Perception of self-publishing v. publishing

[QT Luong]

If you learn that an author/photographer self-published his book, does that make you respect him more or less?

Are you more likely to buy a self-published book v. a traditionally published one?

See attached poll for voting, and feel free to discuss reasons in this thread.

Clarification: For the purposes of this thread, traditionally published means that the book was published by a publishing company which is not owned by the author and which doesn't systematically charge the authors for publishing. Self-published is the publication without involvement of an established publisher, and includes publication using one's own publishing company if that company publishes a single author. A self-publisher may or may not use outsourced services equivalent to those used by established publishers, including design, printing, marketing, and distribution. If a book lists no publisher, it is clearly self-published, but most serious self-published books do list one. The only real way to tell if a book is self-published (by this definition) is to research the listed publisher and find out if they are associated with the author. So you may ask what is the real difference? To get a book traditionally published, you need to convince the publisher that your project is worth it to them. They will then take care of it and pay you royalties on sales. To get a book self-published, you have to pay upfront for all expenses and manage the project: risks, rewards, and responsibilities are all yours.

[Leszek Vogt]

Never thought of it this way. It's the quality of subject at hand....and content. Whether the book was prepped by 1, 2, 3 or 200 people is irrelevant to me.

Les

[pjd]

I've seen some weak self published efforts, also some good. Self publishing does make me suspicious, but then again established publishing houses print junk too (for example, Taschen printed "Terryworld", which they may be coming to regret these days).

I don't think I respect works based on the publisher, or publishing method, so voted equal. The work itself decides if they are respected or not. A famous publishing house does get people a look, but not automatic respect.

[Oren Grad]

I'm indifferent as to the publisher. What matters is whether the content appeals, the production values are at least adequate relative to the concept, and the price is within reason in the context of my available budget for discretionary spending. I'm not a huge photo book buyer, but several of the books that I have purchased in recent years have been self-published.

Have you seen Hester Keijser's "The Independent Photo Book" blog?

http://theindependentphotobook.blogspot.com/

[JeffBradford]

It depends on the book. Traditional books work well in the traditional publishing model, but traditional publishing companies won't work with material that isn't going to make them money. Thus, self-publishing is a legitimate way to get your book out there.

[Tin Can]

Lots of variables. I read reviews. I make choices.

These days I buy mostly Art books and repair manuals.

I used to subscribe to 12 or more printed magazines.

Now an online magazine is better.

Picture books will follow.

[Bill L.]

There's a lot more variability in the self-published work, and since I often have to buy sight unseen, the self-published books are more of a risk. I think that can be overcome with adequate description, satisfaction guarantees, etc.

[Robert Brazile]

None of the poll responses quite captures how I feel about it. Professional publishing (generally) provides a certain level of quality that can be expected, ranging from the selection of the material in the first place through to the quality of the printing. But not always. Self-publishing does not seem to me to yet have the same average level of quality of either, but there are certainly exceptions. So in general, I have lower expectations of self-published work, but in considering it I do look for signifiers that particular attention has been paid to the content itself and to the quality of publishing. A Blurb book is capable of being pretty decent, but I haven't seen one yet to the standards of the best professionally published books. Compared to the average professional book? Getting closer.

[jnantz]

hi QT

i think years ago there was more stigma attached to self published books
maybe i am wrong ?
i don't say this out of personal experience
( i self publish 1 edition books by making them myself by hand but that doesn't count )
but i have a cousin who is a novelist and IDK 15-20 years back he self published a book
and did the book signing thing all over the place at every bookstore you could think of.
things went well but from time to time interested people would ask who his publisher was
( since they had never heard of it ) and when he told them, they would do the equivilant of
dropping the book back on the table, backing up slowly and then run away .. well maybe not exactly like that, but still ...
i am guessing as long as the quality is good the buyer doesn't really think about it ..
and these days with POD books ... the person making the book doesn't need to have 50,000 books in his garage ..

good luck !
john

[Jim Jones]

A fine publisher and a great photographer make a strong team, such as Ansel Adams and Little Brown & Co. Adams was right to claim that their reproductions did justice to his original prints. I compared 27 of these prints to the original photographs in an exhibit curated by his daughter in Peoria years ago, and found this usually so. Many other books on Adams by other publishers are awful in comparison. Another example is Portraits of Greatness by Yousuf Karsh. The first edition printed in Holland in sheet fed gravure is magnificent when compared to later editions. However, we can interpret much of a photographer's intent even through mediocre publishing, just as we can appreciate great music poorly reproduced. I continue to buy books more for information rather than for the quality of publication. Emil Schildt's little Blurb book, From My Universe, is more inspiring than many coffee table publications by lesser artists.

