P O D company, good or bad?

[Ash]

Just clicked on an advert for these people http://www.blurb.com/create/book/photobook

Any thoughts??


I know a fair few Print On Demand companies are either too expensive or the prints come out poorly...

Hmm...

[paul stimac]

I've used them and like their product. Make sure to follow the instructions for preparing your pictures.

[Witold Grabiec]

They have a book for (I think) $15 here (http://www.blurb.com/create/book/htmab), that was produced using their system. I'm waiting on one, but it should be a good indication of what's possible (I don't doubt they've milked it as best they could). There is also a pdf version of it, if you want to see what can be had for $15 in print. Since it's title is How to Make a Book, it should prove useful in other ways too.

I don't know if you must use their software (which they give you free anyways), but it sure is fun in its own right.

[Witold Grabiec]

Just came across this blog and the guy appears to be speaking from his own experience with PODs.

http://beckermanphoto.com/print-on-demand-photobooks/

And here is another one which sheds some more direct experience on the issue

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0405/mh0405-1.html

[Ed Richards]

I got their book, but the pictures do not look very good. Their example pictures look like second rate family snaps.

[Frank Petronio]

All of the inexpensive POD printers use toner-based (copier) systems, like Xerox Docutechs, which print "weak". They aren't bad for what they are -- these include Blurb and Lulu, etc. but don't expect cheap magazine print quality.

Shared Ink and some others use HP Indigos which are true ink on paper digital offset presses. They do much better, and they approach traditional offset quality.

All of the POD printers only will print in CMYK and so far none have developed a sure-fire 100% successful way to print neutral B&W images. The best you can hope for is to cheat by using an olive-sepia tone to a color image, in the hopes that the olive green will counteract the pink-magenta cast that they tend to print neutrals with.

Also, none of the POD vendors use any sort of standardized file prep -- each one has its own proprietary workflow. Lulu will take PDFs but their quality control is dismal. Lulu and Blurb also have their own layout software. Shared Ink likes you to submit 100% scale jpgs (which is probably the best way - very simple and robust.) But none will allow you to work with professional tools like InDesign or ICC/Colorsync profiles.

So far, Shared Ink has the best quality control and they offer single sheet proofs. But they cost several x times more than Blurb or Lulu.

The BEST option is to print high quality prints on your Canon/Epson/HP inkjet (or darkroom) and then have them bound by a bookbinder. Shared Ink will do this too, as will many other places.

Roughly speaking, for the same book at Lulu/Blurb it's $20. At Shared Ink it would be $150. And doing it yourself and having it bound would be much more time consuming and expensive.

Printing for fussy photographers who are usually lousy graphic designers is a very efficient way for a printer to go out of business as quickly as possible. Photographers are rarely satisfied and they often have unrealistic expectations for the printer's capabilities. It is much more profitable for these guys to print amateur snapshot albums and wedding photos, so don't expect to see a "fine-art" high quality POD printer -- with competitive pricing -- suddenly appear on the marketplace. It won't happen. You get what you pay for, and frankly $20 for mediocre half-assed book is still pretty amazing when you think about it compared to just 5-10 years ago.

[Gene McCluney]

I think POD is great if your subject material is so compelling as to transcend poor quality printing. In other words, if the subject material will sell regardless of the print quality.

[Witold Grabiec]

I got their book, but the pictures do not look very good. Their example pictures look like second rate family snaps.

Ed,
How would you compare the hard copy to what you see in the .pdf version?

[Gordon Moat]

What do you want to do with your on-demand book? Do you want it for send out portfolios, or as a for-sale book? I think many work fine as send out portfolios, though I am less than impressed with any of the current companies for other uses . . . though you could check each one first before sale.

Best I have seen was from GraphiStudio, though I also heard of them getting a page or two flipped around in binding, so like all the other companies, you still need to check the output. Cost is also an issue here, though if you only need one or two books, they are a good choice. Compare to SharedInk and Asuka Book.

Currently the Xerox iGen 3 is the top in printing quality, but can be ruined by a lazy company that does not calibrate their gear often. Kodak also has a new NexPress out that allows a fifth colour, or even a gloss or matte varnish coat (full page only); absolutely the best samples I have seen, though I have yet to find any company reliably running one of these. The newest Kodak NexPress just came out in early 2007. HP and Xerox are also working on next generate five colour presses, which should promise better print quality.

Calibration will always be an issue with toner and oil heat-set based systems. Ideally a company should calibrate, or check calibration every few hours, though once a day could be enough. Judging what I have seen from Lulu, I would doubt they calibrate once a month . . . and with Blurb I doubt more than once a week.

Parsons School of Design put out a small book with sample swatches for on-demand printing, specifically the toner and oil based iGen 3. I highly recommend getting this book if you are doing your own set-up in CMYK. If you are only comfortable working in RGB, then find a service that runs a translation and template software.

Black and white images can work quite well using only Black ink, but you must work in CMYK to take advantage of this. The oil and heat setting of some of these printing systems allows Black only printing to work nicely for greyscale images. This is very contrary to preparation for traditional offset printing, so you cannot use the same files for offset. Another difference to offset is that you can use 400% total ink without warping paper (Note: cracking is an issue for anything that will be folded later, and requires special preparation at the fold).

There are several nice discussions on printed portfolios over at PDN Forums. While how everyone professionally accomplishes this will differ, there are many excellent links and examples you can follow. You do not need to join the forum, nor participate in order to search the threads. Good as LF Forums can be as a source of knowledge, there is a bit more on this issue over there. Highly recommended.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Frank Petronio]

GraphiStudio uses HP Indigos... (not toner, not iGens) they do seem to offer nice B&Ws but it's in Europe....

[Gordon Moat]

Thanks Frank for pointing that out. I knew I needed to write more to clarify what I was discussing with their product offerings. I did not mean the products that they produce on the Indigo (http://h30267.www3.hp.com/country/us/en/products/digital_presses/) good as they are with that.

GraphiStudio also offer RA-4 prints bound into a book, including front to back images, though that is thick. I would highly recommend that above their Indigo print service. One nice thing on the bound RA-4 prints is that their binding allows the pages to lay flat.

http://www.graphistudio.com/en/products/portfolio.html

I have seen several of these. They are quite similar to Fuji, Durst, Kodak, or similar LightJet, Lambda, Chromira . . . or other RA-4 prints. They are much thicker, though I think that is done in assembly and binding. These are true photographic prints, not ElectroInk and oil (Indigo). The downside is that the cost is substantially higher.

The GraphiStudio samples I saw using the RA-4 prints on metallic paper (Kodak Endura?) were all photographers in California. The only complaint was the turn-around time was not that great, though I think they are worth the wait . . . I am less certain they are worth the expense. Since Ash is in the UK, I think this might be less of an issue.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Ted Harris]

I've seen some good work from blurb but my understanding from the author was that it took several tries to get it right.

[Ben R]

I use Graphi for my wedding work, their offset printing is good but not anywhere close to their real chemical prints bound into a book which are fantastic and the same price..