Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] JPEG size for yearbook.
From: jbm at (Jeff Moore)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:26:05 -0500
References: <>

2009-12-08-17:49:00 Wayne Torry:
> I know it's buried somewhere in the archive. Maybe we need to refresh my
> mind..........

I dug the following out of my email archives:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Shulman <jshul at>
Date: Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 18:01
Subject: [Leica] To Answer Jeff Moore's Question about Pixels for the LUG 
Yearbook Images
To: Leica Users Group <lug at>

Here's what I found when I moused over the two image areas:

Left Page: 2888 pixels width by 2475 pixels height.  Container size 9.6 wide 
by 8.2 high inches.
Right Page: 2271 pixels width by 1588 pixels height.  Container size 7.5 
wide by 5.3 high inches.

Hope this helps!


-----Original Message-----
From: at
[mailto:lug-bounces+jshul <lug-bounces%2Bjshul> at]
On Behalf Of Jeff
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 5:42 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Ten 2008 LUG Yearbook Submissions so far...


 I found this in the Blurb FAQs:

   BookSmart takes the guesswork out of image sizing. When you mouse
   over an image container, a tool tip will automatically pop up
   specifying the preferred image size in pixels.

 Jim, any chance you could report back the exact numbers BookSmart's
 tool tip suggests for the left-page and right-page image containers in
 the template you're using?  That'd, well, take the guesswork out of
 image sizing.  And I'd shut up and send you my damned pictures.


 For those who wish to soft-proof, and see their pictures through the
 lens of the profile of the HP printers presumably still used by Blurb,
 here's that profile:

 Here's some discussion:

2008-12-04-17:16:41 Jeff Moore:
> Okay, so...  please pardon me if this has already been covered, but I
> haven't been able to find a reference in traffic so far.
> Is this year's book laid out just like last year's?
> If so, that'd mean:
>   - big, up-to-full-bleed image on the left (first) page of our pair,
>     max 9-1/2" wide, max 7-15/16" high
>   - smaller available image area on the right because of captioning for
>     poth photos below;  image space apparently max 7-1/2" wide, max
>     5-1/8" high, surrounded by a border approx 1/16" high.
> How close to right is that this time?
> I'd like to get it right because clearly this affects both how we scale
> images, but particularly it affects which image we choose to request
> that you place in each position -- some pictures work okay small, others
> don't.
> I'm also assuming that the requirement that images be supplied to you
> already converted into the sRGB colorspace hasn't changed.  Getting that
> right made a huge difference for my pictures between the first and
> second years -- the first year I supplied pictures in (and tagged as) a
> wide-gamut space like Adobe '98 pr ProPhoto, assuming the Blurb software
> would to the correct and optimal conversion...  but it just ignored
> colorspace tagging and treated the image data like sRGB.  My stuff was
> a little muddy that year.  So I don't want any of us to make that
> mistake this time!
> Thanks...
>   - Jeff

In reply to: Message from wtorry at (Wayne Torry) ([Leica] JPEG size for yearbook.)