Dan Howell wrote:
I wonder how many people are just waiting for him to drop that link in the critique forum? I'm pretty sure we know why he hasn't.

He didn't say so here, so people don't seem to be aware of it (it only went up yesterday).  Especially as it's not under the normal "Serious Critique" sub-thread where these are usually found.

But It can now be found under Critique / "Girls on Film".

LightDreams wrote:
JSouthworth.  You're honestly going to use Robert Frank as an example?

His "poor" sales of 600 books in France during his first year, before it was picked up by other publishers?   With more than 16 Editions published around the world, leading to exhibitions at the Guggenheim, the National Gallery of Arts, etc.

You've set yourself a rather interesting marker to "prove" that you know better than the commercial publishers, and can back up that claim.

I know that my book is far superior to some I've seen, but as to the question of whether any UK publisher would ever have the nerve to print it? Your guess is as good as mine on that one.

I never said sales of The Americans were poor, so you misquoted me there. And if you were judging the book purely in terms of the numbers of copies sold, you'd have to say it was inferior to a Jilly Cooper novel, so the crass stupidity of that should be self-evident. Even so, it can be correctly pointed out that six hundred books sold in a year is not a large number in relative terms. Photo books are not usually huge sellers, they are a specialised area of publishing which I don't think many people in the publishing industry understand very well.

I've only seen one copy of The Americans, that was in Foyles bookshop in London a long time ago. If it was a common book, a signed copy of a 2008 edition probably wouldn't be worth US $1799.99;

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/154282506794 … Sw4zdf-FPQ

Another seller has a signed copy of the first US edition (1959) listed at US $25k.

JSouthworth wrote:
If someone wanted to compile a list of rules for Photo book design, number one might be that the design of the book should never compete for attention with the photographs, otherwise the result is confusing for the viewer. But this can quite easily happen when you have one person producing the photographs, and another person doing the book design, and another person in charge of editing, and another person.....

Moving on to the question of why I decided to put a book together, this is something I've always wanted to do, but never really had the opportunity before. But current events also played a role. We clearly live in a rather conflicted world, and at some level I think my model photography is probably a reflection of that fact, but I never consciously thought about it that way, it just seemed a good idea.

It's relatively easy with self-publishing book companies like Lulu.com these days. The only limitation is their sizes and paper quality. But even then, I've done some practice prints and the quality is really good and professional, assuming you've taken and edited the photos good enough for print quality and then do the layout all nice and stuff.

JSouthworth wrote:
If someone wanted to compile a list of rules for Photo book design, number one might be that the design of the book should never compete for attention with the photographs, otherwise the result is confusing for the viewer. But this can quite easily happen when you have one person producing the photographs, and another person doing the book design, and another person in charge of editing, and another person.....

By that logic, the photographer would also apply the make up and sew all of the wardrobe. Imagine, like the rest of the world already knows, that there are better make up artists than you, better fashion stylists than you, better graphic designers than you and better photo editors than you. Better art directors and better publishers.

It's clear that you are in love with your own work. That makes you unique. I guess by some perverse logic, nobody can make your book more YOU than you. Here's the thing, why would anyone want to?

Dan Howell wrote:
By that logic, the photographer would also apply the make up and sew all of the wardrobe.

I do in fact make and modify clothes, shoes and jewellery for use in photo shoots, including the "tiger claw" necklace worn by Belle Noir on pages 38-39;

https://www.bonusprint.co.uk/view-onlin … 22915addbf

Usually if I need a particular item for a photo shoot I will try to buy it first, but some things are easier to find than others, while other things are completely unobtainable at any price. Tiger claw jewellery cannot now be legally advertised for sale within the UK, imported or exported, for sound reasons related to the protection of the species, so in this instance it was necessary to create a substitute which I think looks quite impressive even if it doesn't resemble the real thing very closely.

JSouthworth wrote:
Tiger claw jewellery cannot now be legally advertised for sale within the UK, imported or exported, for sound reasons related to the protection of the species, so in this instance it was necessary to create a substitute which I think looks quite impressive even if it doesn't resemble the real thing very closely.

Which is PRECISELY where an experienced, knowledgeable EDITOR might say to an ego-crazed, self-centered "artist" - "Uh, no, it does not."

Did I say, "an ego-crazed, self-centered "artist" ?

