Time to get over the sanctity of photobooks
Written by duckrabbitIt seems that people cannot get over the old paradigm that “book” and “gallery” somehow make you more important, or will validate you as a professional. Can’t you see that isn’t true anymore? What might have been two of the stepping-stones towards professional accolades and esteem is no longer a sure thing. Stellazine
It’s not widely shouted about in the industry but most photobooks that you see by ‘well known’ photographers have been either fully, or part funded by the photographer themselves.
That doesn’t diminish the work. Decent publishers will only work with a photographer on a paying basis if they like the work, or else they risk diminishing their own brand.
So when you look at a photographer you really admire and wonder why so few books of their work have been published one of the reasons maybe that they refuse to spend £20000 to pay for them.
I love photobooks, but recently I’ve come to the conclusion that images often look better on the screen. Quite simply the backlight of a decent monitor is more often than not a better place to view an image than on the limitations of paper. Infact I’ve been really surprised that some images which I think look great on a screen, look really poor when printed.
That said I would much rather own a copy of an image on paper than on screen. Books can be beautiful objects; I can’t say the same about computers.
Author — duckrabbit
duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.
Discussion (3 Comments)
It was quite the revelation some years back when I found out just how much a photographer had to pay when many a name publisher agrees to publish their work- not that it’s any of my worry, but I certainly couldn’t afford to be “discovered!”
I’ve also noticed that my B&W’s look “snappier” on an iPad screen, and color seems to as well… but I just haven’t seen anything on “regular” monitors that comes close to rivaling most decent print reproduction- then again I’ve probably only looked at shit monitors. So the question is- what are, are there, any basic tech specifications that will determine a decent, medium sized monitor that could “rival” a print “experience,” if not the actual print. Oh, and of course, one that’s errr, uhhhhm- affordable…
Good questions Stan. I think it’s a case of beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Our generation ascribes great value to print, not so much the younger generation.
The images I make, that look great on an iPad, but poorly when printed, are the images that weren’t that great to begin with. At least not technically.
I agree that the backlights of a monitor is great for sexing up your work. I don’t think any print can rival a good monitor. Size is the one thing we can’t really have on a laptop/iPad. Gursky’s work isn’t the same when viewed on a screen.