[mdarnton]

I have a pretty large photo book library, by my wife's standards :-). Every single one was bought because I was first aware of the photographer's work, then went to find a book with his photos. Though it didn't matter who printed the book, the first source I go to is always Amazon, so I would place the vendor higher on my list than the production source. And if you aren't aware of it, it is possible for individuals to place their work directly on Amazon.

[Alan Klein]

I voted then realized I really don't know the difference. Could someone explain? Are self-published on Amazon? How would a buyer know which is which? Does the company that actually prints the book matter?

[Sal Santamaura]

Tuan, I've reached a point in life where "stuff" owns me, and I'd like to shed much of it. Treasured Lands is the only physical book I've purchased in years, and that was (enthusiastically) done out of gratitude for your founding and keeping alive this free Web site over decades. In other words, while I voted "equal respect" and "equally likely," I'm not a very good source for useful marketing information. :)

[Tin Can]

I use Abe's as often as I can. They represent many bookstores worldwide. https://www.abebooks.com/?&cm_mmc=ggl-_-US_AbeBooks_Brand-_-naa-_-naa&gclid=Cj0KCQiA_5_QBRC9ARIsADVww16iW5FlJpjmFVdnFAuOAtOZUuXzZpXeiR5EkwNzaYrdHN3xdNuaiToaAoyhEALw_wcB

They will also search and report as your desire appears on market. Very handy when they present all available at extremely variable pricing.

[dodphotography]

Ah, it depends.

Yes, generally so however... if you spend any time around the book world you find out quickly that regardless of an artists status they still have to plop down a huge chunk of cash for their book.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tin Can]

I will confess to having made a few photobooks to order for clients.

Editions of 1,2,3...for other media artists to use as a carried book for sales of their art, fashion, stuff.

The books sell their art.

[William Whitaker]

I don't understand the phrase "self-publish". My immediate reaction is negative because I think of poorly bound photocopies from the local copy store. But it could as easily mean exquisite reproductions in a carefully made binding with nothing left to chance. So for the sake of this thread, could the OP please establish a definition of "self-publishing"?
Thank you.

[dodphotography]

I don't understand the phrase "self-publish". My immediate reaction is negative because I think of poorly bound photocopies from the local copy store. But it could as easily mean exquisite reproductions in a carefully made binding with nothing left to chance. So for the sake of this thread, could the OP please establish a definition of "self-publishing"?
Thank you.

Self publishing means you lose the perks of working with a publisher... book design, layout, someone as a representative on press , etc etc etc

It's going at it all alone.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QT Luong]

Alan, Will, see clarification on OP. Self-published can easily be on Amazon. In general it is not possible to identify the printing company.

Nothing prevents a self-publisher from hiring a book designer or someone to go on press for them, etc..

[Mark Sawyer]

So many grey areas...

When Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee publish their own work through Lodima Press, which they own but often publish other photographers through, is that self-publishing?

If an author publishes through a Vanity Press, paying all the costs and a fee up front, is that being published traditionally?

It's the work itself, the editing and sequencing, the quality of the printing and binding, etc. that make or break a book. But those published traditionally are often less expensive and more widely known and available. But I recently bought Alex Timmerman's self published Storytelling book, and couldn't think higher of it.

[Merg Ross]

Tuan, my respect is equal for self-published and traditionally published books, with the same criteria in both instances; to learn, enjoy, and hopefully, find inspiration. In some cases, reproduction quality might be a major consideration. Among my favorite photo books are a few self-published gems that would likely lack the audience and return expected of a traditionally published book.