"With my book I've tried to make all the pictures as large as possible all the time;"  😂😂😂

But congratulations on mastering a consumer-level platform designed to make paying customers of rank amateurs with shoeboxes of snapshots. Unfortunately, that does not qualify you as an expert on the UK photobook publishing industry. Facility with Word does not make you a writer, or Photoshop a photographer. I know that may be a tough pill to swallow, considering your professed expertise in all areas you dabble in:

Advising NATO on nuclear strategy, Ukraine on repelling the Russians, Taiwan on defending the island from China, the USAF on manned fighters, the State of New Mexico on an Alec Baldwin murder conspiracy, and crackpot solutions to global warming and gun violence.

But do we really need TWO vanity threads peddling a vanity book project here?

Focuspuller wrote:

"With my book I've tried to make all the pictures as large as possible all the time;"  😂😂😂

If you've something to say about the book, you can do that in the critique section, and as for the rest, well, the least said the better I think really.

JSouthworth wrote:
If someone wanted to compile a list of rules for Photo book design, number one might be that the design of the book should never compete for attention with the photographs, otherwise the result is confusing for the viewer. But this can quite easily happen when you have one person producing the photographs, and another person doing the book design, and another person in charge of editing, and another person.....

Dan Howell wrote:
By that logic, the photographer would also apply the make up and sew all of the wardrobe. Imagine, like the rest of the world already knows, that there are better make up artists than you, better fashion stylists than you, better graphic designers than you and better photo editors than you. Better art directors and better publishers.

Focuspuller wrote:
Which is PRECISELY where an experienced, knowledgeable EDITOR might say to an ego-crazed, self-centered "artist" - "Uh, no, it does not."...
...But congratulations on mastering a consumer-level platform designed to make paying customers of rank amateurs with shoeboxes of snapshots. Unfortunately, that does not qualify you as an expert on the UK photobook publishing industry. Facility with Word does not make you a writer, or Photoshop a photographer. I know that may be a tough pill to swallow, considering your professed expertise in all areas you dabble in:

This reminds me of a gig I had shooting red carpet photos at a Film Festival here in LV.

You could quickly and easily tell if the movie was good or not just by the opening credits.

If it was a typical movie with relatively few credits at the beginning, each mentioning a different person that worked on the film (as almost every successful movie in the theaters have)  it was sure to be a decent movie with a full audience viewing it.

When the movie had opening credits that say "Starring JOHN DOE" followed by "Produced by JOHN DOE", "Cinemetography by JOHN DOE", "Editied JOHN DOE", "Choreography by JOHN DOE", "Written by JOHN DOE" and then "Directed by JOHN DOE" it was sure to be a flop, with only John Doe's immediate family attending... most of them sneaking out shortly after the film starts.  They're pretty much the laughing stock of the movie industry.

Believe it or not, there's a lot of John Doe's in the movie world.  I guess they've bled into the photography world as well.

NakeyPiX wrote:
Believe it or not, there's a lot of John Doe's in the movie world.  I guess they've bled into the photography world as well.

If it was John Doe from the band X, I would probably go see that movie.

NakeyPiX wrote:
If it was a typical movie with relatively few credits at the beginning, each mentioning a different person that worked on the film (as almost every successful movie in the theaters have)  it was sure to be a decent movie with a full audience viewing it.

I think you'll find that the majority of crap movies also have opening credits. You will I'm sure have politely sat through plenty of them.

JSouthworth wrote:
I think you'll find that the majority of crap movies also have opening credits. You will I'm sure have politely sat through plenty of them.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about having to sit through opening movie credits of crappy movies at all. You might want to reread his post...

When the movie had opening credits that say "Starring JOHN DOE" followed by "Produced by JOHN DOE", "Cinemetography by JOHN DOE", "Editied JOHN DOE", "Choreography by JOHN DOE", "Written by JOHN DOE" and then "Directed by JOHN DOE" it was sure to be a flop, with only John Doe's immediate family attending... most of them sneaking out shortly after the film starts.  They're pretty much the laughing stock of the movie industry.

As far as I'm aware, Rust is still in the post-production stage but I don't think many people have high expectations. As we know, Alec Baldwin starred, produced and co-wrote the screenplay, but apparently he wanted the director's and cinematographer's jobs as well. Who knows, with enough time and live ammunition he might have eliminated the rest of the cast and crew.

