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.