Self-publishing often concerns different goals and expectations. I published a book to tell my story of six decades as a fine art photographer, with glimpses of a bygone era. I anticipated a small audience and chose a publisher of high reputation. He agreed to print my text and photographs following my layout, and was on press. Reproduction quality was a major consideration. The resulting book represents the necessary rapport of photographer and publisher.

As others have noted, traditionally published books are no guarantee of quality, nor self-published books of lacking same. It's not an easy question!

[Jac@stafford.net]

If one self-publishes, it is a good idea to get an ISBN number or distributors will likely ignore it. If you do publish without an ISBN, then you can get one and they will supply stickers to be placed within the book later, but before sale.

Book and magazine distribution is a racket.

[Tin Can]

Maybe this is the wrong place for this. But it's photographic self-publishing.

I am astounded by today's KODAK email.

KODAK is offering a 96-page MAGAZINE for $25.23 delivered! Not a subscription, just Issue 2. Issue 1, I never heard of.

http://store.kodak.com/store/kodak/en_US/pd/productID.5136402600/Kodachrome-Magazine-Issue2-2017?utm_source=yesmail&utm_campaign=consumer&utm_medium=email&utm_content=kodachrome_20171109

That's real money and kinda dumb marketing in my eyes. Sheese!

Today's second KODAK email offers Kodak t-shirts...

Why not tie these products to a roll of film? If not that, just make the magazine digital delivery and give up.

Now I will make coffee and get really fired up. :)

[William Whitaker]

Thanks. And based on that it would appear there is no impact on the end user. Further any advantage/disadvantage is upon the author. So I guess it makes no difference to me as a consumer, except perhaps as an indicator of the author's level of commitment and dedication to the material by fronting the investment him/her-self.

[Graham Patterson]

It used to be that I could browse the better local book stores for material. In the UK I could also check out the bookshops on Charing Cross Road, or pop into The Photographer's Gallery in London. Now it gets harder. The local Barnes & Noble no longer has an 'Art' section, let alone photography.

'Conventionally' published material has some guarantee of production values. On the other hand I have some personally published works through various print-on-demand services, and they have met the expectations of other work from the same source. Duotone and sheet fed gravure is still the closest to the original print in my view, but I cannot afford the space or cost of 100 original prints 8-)

For me, self-published books sell based on the work (if I can preview it), or what I know of the author (and there are several on this Forum). Work from publishers representing multiple authors might sell based on the publisher's 'vision'.

[Alan Klein]

The web, cellphone, and computers have killed magazines and books along with a lot of other things we use to buy to hold and admire.

[peter schrager]

The world of books is a large one. There are other outlets like book shows for selling books. I have owned handmade books from artists that sell on the thousands and are highly resellable . A well made book is a work of art and content and quality reign supreme

[Oren Grad]

I think we may be getting in trouble here by conflating different kinds of books that are targeted at different markets. The market for books like Tuan's "Treasured Lands" is different from the market for individual-photographer monographs positioned as art books, which in turn is different from the market for small-run craft books where the book itself is positioned as an art object. We could probably identify other differentiated markets too. The mix of responses to Tuan's poll is likely to be different across these different markets.

[chassis]

Publisher pedigree has no monetizable value to me, except (maybe) in a rare example, of which at this time I can think of none. Quality of the physical product, and of the content, are value drivers for me as a potential consumer of a product.
This is the consumer's point of view.


However, from the author's point of view, a publisher's production process and distribution chain and relationships often have value worth spending money on. So the goals need to be defined. If the author wants to sell a certain number of books, the various methods of publication will achieve the goal more or less easily.

[Paul Ewins]

For both fiction and non-fiction self-published is a red flag since the authors often don't see the need for an editor or think that it is all about spotting typos etc. You will still get absolute gems, but the signal to noise ratio is extreme. With books of photography that is a much smaller issue since the buyer is either already familiar with your work or is standing at the table leafing through the book. A good editor would still be an advantage in terms of selecting the final cut of photographs for the book and what sequence they appear in but won't be a make or break thing.

Right now self published "photobooks" are all the rage and there was even a weekend event for them inside the National Gallery of Victoria, the most prestigious art space in my home town (Melbourne) and one of the top galleries in the country. They are usually at the lower end of the quality range or aiming at a handmade aesthetic but I would say that there is no intrinsic shame whatsoever in a self published monograph of your own photos. Get as much advice as you can and find a printer who is used to printing books of photography.

