[editor]

Hey everyone,

I posted a call for photos, and I have received a few responses, but as I browse through this forum I see so many beautiful setups that would look great in my new book, but I simply do not have time to go through all the posts and individually contact people.

PLEASE, if you're proud of your setup and you can meet our requirements (see my earlier post titled "BUYING PHOTOS"), submit some photos.

Some people asked about size. One of the things we're doing with this book is evaluating questions like that. What do YOU consider nano? Send me photos and a description and your argument, and I might agree with you, and your system could appear in the book.

Please spread the word. As I said, I do not have the time to pursue all the great tanks pictured here.

Thanks, and have a great weekend!

David.

--
David E. Boruchowitz
Editor-in-Chief, Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine
Senior Editor, Aquatics Books, TFH Publications
[email protected]

 

[Alexplosive]

Maybe you should post in the "Nano Tank" section, you would get more responses :biggrin:

 

[hooha]

I think it's cool he's looking here for planted tank pics....it suggests this site has a decent number of "publishable" pics.

 

[Chrona]

I think it's cool he's looking here for planted tank pics....it suggests this site has a decent number of "publishable" pics.

Not to mention he's PAYING for them and you get to keep rights too. I don't know what people are complaining about

 

[sandiegoryu]

So uh, who entered and got accepted? I want to know if they sent out anything yet. I sent a photo and would love it if I knew if I didn't get accepted or anything.

 

[Wasserpest]

I have sent a couple and asked for more specific guidelines, haven't heard back. Hard to say what kind of quality they are looking for to put in a book... my assumption is that one of the professional has picked up the lead.

 

[sandiegoryu]

Hm, guess they don't like amateur tanks . Or I think it may have just been that they canceled the idea or forgot about it or something. I hate it when people just abandon things.

Moderators any hint on this? Wasn't this verified by you guys?

I do love your 10 gallon though Wasserpest.

 

[Naja002]

Unfortunately, print medium requires much higher resolution than does the computer screen, which is normally 72 dpi. Something that looks great onscreen may be horribly pixellated in print. As a minimum we need about 900 pixels by 1500 pixels, and bigger is much better. We are looking for crisp, clear, well composed shots.

Quote is from the other thread.

I may be wrong, but from what I understand printers usually require high resolution as described above. Usually a TIF file or in that arena. I would guess that not a lot of average online users don't keep their pix in .TIF, .raw etc formats. A beautiful jpg normally isn't going to print well......

They probably can't use any pix submitted in your everyday jpg or gif format.

If this is right, David---You may want to spell it out to save everyone some time. roud:

Just a Thought.

 

[sandiegoryu]

Well I had a .CR2 file but I convereted it to a JPEG because the .CR2 file was too damn big. I just wish they'd tell us. And the JPEG I sent them was 4368x2912. I think that's good enough.

 

[Naja002]

Well I had a .CR2 file but I convereted it to a JPEG because the .CR2 file was too damn big. I just wish they'd tell us. And the JPEG I sent them was 4368x2912. I think that's good enough.

Hi San,

That was my point: Most folks don't keep files in the "Proper" format--because they are just too big. And it hasn't been spelled out. Not everybody knows this stuff--and I only know a little about a little of it. Maybe They can use oversized jpgs--I really don't know.

 

[Robert H]

Photos need to be 300 dpi to be published, and usually the larger the better. Tif is higher resolution than JPEG.

These type of projects usually take quite a bit of time. I am sure he is fishing for photos trying to get as many as he can to choose from, to pick the best from. The timeline for the project could be months and months or even a year or two away. The publishing industry works very slowly. I would suggest people be very patient and not be discouraged if you do not hear anything. There could be any number of factors including how far along the author is in the writing, Or it could be almost ready to go. The fact he is coming to you here is a good sign. It shows it is a very serious opportunity.

He is also the editor of TFH magazine. All three of the American magazines have a hard time hunting down photos for the feature articles. They usually keep a library pool of photos that have been submitted to them over the years to draw from, but even then they are always looking for something fresh and more relevant to the article. They only pay for the photos if they use them, and they may hold on to them for years until they decide to use them.

If you want to get your photos published, get chummy with some of the columnists or known writers. If a writer can provide their own source for photos, it makes the editors job much easier.

For example, in the May issue of TFH magazine, Rhonda Wilson had two photos from Roy Deki with her Planted tank column. I have used photos from several different people on the internet, each and every month of my column in FAMA and with my feature articles. You do not have to be a pro, you just have to have good photos of the right subject! :icon_smil

 

[spypet]

Photos need to be 300 dpi to be published

actually, magazines publish at 1200 dpi and above.
300 dpi is only slightly better than a fax machine.

 

[Wasserpest]

Photos need to be 300 dpi to be published, and usually the larger the better.

DPI numbers are meaningless without a related picture size. Pixel dimensions is what needs to be discussed.

Tif is higher resolution than JPEG.

Resolution has nothing to do with file type. JPEG is a lossy compressed format, TIFF is not. You can have a high resolution JPEG and a low resolution TIFF.


Other then that, good info Robert, thank you.

 

[Robert H]

No, that is totally false Spypet. You really need to check your facts before you speak. I do this for a living. 300 dpi is the standard for magazine publishing and I do not think books are any different, in fact I know its the same because I am working on a book project and my publisher told me 300 dpi. You can ask Jay Luto who is one of the "pro" photographers. Each of the magazines has this information on their WEB site as well

 

[Robert H]

Resolution has nothing to do with file type. JPEG is a lossy compressed format, TIFF is not. You can have a high resolution JPEG and a low resolution TIFF.

Now thats not true either.. Jesus Christ. I am not going to get into a technical debate, but TIF supports a higher resolution than JPEG, and if you look at the end of my every single issue of FAMA at the end of my column it says all submitted photos to FAMA for publication must be 300 dpi. Read it for your self! Do I really need to cut and paste the publisher guidlines for each of the magazines for you, or can you take me at my word for something?

 

[Wasserpest]

Just trying to correct false statements, no prob Robert.

 

[Robert H]

HERE fancy publications, (Aquarium Fish and FAMA) photo guidlines for digital photos

Digital images must meet the following requirements—which are not necessarily the default settings on many digital cameras:

300 dpi
At least 4x5 inches in print size (this is not always the size when viewed upon the monitor)
Jpg or tif format

You can read it online here:

Photo guidlines

I am sure TFH is the same

 

[kkentert]

Robert's 100% correct- I do a lot of prin as well, and he's dead on.
U can pint JPG as well as long as you set it to a higher DPI, it's just not the ideal format since it is extremely compressed.