NakeyPiX wrote:

Moving on to online photo book services, these are becoming more sophisticated. With the Bonusprint app you can do most things with the arrangement and positioning of the images, you can create full page pictures, double page spreads. The quality of the printing and binding is quite satisfactory.

https://www.bonusprint.co.uk/view-onlin … 22915addbf

Looking at some possibilities in the immediate future, online photo book providers may start moving into publishing or developing contacts with publishing companies. Amazon already have their own online book creation app although it isn't suitable for photo books.

JSouthworth wrote:
As far as I'm aware, Rust is still in the post-production stage but I don't think many people have high expectations. As we know, Alec Baldwin starred, produced and co-wrote the screenplay, but apparently he wanted the director's and cinematographer's jobs as well. Who knows, with enough time and live ammunition he might have eliminated the rest of the cast and crew.

Irrelevant, off-topic, and utterly absurd.

"As far as I'm aware.."  😂😂😂

Focuspuller wrote:
"As far as I'm aware.."  😂😂😂

So perhaps you know something about that? As yet there is no release date for the film. Shooting the cast and crew would have reduced the salary bill as well as creating more employment opportunities, while giving a new meaning to "fire and re-hire". Although now I come to think of it, most of the crew walked off the set before the shooting incident. Clearly a sound decision on their part.

JSouthworth wrote:
Moving on to online photo book services, these are becoming more sophisticated. With the Bonusprint app you can do most things with the arrangement and positioning of the images, you can create full page pictures, double page spreads. The quality of the printing and binding is quite satisfactory.

https://www.bonusprint.co.uk/view-onlin … 22915addbf

Looking at some possibilities in the immediate future, online photo book providers may start moving into publishing or developing contacts with publishing companies. Amazon already have their own online book creation app although it isn't suitable for photo books.

Getting back on topic, most online photo book creation services are currently aimed at people who want albums of their holiday pictures. Over time the market may change, because the increasing sophistication and versatility of the apps is making them usable for more serious work.

Chris Macan wrote:
I just wanted to push the post count for this to 100!
It's great to see a forum post that is active these days.

Good luck with the book!

Thanks for being supportive of my project. I am looking for ways of marketing my book, in the meantime I can order individual copies from Bonusprint.

Studio NSFW wrote:
If only there was a *Print Standard*  that you could tune your output files for!

And some file format that would embed the CMYK metadata right into the file…

Serious publishers actually have a “pre-press “ person whose job is to tune files to the specific paper stock being used….you only need to give them a good starting place with a properly prepared file.

If you are not working on a calibrated monitor set for Print Standard display, and outputting correct CMYK metadata to .pdf format…you’re just spending way to many  cycles in quality control without the process control steps that the printing industry actually uses for consistent, quality results

If it were possible to get good results by simply using a monitor set for Print Standard Display, there wouldn't be much point in a publisher employing a pre-press person to tune files to paper stock would there? The bottom line reality is that an image file will never look the same on a monitor as it does on paper. So you need to learn the difference and how to compensate for it through experience.

Separation of an image file into Red, Green and Blue, or Yellow, Magenta and Cyan layers or channels, is a pre-requisite for printing processes that use three colored inks to produce a full color reproduction. Photomechanical processes such as lithography require color separation negatives from which to make the printing plates or rollers. But online book printing services take care of the printing for you, you don't have to worry about that.

JSouthworth wrote:
So you need to learn the difference and how to compensate for it through experience.

When were you planning on starting?

Dan Howell wrote:
When were you planning on starting?

JQuest wrote:

More evidence to suggest that you are just a little bit retarded.

Dan Howell wrote:
When were you planning on starting?

I've already done it and I'm still doing it, it's continuous. Each book is an incremental improvement, when you see how an image has printed, then you can then adjust it to print a little better, in many cases this simply means adjusting the brightness and contrast, occasionally I do a complete re-edit.

The way I edit images is different from most other people, I view the image recorded on the film as being simply as starting point. Sometimes it can years before I finally get the image I'm looking for. Just recently I finally obtained the image I wanted from a picture from a session about 7 years ago.

Do you have a problem? With my editing? Tell me about it.