[jp]

I'm sort of the equal respect and equally sold on either source of book. I think the idea of a high volume high sales photography book is now ancient history. A Sierra Club coffee table book of Eliot Porter photos would not happen now. The fact that it's reprinted now shows how big an influence it must have been and is only academic or nostalgia now. Life Magazine special books and the magazine itself are no more. Newspapers don't have photographers anymore. The big name doesn't mean big sales or big quality. Likewise we all know quality can vary greatly if someone whos a great photographer but poor in writing or design makes a book with blurb or createspace. Printing tech has improved greatly and there is no reason the mechanical process has to be expensive. I'd be thrilled even for that for from great photographers who make awesome photos but aren't on the radar of museum exhibit catalogs or publishers. There's probably at least a dozen on the forum I'd be game for modest self published books. On the high end, it's a nice way prolific printers to share some nice work too.

[tim48v]

Self-publishing is not new. Many famous authors were self-published: Mark Twain, Charles Dickens etc. It wasn't until the middle of the last century that "trade" publishing took over.

My three axioms of publishing:
1. Getting a book published by a traditional publishing house is more work than writing the book.
2. It doesn't matter who publishes the book, it is up to the author to promote and market their book.
3. The only people making money in the publishing business today are the publishers.

This is why we started Stearman Press: Shop.stearmanpress.com (https://shop.stearmanpress.com/collections/literature) (How the photo supplies ended up in our publishing company is a long story.)

The game changer in the last few decades has be Print on Demand (POD). You no longer need to run 1000 copies of your book just to make it available. Books listed on Amazon as "ships today" are often "printed today." This has lowered the cost of entry to almost zero and has resulted in some outrageously bad self-published books.

There are also the vanity publishers: companies that will publish your book for a price. They can provide editors, cover art etc; all for a price.

At Stearman Press, we hire professional editors etc. Not that mistakes don't slip through but some of the most grievous typos I've seen were in books from the big guys in the industry. In most cases, the reader can't tell the difference without decoding the ISBN. (Create Space will provide a free ISBN that is registered to them; we buy our own numbers, registered to Stearman Press. Minor detail but something that some book stores and reviewers notice. It also makes it easier to print elsewhere, if the need arises.)

I'm not sure how POD would work for a photo book. I've heard mixed reviews regarding quality. You'd want to check some of the POD forums etc.

Speaking of reviews, the only marketing in that really matters today are reviews on Amazon. The more reviews a book has the higher it goes in the search results etc. So if you like an author, write a review.

[esearing]

Just imagine if Tim Rudman would re-release his toner book as PDF or even as an e-book. Even the old toning data would be valuable to those of us who won't pay $200 on used market.

[ioingjorbor]

I love books but... I would take all the time, money, and thought that goes into a book and instead do a website dedicated to that particular project. I'd reserve money for promotion across social media and I'd endow the site for perpetual hosting for at least twenty years after you die, naming a younger conservator and perhaps even a back up person so the work can live on.

Otherwise the book is little different than having a box of prints under the bed. A few people will see the images and nothing will come of it. At least with a website everyone has the potential to see your work and being free to view, the pictures may actually have some affect.I think exactly the opposite

Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Hello,

I think, publishing books is like raising children. You will not know whether they grow up in a good way or not, but you try it. Some people think their children are more valuable with a Harvard diploma. Normal people love their children even when they fail at school. Perhaps because they fail?

Another problem is the financial return. I once wrote a book when a publisher offered me 10% of the benefit - in fact it was circa 10 euro cents per book. - I published the book by myself, now I earn about 7 dollars per book, and since 2008 I sold circa 10 books per year.

Self publishing is also a way to produce a book series. If you have some coherent themes you can integrate them in a series while separating them in single publications. Publishers do not offer this, normally.

