what they say. I'll post up me results later. =)


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

Ok, here is a photo I took with my camera set to the highest setting. 7.2 megapixel. I set the image to 300ppi and 11x8.5 inches in photoshop. You can see for yourself what kind of quality to expect. 

BTW, I cropped the photo in a little so this isn't even full sized as shot by the camera. The file is big, so dial-up users I'm sorry. 

As you can see the detail is extraordinary. If the calendar people can't make a good print from an image of this quality then they must suck I guess. =)










Note, there are no frogs in the picture as they were asleep when I shot this last night.

Here is a small crop from the shot:


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> The image “http://www.wax32.com/images/calendarexample.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

hmm, I'M seeing it here in the boards... dunno why you can't.

Try just pasting the address in your browser?


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

That's what I did and I got that message. It doesn't pull with FF or IE here. My guess is that you're pulling a cached copy.


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

Cleared my cache and reloaded page... image downloaded again. I am using Safari (Mac) so not sure about firefox or ie. Very weird problem. 

The image is 3MB big, could that be a problem somehow for your browser?

I wouldn't think so... Have you tried emptying YOUR cache and reloading the page?

Puzzles amuse me! =)


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

wax32 said:


> Cleared my cache and reloaded page... image downloaded again. I am using Safari (Mac) so not sure about firefox or ie. Very weird problem.
> 
> The image is 3MB big, could that be a problem somehow for your browser?
> 
> ...


OK WEIRD puzzle... It isn't on the server, where the heck am I pulling it from? I am uploading it again now. LOL


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

OK, it should work now! =)


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

Interesting. I had to download the picture and view it locally. 

I think that looks fine for printing.


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

That's what I am thinking too. 

So not even the smaller thumbnail type picture shows up in the thread?


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

No, it doesn't. The small image you posted does, but not the thumb of the large image.


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

Weird. Your browser must not like the HUGE file. =)

For anyone else having trouble here is the URL: http://www.wax32.com/images/calendarexample.jpg

This way you can see just how big an 11x8.5 inch 300 ppi image really is. That seems to be what the calendar people are asking for.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

It's not a browser issue, I get the same thing with IE and FF. It could be a network thing since I'm at school, but I won't know for sure till I get home.


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

That could be I reckon.


----------



## ralph (Sep 13, 2006)

Steve said:


> Ok Solly i will try my hardest. Can i do that with paint as i dont have adobe photoshop or anything similar either here or at home and i really want this thing to look GOOD!
> 
> Regards
> 
> Steve


If you use MS paint...: When paint saves Jpegs it compresses considerably, it will make all the photos look shit quality. If you open up jpegs (photos), you can crop in paint, but save as bitmap (.bmp) for a lossless image. Of course these are HUGE filezizes and not the best thing. Im not even sure .bmp is supported on apple mac.

Really a some photo editing software, e.g. photoshop etc. should be used.

in regards to converting to CMYK, it takes two seconds in photoshop, but with only MS paint, you wont manage it 

I have photoshop and would be willing to convert, if needed.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

Same thing at home with both FF and IE. I'd try it with Safari, but it's Mac only.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

Ok so the guy at the calender shop e-mailed me back today.

I asked 'Hi Keith,

So am I reading this right, each photo would need to have been taken on a camera with at least 8.4 mega pixels?'

Keith replied 'Not, really.
If you camera is set to the best (highest quality) photo able to be taken. You should be able to make the size picture requirement.'

Maybe this guy is sales and not tech support?

Wax32, what was the lowest pixel-ation you can set to get 300 ppi? 

Regards

Steve


----------



## wax32 (May 9, 2006)

Well, most cameras make an image 72 ppi on the output, even the multi thousand dollar ones my wife uses. So you don't really "set" your camera for ppi.

The ppi is more for printing... you use photoshop to tell the image how many ppi to have. I'd think that if your highest setting gets you an image that is 2000+ pixels wide @ 72 ppi (for a horizontal picture) you should be able to get a good enough photo for the calendar. My camera (7.2 megapixel) makes images that are a little over 3000 pixels wide @ 72 ppi (which equates to a print size of like 30 inches by 40 inches) and I had *no* problem cropping my images in a little and still telling photoshop to make the image 300 ppi and 11x8.5. If you compose your shot carefully and are able to use the full image with no cropping, a 5 megapixel camera is probably going to be good enough.

Hope that helps! I'm not real up on the technical parts of digital photography. I went to grad school for painting, and they didn't even have digital cameras back then, at least not ones I could afford! So I only ever shot with an SLR 35mm camera. 

Only recently have I started shooting digital and playing with photoshop. It takes some getting used to and lots of practice! =)


----------



## dragonfrog (Feb 16, 2006)

It seems like it would be a whole lot easier to find someone else to do the printing of the calendar that does not have such strigent requirements. By the time you get all the photos gathered, processed to these requirements, mailed back and forth, it will be May 2007, too late for a calendar.


----------



## reggorf (Oct 24, 2006)

*calendar*

what is the status of the calendar? are pics going to be posted soon to choose from?


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2006)

Hi everyone,

Well firstly my sincerest apologies for being off the board for a while. I won't go into detail but the last six weeks have been very difficult and i have had little if no time to commit to the calender or in fact to DB.

The time i have had, has been spent trying to find a local printer in Vegas to simplify the whole process. The quotes have ranged from a ridiculous $42 per calender to the cheapest of $19 at Kinco/fed-ex. They did offer me a buck off each calender but that would still have made it around $25 each with donation and shipping to the individual which i felt was a lot. I visited 7 companies and spoke to another 3 on the phone.

I also haven't had enough photo contributions back. The ones i did have were great, some spectacular, unfortunatly i only got four types of frog (species/frog type wise) which left another 9 still needed.

I did manage to fill all the advertising though, i will be e-mailing everyone who asked to advertise in due course with my apologies.

I feel bad i was unable to get this idea to fly and if my family and i are looking to be still in the US for Xmas/new year next year (military) i will happily start the proceedings again but much earlier in the year giving us a better timescale to accomplish everything.

Again my sincerest apologies to all of you who got interested in this and especially the guys who offered me help (you know who you are, thank you).

Best regards

Steve


----------

