I’d just like to say that JUST AS MUCH as a bad quality photo (where the photographer pays little attention to the technical or is inept) can easily ruin a concept for me, so too can a bad quality photo book, a la Blurb. (In case you missed my earlier
post, you should make sure to read Jonathan Sounders’ Blurb
horror story.)
Joerg over at Conscientious
says “…that print quality is one parameter of what makes a good photo book, and I don't think it should be taken as the only one that separates good photo books from bad ones…” Well, I disagree slightly in that I think it is either the most important parameter or at least one of the most. I judge the quality of the printing in the book much in the same way I judge the quality of prints.
The art is in the printing. We’re making photographs here, not JPEG’s. You can take a photo that looks great on a computer screen but can you print the thing and well? Have you shot it “correctly” or is it full of digital artifacts and noise because you haven’t mastered the technical? Did you print it too large for its own good? I mean, you can print a medium format shot at 2m wide but not a 35mm. Sure, I guess you could, but you shouldn’t. I can’t count how much work I like that when I finally see it printed, am disappointed by (and I won’t name names but a certain local and well-known female photographer is the most egregious example I’ve seen as of late).
What I’m saying is that while print on demand is great for some people, as a serious artist, there is no way based on what I’ve seen, that I would be willing to present my work that way. I’m looking to impress so why accept poor quality printing? I want the value of a book I produce and which people collect to go up, just like my prints.
This, of course, is from a photographer’s perspective who is thinking of publishing his own work for the purposes of promotion (it worked for Ryan McGinley, right?). I’d have to go with hand bound or with a small and affordable, yet quality printer to produce my book and I don’t see this changing anytime soon unless one of these quality publishers starts a print on demand business (which they should!). Yes, I’ll have to print 250 or 500 copies upfront but, hey, you get what you pay for.
If I ever get recognition, though, there is no question I’d go with Steidl. The quality is unparalleled and I don’t foresee this changing anytime soon. One can dream, right?
Joerg next says, “Bad printing can ruin great photography, but great printing doesn't guarantee a great photo book.”
I agree with this but are we really to get into a discussion about things other than quality, price, and distribution? It just seems to me to be way too nuanced of a topic. There are a
million different ways of arranging a photo book, deciding upon content, design, text etc. that I don’t see how to possibly cover all the possibilities in a general discussion.
If what he means (and I think he does) is that we should think of doing something other than just presenting photo after photo in a basic design, then I agree – we definitely should.
So I guess to finish my thoughts, I’d say that to me, the future of photography books looks just about the same to me as the last decade has - not much change when you are talking about producing something of quality.
But then, I didn’t see the financial crisis coming… In fact, I’d love to be proved dead wrong by the emergence of a quality on-demand printer with unlimited design options.
Read everyone else's views over at
Resolve.