Bootleg photography books? Cape Light fiasco.

[Certain Exposures]

I got a Cape Light book (Joel Meyerowitz) from an interlibrary loan that is suspiciously small and I am unimpressed by the resolution in the pages. I wonder if this is a legitimate copy.

When I get time I will double check the ISBN. The book is a hardcover without a shell.

I also received a few other books of notable photographer's works that include oddly pixelated images or poor colors. I have not double checked the ISBNs for all of them. Have you ever experienced this? I do not blame the library. I just wonder if they've been had.

 

[BrianShaw]

Aren't they intended by the artist to be "oddly pixelated"?

Cape Light (Cape Light #1)

Thomas Kinkade, also known as the Painter of Light, is …

www.goodreads.com

 

[Pieter12]

I got a Cape Light book (Joel Meyerowitz) from an interlibrary loan that is suspiciously small and I am unimpressed by the resolution in the pages. I wonder if this is a legitimate copy.

When I get time I will double check the ISBN. The book is a hardcover without a shell.

I also received a few other books of notable photographer's works that include oddly pixelated images or poor colors. I have not double checked the ISBNs for all of them. Have you ever experienced this? I do not blame the library. I just wonder if they've been had.

Printing a book costs enough to be a discouragement unless it is rare or valuable. It seems odd that someone would bootleg such a book. And if someone is going to copy the book they would probably copy the ISBN too. On the other hand there is a publisher who reproduces out-of-print photo books, but makes no bones about the fact that they are reproductions. I have a couple and they look pretty good, too.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Aren't they intended by the artist to be "oddly pixelated"?

Cape Light (Cape Light #1)

Thomas Kinkade, also known as the Painter of Light, is …

www.goodreads.com

Kinkade and Meyerowitz aren't the same person...(were you making a joke?)

 

[Don_ih]

suspiciously small

It's supposed to be about 30cm by 24cm. 100 pages. It was republished in 2015 by Aperture - and was probably of decent quality.
I can't see any money to be made by anyone illegally copying and selling photo books to libraries, though.

 

[koraks]

the resolution in the pages

Without more concrete information on what you witness, it's hard to comment.
I agree with @Don_ih that bootlegging library books sounds like an implausibly unfortunate business plan. Nobody can be stupid enough to even try.

However, there's an anecdote that comes to mind, even though I don't know if it logically could apply here. Some years ago I bought Sandy King et al's. book on carbon transfer printing. It's an instructional text, but also features a rich selection of example photographs. When I received the book, I immediately noticed the poor reproduction quality. It looked like the book was printed on someone's home inkjet printer! The reason is because...in a way, it was. The copy I received was apparently fulfilled as a print-on-demand order, which means the book is in fact inkjet printed on a machine that delivers comparable reproduction quality as a home/office inkjet printer (it's just a much bigger and faster machine that's part of a finishing line that spits out complete, bound books). Again, not saying that this is the case here, but it's at least a theoretical possibility. And given the prominence of print-on-demand today, it's not even a very far-fetched one. However, I'm not sure if an hardcover books are made this way and to be honest, I doubt it.

 

[BrianShaw]

Kinkade and Meyerowitz aren't the same person...(were you making a joke?)

Yes and no. @Certain Exposures understood the implication and updated the original post to be specific about which "Cape Lights" was the subject of the discussion.

 

[BrianShaw]

However, I'm not sure if an hardcover books are made this way and to be honest, I doubt it.

They are produced by Print On Demand companies. Not sure if that's a buyer option or a seller option but I've bought a few hardcopy print on demand books. The one's I've bought were offered as hardcopy, while others offered as softcopy. The prices were reflective of the binding type. All, though, as you point out, have the same hallmark of lower quality document printing. Usable, though...

 

[Don_ih]

When you specify a Print on Demand book, you set all the quality and characteristic options. You select the paper type, the print quality, the dimensions, binding, hard or soft-cover. What will make such a book look lower quality will be compromising on quality options to lower the price tag and not being that great at laying out a book. It will also be limited by the quality of what you provide.

The Print-on-Demand book I got printed from the pdf I made of the Print One Negative activity looks just like the pdf and the images are as well-printed as they could be, given the source. The one page that looks sub-par is the one I printed myself, because I missed including it in the pdf I got printed.

 

[Pieter12]

I doubt the books mentioned in the OP are print on demand.

 

[BrianShaw]

When you specify a Print on Demand book, you set all the quality and characteristic options. You select the paper type, the print quality, the dimensions, binding, hard or soft-cover. What will make such a book look lower quality will be compromising on quality options to lower the price tag and not being that great at laying out a book. It will also be limited by the quality of what you provide.

The Print-on-Demand book I got printed from the pdf I made of the Print One Negative activity looks just like the pdf and the images are as well-printed as they could be, given the source. The one page that looks sub-par is the one I printed myself, because I missed including it in the pdf I got printed.

Sorry if I'm being thick, Don, but are you referrring to the author setting those parmeters or the buyer? (I'm assuming so but not so sure about my assumptions some times.) It's been a while since I've bought a POD and don't recall having options other than quantity.

 

[BrianShaw]

I doubt the books mentioned in the OP are print on demand.

I doubt a bit more than that...

