Your book: does it matter who the publisher is ?

[QT Luong]

As some of you know, I plan to release a major book with large format images from each of the US National Parks, as well as text describing some of my experiences there and tips for photographers (there is a short blurb at: http://www.terragalleria.com/book.html).

Assuming that any publisher offers a decent contract, is there any reason not to go with them, rather than longer established and better known houses? What would be the finer points in choosing a publisher for a photography book ?

[Michael Graves]

You might want to look into what distribution channels each publisher uses to get their books out to the public. Figure that they're only going to invest so much time and money into your project. They're expecting you do shoulder a pretty good portion of that load. Larger and more established publishers get their books into channels a relatively new or unknown publisher will never touch. They can all get you into Amazon, but will they get you into the brick and mortar shops that will be your bread and butter? To do that they'll need to have arrangements with larger distribution companies like Ingram and Baker and Taylor. How about the niche markets like Freestyle? I don't know about you, but I've bought several books from them. Do they use either Ingram or Baker and Taylor? Couldn't tell you. But they might if you ask.

[Ed Richards]

The publisher always matters, no matter what sort of book you do. They can drop the ball on production, or distribution, they can flub marketing, there are LOTS of ways publisher can make your life difficult. The advantage of the Sierra Club or U of C is that neither are going to go broke or be acquired by a multinational and lose interest in your book because all the editors get fired. (Had that happen with a legal book at Little Brown, and again at Aspen.) The Sierra club has a built in audience for the book through their own publications, which would stretch the promotion budget.

[paulr]

i guess it depends on whether you really have the luxury of choice. any book offer is a great offer.

if the small publisher is serious, it might be worth consulting with someone like mary virginia swanson on what kinds questions to ask and what to expect in the contract. There's no way to know what you'll think of their deal until you've discussed things like budget and distribution and marketing.

i suppose a lot depends on how much time you have to negotiate and make up your mind, also--someone like sierra club books probably isn't going answer to your proposal overnight.

[Ron Marshall]

Take a look at other photo books they have published to determine if the reproduction quality will be up to your standards.

[Daniel Geiger]

You may also want to consider production quality. As we all know, color in particular, but even B&W printing can be tricky. A large house with an established work-flow will have more consistent results.

I just had some chapters published in a book (all B&W), where the editors decided to go with on-demand vanity press. The results look accordingly. You know there is trouble, when the laserprints from the pdf look better than the book. After six years of waiting I'm just happy it's out. Needless to say, the photochapter is out of date already. Never mind, it's a write-off.

[paulr]

i think you're actually in for an easier ride with a color book. high quality color reproduction is routine for any good press; high quality monochrome printing is much more specialized. consider that if they're doing a medium to high end job, it's not going to be black and white ... it will be duotone, tritone, or possibly even quadratone (if you struck the jackpot), possibly with one or more varnishes. It's much tougher for a press to adequately match match silver prints than to match color prints.

But this is all getting way, way ahead of the game. The publisher is going to have budget in mind for the project, and a probably a vision to match it, and this will all greatly constrain things like paper type, printing quality, size of the run, number of pages, size of the book, etc. etc..

If you're not already famous, ANY book offer is wonderful gift. It's not time to start turning up your nose at their printing budget.

These specialty publishers get thousands of unsolicited submissions each year from unknown artists who want oversized, boxed, 100+ page books of their images, in quadratone. The editors must be wondering where all the fine weed is being handed out for free.

If you're not already famous, and you get the kind of book deal that you're likely to get, you're going to have to trust that your audience knows it's just a book. Reproductions, not your precious originals. Trust their imaginations to know the difference between an 8" plate and your 30" original. And to know that you have indeed made more images than the thirty that they printed. Focus on the positives. It's a wonderful oportunity to get your work out there, in front of more people than you'd ever be able to otherwise.

[Kirk Gittings]

Each successful book makes the next one easier and more attractive to better publishers. Big publishers don't tend to take risks. They love to gobble up established artists that have proven themselves at smaller presses.

What makes a successful book? Going into a second, or better yet, third printing, winning some book awards etc. and high visibility press, press, press. I don't leave the marketing up to the press. I pursue it with a vengeance, which presses like.