JSouthworth wrote:
Separation of an image file into Red, Green and Blue, or Yellow, Magenta and Cyan layers or channels, is a pre-requisite for printing processes that use three colored inks to produce a full color reproduction. Photomechanical processes such as lithography require color separation negatives from which to make the printing plates or rollers. But online book printing services take care of the printing for you, you don't have to worry about that.

There is no current commercial three color RGB or YMC printing process.
Basic commercial color printing is CMYK. (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, & Black)
If you are sending work to print it would benefit you to know how to translate your work into the standard 4 color printing workspace to avoid surprise color shifts.

That said, if you are working with a print on demand book printer,
you may be fine working in the RGB monitor color space and letting them do the conversion for you.


Also, I haven't worked with a commercial printer making plates from negatives in years,
pretty much everyone switched over to direct to plate systems between 2000 and 2005.

Chris Macan wrote:
There is no current commercial three color RGB or YMC printing process.
Basic commercial color printing is CMYK. (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, & Black)
If you are sending work to print it would benefit you to know how to translate your work into the standard 4 color printing workspace to avoid surprise color shifts.

That said, if you are working with a print on demand book printer,
you may be fine working in the RGB monitor color space and letting them do the conversion for you.


Also, I haven't worked with a commercial printer making plates from negatives in years,
pretty much everyone switched over to direct to plate systems between 2000 and 2005.

You can separate an image into Red, Green and Blue layers in Photoshop and other editing suites, that allows you to print colour separation negatives, from which you can produce printing plates for use in lithography and the other traditional mechanical printing processes, which are still used because they're faster than inkjet printers.

When you order a book with Bonusprint the first thing that happens is that your book is uploaded from your computer to their server computers, which takes a few minutes. Whether there is conversion to CMYK at that stage or subsequently, I don't know. But I can assure you that colour shifts are not a problem that I've encountered with their printing.

Wikipedia article here with some useful information;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_printing

JSouthworth wrote:
You can separate an image into Red, Green and Blue layers in Photoshop and other editing suites, that allows you to print colour separation negatives, from which you can produce printing plates for use in lithography and the other traditional mechanical printing processes, which are still used because they're faster than inkjet printers.

When you order a book with Bonusprint the first thing that happens is that your book is uploaded from your computer to their server computers, which takes a few minutes. Whether there is conversion to CMYK at that stage or subsequently, I don't know. But I can assure you that colour shifts are not a problem that I've encountered with their printing.

Wikipedia article here with some useful information;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_printing

Southy,  I assure you no commercial printer is making plates directly from your RGB files.
Also no commercial printer is making RGB color separation negatives.
Pretty much all commercial print is based on the CMYK color space.

It doesn't matter if you are printing Litho, Flexo, Gravure, Silk Screen, or Digital....
Standard color printing is generally going to be handled by the printer in CYMK because it will print in CMYK.
Any yes, you can have surprise color shifts going from RGB to CMYK with any printer.

Chris Macan wrote:
It doesn't matter if you are printing Litho, Flexo, Gravure, Silk Screen, or Digital....
Standard color printing is generally going to be handled by the printer in CYMK because it will print in CMYK.
Any yes, you can have surprise color shifts going from RGB to CMYK with any printer.

I'm becoming less and less convinced that you really know what you're talking about. I have books on the subject of colour printing and reproduction.

Ideally you would never need to convert from RGB to CYMK although software for doing that is readily available, but color shifts are not a problem I have encountered with Bonusprint.

https://colordesigner.io/convert/rgbtocmyk

JSouthworth wrote:
I view the image recorded on the film as being simply as starting point. Sometimes it can years before I finally get the image I'm looking for. Just recently I finally obtained the image I wanted from a picture from a session about 7 years ago.

Most people can't afford the 7 year time, effort, or expense to continually adjust a photo for printing.  Professionals use the methods as everyone else has described.  When you leave professionals to do their individual jobs you rapidly get professional  results.

I can't imagine Time, Vogue,  or Playboy (when it was alive) doing it any other way, especially YOUR way.

JSouthworth wrote:
The way I edit images is different from most other people...

...Do you have a problem? With my editing? Tell me about it.

I'm still confused if the wronkled (old time MMers will be familiar with that phrase) bedsheet backgrounds are meant to be seen in the photos or not?  It's been asked before but you didn't answer.

