Perception of self-publishing v. publishing

[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/e...hrome_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.