From: Daniel Johnson <johnsond-AT-mail.belmont.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 2009 20:49:54 UTC   (04:49:54 PM in author's locale)
To: The Graphics List <graphics-AT-lists.graphicslist.org>

You approached it almost exactly like I would - I would defer to the
aesthetically pleasing proportion if costs are a minor factor - and I
particularly like the "feel/comfort" of the 6.5 by 10.5 when I hold it
in my hand - it feels almost fetish-ish in size to me.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Michael Brady
<bradydesign-AT-embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 26, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Landry Butler wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand the problem. Is it that increased page count
>> will result in a higher cost? If so, how about a lighter weight paper, say a
>> 45# or 50# sheet rather than a 60#? You should be able to save both $$ and
>> weight there.
>
> I'm not sure the increased cost from the increased page count will be a
> significant factor for the client. I was asking for comments or suggestions
> about a book size smaller than 8.5 x 11, particularly the 6.5 x 10.5 I am
> considering right now.
>
> FWIW, I looked at what Robert Bringhurst has to say in "The Elements of
> Typographic Style," and he talked about Golden Ratios, etc. The Fibonacci
> ratio is close to that.
>
>
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Michael Brady
> michaelb-AT-michaelbradydesign.com
>
>
> ----
> Message sent by The Graphics List.
> Want to be removed?Send blank email to graphics-off-AT-lists.graphicslist.org
>
>

----
Message sent by The Graphics List.
Want to be removed?
Send blank email to graphics-off-AT-lists.graphicslist.org