(It's not a critique as there's no opinion being written, it's a serious question about your editiing technique)

Chris Macan wrote:
It doesn't matter if you are printing Litho, Flexo, Gravure, Silk Screen, or Digital....
Standard color printing is generally going to be handled by the printer in CYMK because it will print in CMYK.
Any yes, you can have surprise color shifts going from RGB to CMYK with any printer.

JSouthworth wrote:

I'm becoming less and less convinced that you really know what you're talking about. I have books on the subject of colour printing and reproduction.

JSouthworth, what everyone else has been telling you is true.  Even as stated by the service that YOU are using for your book.

BonusPrint specifically says that they are printing using the CMYK process.  This won't be a surprise to anyone that has extensive experience with commercial printers.

But as BonusPrint users generally don't have that basic level of understanding about the printing process, their "user tools" are geared for sRGB or RGB.  They say that they are then running an automated conversion process to CMYK for printing.  Although they warn of a "slight loss of colour" during that conversion.

JSouthworth wrote:
This article makes the point that some colors achievable in RGB are not attainable in CYMK, that could be important;

https://www.printingforless.com/blog/gu … l-printing

High end commercial inkjet printers are not limited to CYMK, they often use six or eight inks according to this article;

Southy,

You can't google your way to experience.

YES, there are RGB colors that can't be reached in standard CMYK printing.
That is one reason you can get color shifts when you convert to CMYK from RGB.
And guess what.... There are colors that you can't reproduce with either RGB or CMYK,
that is one reason printer have extra print units where they can run extra colors.
It's also one reason that digital printer manufactures have added extended gamut printing capabilities.

I'm sorry if I dumbed down my previous reply to just the most basic of the basics,
but I suspected that you don't print things for a living.... so I didn't want to confuse you.

Chris Macan wrote:
Southy,

You can't google your way to experience.

Revealing the "wizard" behind the curtain.

Focuspuller wrote:
Revealing the "wizard" behind the curtain.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!


I ain't no wizzard,
and I'm not really an expert...
but I got experience!

Chris Macan wrote:
Southy,

You can't google your way to experience.

YES, there are RGB colors that can't be reached in standard CMYK printing.
That is one reason you can get color shifts when you convert to CMYK from RGB.
And guess what.... There are colors that you can't reproduce with either RGB or CMYK,
that is one reason printer have extra print units where they can run extra colors.
It's also one reason that digital printer manufactures have added extended gamut printing capabilities.

I'm sorry if I dumbed down my previous reply to just the most basic of the basics,
but I suspected that you don't print things for a living.... so I didn't want to confuse you.

It's too late for that, because you've already revealed your ignorance by implying that all commercial printers use CMYK when in fact the photo book printers use more sophisticated printing technology like CcMmYK or CMYKOGV. CMYK is amateur hour in photo printing terms.

Just to remind you of what you wrote earlier;

"Basic commercial color printing is CMYK. (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, & Black)
If you are sending work to print it would benefit you to know how to translate your work into the standard 4 color printing workspace to avoid surprise color shifts".

This thread is about photo books, not commercial color printing in general. Don't try to be smarter than you are, it's always a mistake.

JSouthworth wrote:
It's too late for that, because you've already revealed your ignorance by saying that all commercial printers use CMYK when in fact the photo book printers use more sophisticated printing technology like CcMmYK or CMYKOGV. CMYK is amateur hour in photo printing terms.

Just to remind you of what you wrote earlier;

"Basic commercial color printing is CMYK. (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, & Black)
If you are sending work to print it would benefit you to know how to translate your work into the standard 4 color printing workspace to avoid surprise color shifts".

This thread is about photo books, not commercial color printing in general. Don't try to be smarter than you are, it's always a mistake.

Southy, everything you are running on about is CMYK based.
It doesn't matter if you print CMYK + 021 + spot UV and Aqueous coat it,
It's still CMYK,
add extended Gamut, or kicker plates, and it's still just tarted up CMYK.
Nothing you are doing is going to be anything other than CMYK or CMYK+.

Photobooks are commercial printing,
POD books run digital, other books may run digital, offset litho, or occasional other processes.

And trust me, if you are going through your basic POD book printer it's very likely it just Digital CMYK.


The only amateur hour here is you trying to school people with google knowledge.