Normally print on demand doesn't offer good print quality. Print on demand is the choice when printing text. But: during my studies in art history and philosophy I saw others publishing their doctoral thesis with a lot of illustrations on high quality paper. This was really expensive, they had to produce at least 150 library exemplars of their book. And then they had to pay a lot of money to get copyrights for these illustrations. Then there was the publishing house that requested another sum. In the end they paid as much as a compact car to have 300 exemplars of their dissertation. - Of course, their dissertation emerged in a considerable publishing house - but nobody published the sum they had paid to get there. And they think that publishing in a nameful house will harden their works. This is rhetorics.

It's an illusion to think that somebody appears in your exhibition around the corner and offers you a publication in a shiny quarto. If somebody wants to create something like a book: why not? What's the question about respecting the efforts of a photographer who wants to put his picturs up to discussion? If your pictures are worth to be taken and your negatives are worth to be enlarged, why should a lack respect of other photographers vainly dreaming of a publishing-house-approved career thwart your precious project?

Regards

[Tin Can]

Last night I was looking for an old B&W movie to watch on Amazon Prime.

They had little, what they had was prefaced with '...the original copyright owner failed to renew, so we present a...' they also offered a pile of DVD's Printed on Demand and delivered in 2 days!

I prefer to read printed books, it's faster, but after a while, they pile up and are not resalable.

I prefer high rez files of images to look at on my 4K TV. I watch my own slide shows all the time.

What's needed now is a way to control your files as you sell rent or them. Maybe impossible?

Or sell a download for enough to profit with all the usual warnings.

How about Mission Impossible, after viewing this data for 20 minutes it will self-destruct...

[pchaplo]

Academic presses are a great opportunity to work through the process of peer reviews, collaboration with a copy editor, and a dedicated professional book designer. Also, if your work passes muster, the university will provide marketing, distribution, and award entries. For promotion, they will help with festivals and book signing events.

[jim10219]

I don't think I've ever bought a book because of who published it. In fact, I don't think I've ever even looked for the publisher before buying any book. I'm more likely to judge a book by it's cover than by it's publisher.

That being said, if you told me you self published your book, I'd definitely see it more as a vanity piece than a serious endeavor, without actually seeing the book.

So I guess if it bother you to self publish, just make up a name for a publishing company, and act like they published it. We've actually done that many times at my print shop. We've printed several self published authors and used our printing companies name and logo as the publisher, at their request. Our print shop's name kind of sounds like a book publisher anyway. As long as the book isn't anything controversial or vulgar, it's seen as a creative use of cross promotion.

[invisibleflash]

I voted: less respect for self-published book than traditionally published book

Self-publishing is also known as vanity press. There are pros and cons to self-publishing. For me, I only do self-pub, hand-printed artist's books. Since they are hand-made, containing original prints, they are works of art in their own right. As such, museums and special collection curated collections will acquire them. They can also be unbound and used in exhibits. On a recent show about 'Dust" this was illustrated with a spiral bound book that Ed Ruscha had done in partnership and was on display at Riverside Museum of Photography.

Self-pub books have limited exposure. But in the internet world you can get worldwide exposure too. (as long as the lights are on.) Traditional publishing by big name houses carry the most respect. But it does not mean small run, limited edition artist's books won't be worth more in the long run. Ed Rushca's Twentysix Gasoline Stations is worth $15 to $20K.

In the end, just produce and let the chips fall where they may. If a big name publisher wants your book...great! And if not, self-pub it. And no one said you can't do both. Trad pub and a limited edition, hand-made book as well.

BTW...if you are into all this ego massaging, make sure you hire a big name to review the book and write an intro for the intellectuals . They usually need lots of words to justify the photos. All my books are well known for there economy of text. I'm visually oriented and need very little text myself. If a photo needs A.D. Coleman to justify its existence...it is a flop.

[germansaram]

Never thought of it this way. It's the quality of subject at hand....and content. Whether the book was prepped by 1, 2, 3 or 200 people is irrelevant to me.

Les

I agree with this. I never really gave it a thought as the content is more important to me.

[Grandpa Ron]

Some of the subjects I am interested in are so unique the market is to small for traditional publishers.

[robert lyons]

Makes no difference who published, a printing house or the author.....it is the content. many many books from the 1970's-2000 were "self-published" and they were great books!!! Look at Lee Friedlander....I think more to the point are the images, text, design and ultimate idea behind the book. Today most interesting books are self published....