 

[Don_ih]

I doubt the books mentioned in the OP are print on demand.

It would be the easiest way to produce a "bootleg" book, currently, though. A print on demand copy made from a crappy scan would fit the description. Maybe from the copy on Internet Archive, although the quality is probably good enough for a smaller copy.

are you referrring to the author setting those parmeters

The person who made the book available through the service sets the options. You need to tailor your pdf to fit the format. You can opt for very cheap ($4 a book) or expensive ($50 or more for a book) or somewhere in between.

You can get bulk pricing, too, usually.

 

[Pieter12]

I still fail to see the motive or logic for a bootleg book in a library. Even if the book is collectable/valuable, the library is not going to pay collector prices for a book that is lent out. So why would anyone go to the trouble of counterfeiting a book that would be sold at wholesale or even retail price?

 

[koraks]

When you specify a Print on Demand book

I think we may be working on different definitions of 'Print on Demand'. For clarity - I'm not referring to self-publishing in small editions.

 

[MattKing]

As I understand it, much of the publishing industry is moving to a "Print on Demand" model.
And the quality and technology varies greatly.

 

[Don_ih]

I think we may be working on different definitions of 'Print on Demand'. For clarity - I'm not referring to self-publishing in small editions.

That's what Print-on-Demand is. You can get one or 100 or 10000. The printer will choose what setup to generate the book, but the quality is supposed to be the same. I ordered exactly 1 copy of the Print One Negative book. I could have specified it as hardcover, with high quality paper (think like a Steidl book) - but I didn't want to pay $100 for it. I was satisfied paying $20 for a full-colour softcover.

 

[Don_ih]

I still fail to see the motive or logic for a bootleg book in a library.

Because there is no logic involved. I don't think anyone here believes that book is a bootleg.

 

[Don_ih]

we may be working on different definitions of 'Print on Demand'

You may be referring to set-ups like Amazon has currently, where you can order a book like Alice In Wonderland from the Masterpiece Library Editions (Peter Pauper Press) - and almost every book in the line is print on demand. Amazon actually prints those things just before shipping (here in Canada, in a facility 20 minutes away from me).

 

[MTGseattle]

it looks like there have been 4? versions of Cape Light

New York Graphic Society 1978-79 Beach photo on cover
Bullfinch 2002 new expanded edition. Photo taken from a porch on cover
Aperture 2012/2015

I've seen listings for the Bullfinch version showing 2 different covers. These are slightly muddy waters.

 

[Certain Exposures]

Kinkade and Meyerowitz aren't the same person...(were you making a joke?)

Yes and no. @Certain Exposures understood the implication and updated the original post to be specific about which "Cape Lights" was the subject of the discussion.

It was a great joke and that is exactly what happened.

I have decided not to take pictures and post them. I learned a thing or two by reading all your comments though.

Right now, I have two books by a single photographer. One has an image on the cover. It looks fantastic. The other has a pitiful reproduction of the same image inside it. Many of the other images are just as bad. I will tell the library to consider replacing the 'bad' book with a new copy. Maybe they got a bad print.

 

[Don_ih]

I have decided not to take pictures and post them.

You mean of the "pitiful reproduction"? I think people would like to see what you're talking about.

 

[Nitroplait]

A couple of examples from the top of my head:

Two years ago I bought a book directly from Steidl. It was obviously below standard. It was returned and replaced of course. The customer service guy asked me if he could remove the shrink wrap of my replacement to ensure it was good - and commented that the first he opened wasn't.​

10 years ago I got a copy of Looking at Photograhs by John Szarkowski. It had the worst black and white reproductions I have ever seen outside a newspaper. I assume it was a misprint, but I didn't bother to return it because I was primarily interested in the text.​

​

Years ago I supervised printing of a very lage number of quality photographic postcards done by a local highly reputable printing company.​

At our subsequent comprehensive quality control, we found that 10-15% failed our standards.​

These would likely not have been found had we only done a few spot checks as the problematic prints were not spread evenly throughout the delivery.​

(A logical consequence of how a printing press is operated).​

My point being; Severe printing errors quite commonly make it into the end product.

A normal larger library selects books from a curated list of recommended books. They just order these directly from the publisher or distributor from where they are sent straight to be bound in protective plastic cover or whatever and made ready for the shelves of the library without a critical look.
It is highly unlikely the library books were ever checked for print quality issues - like a private buyer would.

If one thought the worst of people, one could speculate if the publishers therefore would be inclined to send the books that failed QC to the libraries?

​

 

[koraks]

If one thought the worst of people, one could speculate if the publishers therefore would be inclined to send the books that failed QC to the libraries?

That sounds more expensive in labor than the cost of scrapping any detected misprints.

Also, I don't expect a public library, when pointed out a copy of one of their books features poor image quality, will go to the lengths of replacing it.

 

[Nitroplait]

That sounds more expensive in labor than the cost of scrapping any detected misprints.

Also, I don't expect a public library, when pointed out a copy of one of their books features poor image quality, will go to the lengths of replacing it.

Not if you have a stack of returned books - the labor is on the consumer and bookshops.

And exactly- no library will complain, thus the risk of passing quality seconds to libraries is probably low.

Anyway, you are focusing on a poor joke. It was not the point of my post.