I have always linked my books to exhibits. This helps maximize exposure of the book and initial sales. At the last one, I sold over 100 copies at the exhibit opening/book launch. The publisher was standing to the side watching. It was really sweet.

[QT Luong]

And to know that you have indeed made more images than the thirty that they printed. Focus on the positives. It's a wonderful oportunity to get your work out there, in front of more people than you'd ever be able to otherwise.

Was that directed at me in particular, or was it general advice for the starving artist ?

[paulr]

Was that directed at me in particular, or was it general advice for the starving artist ?

just general observations. but not only for the starving artist ... for any of the not-yet-published, not-yet-famous among us. i haven't published a book either, although i investigated it pretty thoroughly, and had the oportunity to hold the hands of a couple of good friends while they went through the process. the long, arduous process.

over the course of this, i've talked to people at places like aperture, powerhouse, 21st publishers, and the center for american places, and they all beat a lot of the same ideas into my head.

a couple of friends got disenchanted ... the gap between their vision and what the publisher would pay for was just too great, so they self-published. it's become a viable option if you have a source of funding, a mailing list of a few thousand loyal fans, and the ability to go without sleep for a year or two.

[Michael Graves]

...... the gap between their vision and what the publisher would pay for was just too great, .........

Paul,

For some types of books, getting paid isn't the only factor the artist is concerned with. I receive a decent amount of money for each of my computer books. That's nice. A guy's gotta eat. I was far more excited with the release of my first novel last month that I ever was over any of the computer books, and I didn't receive a nickel in advance money. I'll only get whatever royalties the book earns. (So everybody go buy a copy!) If, the gods be willing, I should ever get a book of my photos published I'd be in seventh heaven.

[QT Luong]

Michael, I think Paul meant the budget for the book, rather than the part of the author. For instance, for this book project, I am not concerned at all about the advance (that the publisher said would be small), but rather about whether they'd do a good production and distribution job.

I went to my local bookstore. On the plus side, they did carry one photography title of this press (apparently distributed through the "national book network"). On the minus side, the reproduction was not very high quality. However, this could be the fault of the photographer, rather than the publisher, as this photographer works "on the go" (he is a busy media executive), the book is titled "snaps", and I noticed some of the images appeared to from a DSLR with tons of dust spots, and judging from the size of the dust spots, big crops. Does that happen often that the production quality varies significantly from book to book within the same publisher ?

[paulr]

That's right, I was talking about budget for the book. I don't think my friends who had books published got a dime ... in fact a couple of them came up with some of the money themselves.

The publishers I've spoken with all gave similar advice about thinking small ... small book size, small number of reproductions. This is especially true if it's a book primarily about your photographs.

That's a distinction worth elaborating on. You can think of photo books (at least art photo books) as belonging to one of two categories. The first is books that are about a subject that has a broader interest than just photography ... like the national parks, the twin towers, the aftermath of a hurricane, portraits of famous black women, joyce's dublin, harley davidson tattoos, endangered wetlands, etc.. The second is books primarily about a photographer's vision. If the photographer's name is bigger than the title, that's a pretty good tip off.

If you're not famous, the first kind of book is your best shot. For the simple reason that the publisher can reach for a market that's bigger than the five or six guys who collect photography books. you already have to be a bit of a brand before anyone will consider a book that's all about your vision, with your name across the front in giant block type.

but anyway, an example of budget constraints ... my friend anne found out that acid free paper would literally double the cost of production. she couldn't find any way to afford it, and there was no way to cut other corners without compromising her vision, so she gave up on that. her book (like most) is going to yellow eventually. that's the kind of decision that you'll probably face many times.

[Kirk Gittings]

Some well reasoned thoughts paul that relect my experience exactly.

[QT Luong]

It is not so much a matter of fame, as something else, like the positionning of the photographer. I think Galen Rowell is more famous than Massimo Vitali, yet it was not until after this death that a book about his photographs was published - I mean the recent retrospective. On the other hand, the type of Massimo Vitali is larger than "landscape and figures".

By the way, I asked whether your comment was directed at me, because I think nobody is going to publish a book about the National Parks with just 30 photos, no matter little known the photographer. Besides a book wouldn't reach the millions that I do through the web.