Print

11" x 8.5"

0 (0%)

17" x 11"

2 (100%)

Widescreen Wallpaper

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 2

Voting closed: June 15, 2010, 06:30:35 PM

[Windrider]

Aw, heck, I forgot we needed another poll to decide something else for the Calendar: the format!  I will just leave that blank on the Guidelines until we decide.  Two weeks to vote!

So, the trouble is that everyone is going to a widescreen monitor, so wallpapers are getting more difficult to format if submitted art is 11 x 8.5 inches (3300 x 2550 pixels).  But Cafe Press also has an oversized calendar format at 17" x 11" - what would that be in pixels (something huge, someone help me) x 3300?  Can everyone handle that?

So here are the options.  I can make almost anything work with the printable calendar, so that isn't a problem.

11" x 8.5" or 3300 x 2550 pixels - this is the standard sized calendar at Cafe Press (will need extreme cropping top and bottom to make widescreen wallpapers - or creative additions on the sides)

17" x 11" or (----) x 3300 pixels - this is the oversized calendar at Cafe Press (will need only tiny cropping top and bottom for widescreen wallpapers, but will need cropping on the sides for standard wallpapers and standard CafePress calendar)

Proportions for a widescreen wallpaper, 1920 x 1200 pixels is what mine is at, but would probably have to work at 5334 x 3334 pixels for a high enough res for Cafe Press.  (will need to crop off a tiny bit of sides for CafePress oversized calendar, and a huge amount off the sides for standard calendars and wallpapers)

[Foxeye]

Oof, that's tough. On one hand, 17x11 would be a fun change of pace, insofar as composition goes.  And my screen is also 1920x1200, so I'm biased towards anything that crops more easily to widescreen. I think I prefer that over 11 x 8.5. But that's a *big* image. Digital artists would need a robust computer to work at that size, and non-digital would need access to an art store. 

[Windrider]

Yeah, I am leaning towards 17 x 11.  One thing we could stress is that artists should create their composition with the understanding that the sides are going to have to be cropped for some uses.  (Like Joselle's Goodtree entry in the magic calendar had both a widescreen and standard version).

I guess we wouldn't need 300dpi for CafePress.  I mean, Richard offered an oversized calendar with all the Calendar years so far at their current 3300 x 2550 size, but I don't know anyone who ordered it so I don't know what the quality is like.  Maybe we shouldn't worry about Cafe Press - I'll have to ask Richard if people even bought any in this current economic situation.

[Afke]

I can't really think in inches and I don't have a widescreen, so I don't think I'm of much help. And today suddenly the site seems widescreen as well, 'cause I've got to scroll horizontally, help!

[Foxeye]

I can't really think in inches and I don't have a widescreen, so I don't think I'm of much help. And today suddenly the site seems widescreen as well, 'cause I've got to scroll horizontally, help!

Woops! Fixed.  

[Afke]

Thank you.

[Eregyrn]

Digital artists would need a robust computer to work at that size, and non-digital would need access to an art store. 

Wait.  (Trying to get my head around this.)  Am I remembering correctly that we used to have to furnish 300 dpi images?  In which case, someone doing non-digital (like me) could do something 10x7.5 (or whatever it would need to be proportionally), scan at 600 dpi, and then save it as 11x17 at 300 dpi.  Right?

I guess what I really do is work half-digital anyway.  I have a scanner that can only really do 9x12, I think.  So I draw in pieces, and color in pieces, and composite at the end a lot.  But even someone who didn't want to do that could just flat-out work at the smaller size, and scan at the much higher resolution, in order to save it at the medium size... or am I missing something crucial?

[Foxeye]

But even someone who didn't want to do that could just flat-out work at the smaller size, and scan at the much higher resolution, in order to save it at the medium size... or am I missing something crucial?

re: sizing-up: I suspect that something drawn at the same ratio, but smaller, would run the risk of not looking as nice when zoomed up.  Lines and details that were sharp and clean might become fuzzy.  Someone who is used to doing clean-up in photoshop could compensate for this, but not everyone is comfortable with that.

re: drawing in pieces: This raises a good point. The people who would not want to draw across two 11x8.5 pieces of paper are probably folks who work with paints. And chances are, folks who paint have access to an art store with bigger paper.

So it may not be a hindrance to anyone.

[Eregyrn]

re: sizing-up: I suspect that something drawn at the same ratio, but smaller, would run the risk of not looking as nice when zoomed up.  Lines and details that were sharp and clean might become fuzzy.  Someone who is used to doing clean-up in photoshop could compensate for this, but not everyone is comfortable with that.

Right, but that's what I mean... in terms of sharp/clean lines/details, shouldn't 11"x17" at 300 dpi and 5.5"x8.5' at 600 dpi be the same thing?  Not, I think, that anyone would really want to do a piece at 5.5"x8.5", unless they were really into doing miniatures.  But what I'm saying is that you can work smaller than 11"x17" so long as you scan at a much higher resolution, and then save at the lower resolution.

(Which is the same principle as my always scanning color versions at 300 dpi, and doing all my color clean-up at that resolution, and only at the very end saving at 72 dpi for posting on the web.)

re: drawing in pieces: This raises a good point. The people who would not want to draw across two 11x8.5 pieces of paper are probably folks who work with paints. And chances are, folks who paint have access to an art store with bigger paper.

So it may not be a hindrance to anyone.

Well, the hindrance isn't only in needing to paint on a full 11x17 piece of paper, but, the need to scan it.  I always find it difficult to scan something that is larger than my scanner bed, and then assemble it later.  I find that tricky to do well, although, I've done it.  It's still a lot of clean-up in Photoshop for folks who might not be comfortable with it.

[Foxeye]

Right, but that's what I mean... in terms of sharp/clean lines/details, shouldn't 11"x17" at 300 dpi and 5.5"x8.5' at 600 dpi be the same thing?

What I'm thinking of...well, take the digital out of the equation and think of it like a x2 magnifying glass. Some art still looks good if you hold a giant magnifying glass in front of it, and some would leave the artist feeling frustrated. 

But you are right that scanning at 600 dpi and then converting it to 300 dpi to make it a 17x11 image would protect you from digital rounding problems.

Well, the hindrance isn't only in needing to paint on a full 11x17 piece of paper, but, the need to scan it.

That too. O_o 

I wish more folks would vote or comment so we knew if anyone was going to be inconvenienced by it.

[Windrider]

Hmm... scanning traditional art is something I hadn't thought about.  Thanks for bringing that up!  I didn't think about it because, well... I do have an 11 x 17 professional scanner.  I have still had to scan big works in two and sometimes even four pieces and splice the image together in Photoshop.  But this can be an exercise in frustration for many.

Traditional art should be created larger than it will be published or it ends up looking rough, even scanning at a high res.  But who says you need to create it on two separate pieces of 8.5 x 11?  They do make papers in bigger sizes and standard art boards are almost always 11 x 17 or bigger.

Maybe we should just stick with what we've been doing and I can just put an addition on the side for the widescreens.  I think it was Eregyrn who said she had even put a mini calendar on ones she'd created for a holt calendar.

[Windrider]

Egads!  There is another thing about the calendar we need to decide!  :bangs head against wall: 

Do we want poetry again or not?

Pros:  More fans involved.  Often the poems really add to the art.  The poems tend to make the calendar more unified by focusing on the theme.

Cons:  It has been very tough getting the poems created the last two years, not too many writers want to participate.  I like the look of the art better without the clutter of the text.


Re: the format, I've been playing around a little with sizes and proportions.

We could go 3941 X 2550.  That is 8.5 x around 13 inches.  This is the proportion for an 11 x 17, but at the pixel height we are used to, but a 2 inch longer width.  Still a problem with scanning traditional art, but that is just one little edge needing splicing.

[Afke]

I don't see a problem with scanning a smaller picture for such sizes, I do it all the time. I actually like seeing small pictures getting blown up to bigger sizes, especially when the texture of the paper is visable. I'm not gonna work bigger anyway, whatever is decided. But I do prefer keeping the sizes to what they were, 'cause my pictures always go through Photoshop if even just for a little cropping, and I don't have the quickest computer. Remember, it's still supposed to be fun, right?

About the poetry, I really like it but if it's that much trouble perhaps we could try a year without it. Though I think it might be a better idea to contact the people who've submitted poetry and ask them how they feel about it. Would they feel left out, or do they dislike the last minute stressing of submitting matching text with winning entries?