Putting together a book:Need Your suggestions

[freespiritedone]

Hello passionate ones....
I am currently putting together a book of my photos (35mm) and am need of the logistics needed to fulfill this goal.
I am shooting with my Pentax K-1000 35mm SLR...

Been thinking about the book... Thought perhaps it should be put forth and marketed in the simplist form out there... Photographs with a paragraph or Two... Let the pictures speak of times gone by... and times present.. with only one condition. "Let my pictures remain as I viewed the image through the lens of my Pentax K-1000 at the time I recorded the shot, remain pure and unaltered by digital format.


wishing you all a great new beginning in 2005...

any and all suggestions welcome. even the nitty gritty of the publishing business. You can also send me a PM at my email address.
for background.. briefly check personal profile and especially (go to journal entrys)

thanks guys ...
I am really looking forward to making this manifest itself into a reality of
what I will call "the visual dialogue" --- preserved.

 

[rbarker]

It seems to me that your basic choice is to either create a book that has enough commercial appeal to interest a conventional publisher, or to self-publish the book in the manner you choose. Unless you self-publish, you'll be subject to whatever editorial whims and technical procedures the publisher wishes to impose.

In general, my feeling is that image descriptions are best when limited to information about location and date, allowing the images themselves to speak about your artistic intent. Technical information about camera, lens, and exposure is only of parenthetical interest to other photographers, not average readers/viewers. That is to say, if you place too much emphasis on the use of your Pentax K-1000, the result may appeal only to other K-1000 users.

 

[fingel]

I'm not sure what you mean by "remain pure and unaltered by digital format", but your photos WILL need to be digitally manipulated at some point to be put into book form. Almost all printers use a digital workflow in the pre-press departments for page layout, adding text, photos, trapping, pagination and so on. I don't know of any high quality printers that still use a copy camera to make film for plates, many now are even going direct to plate bypassing the image setter/film stage all together.
I just wanted to give you a brief synopsis of what you are up against if you are determined on having no digital steps at all in the process (by the way, if you can get anyone to do it all by hand, it will also be a tremendous outlay of cash).
To retain the truest possible representation of your work, you should provide a target print to the publisher/printer for matching.

Best of luck with your endeavor.

 

[Les McLean]

Having gone through the process I agree with both Ralph and Scott and would add that you should prepare yourself for a period of serious disagreements and disapointments. I spent nearly 2 years literally fighting (verbally) for everything that I wanted in the reproductions and still had to compromise a little to get the book into the stores. I gave very detailed information , including 250 handmade fibre prints, regarding size, placement, print colour and many other aspects and was still unhappy with the final result for the proofs were perfect but the reproductions in the final book were totally different.

I'm sorry to paint such a gloomy picture but I have to tell the truth as I see it and that was my experience, as well as the experience of a number of UK photographers who have had books published. Perhaps publishers in your part of the world are different.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Publishers are the same all over--except Lodima Press. We publish our own books to avoid all of the many problems others have had with publishers. And by extension, when we publish another photographers work, that photographer gets to have approval of all aspects of the book. And matching original prints is what we do best--see our new Edward Weston book for example. Too many horror stories out there to let someone else do it for you. Do it yourself and you'll get exactly what you want. Be aware, however, that getting a book exactly right is not inexpensive (and that's an understatement), and it can take a year out of your life. There are ways to do it not all that expensively and not all that time consuming. Advice on that is what we (my wife Paula Chamlee is the other part of "we") consult with other photographer about. Wanting to do a book--a fine book--is a serious committment. Good luck to you.

 

[cjarvis]

Publishers are the same all over--except Lodima Press.

Perhaps you're just not looking hard enough.

Buy a copy of Double Exposure and be astounded by what can be done in the US in letterpress, handbound with reproductions one would be hard-pressed to distinguish from the originals. I encourage any publisher to compare what he/she/it is publishing to Double Exposure Volume I; I guarantee you have never seen another book like this. The bonus is that the series is published semi-annually.

Granted...this is a very limited edition series, whiich probably makes it an unfair comparison. We couldn't mass produce DE using our methods--it's just too labor-intensive--but our market is different.

Anyway, I encourage you to check it out. I think it's a thing of beauty.
www.doubleexposureonline.com

 

[freespiritedone]

in the tradition of remaining pure, I must have full control of all my images.
shooting in 35 mm is very limited to begin with .. yet, philosophically, it has great potential as recording the mind's eye the lens. Digital enhancements only alter concept and interpretation.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Corrr blimey, you do live up to your upug ID!!!! I think what they are saying is that it comes down to a degree of compromise, or giving up on the book. We all have to accept compromise, like the lighting when exhibiting images, wallspace available, who we exhibit with etc. However, I do not think that the images being digitally processed at some stage in any way 'harms' them. It will be how they are output in terms of colour, contrast, density that matters, not that a computer was used somewhere in the process.

You say, "Let my pictures remain as I viewed the image through the lens of my Pentax K-1000 at the time I recorded the shot, remain pure and unaltered by digital format". Do you always print full frame with no dodging/burning, matched to the original density/contrast of the subject? Depending upon the subject matetr, I would think that 35mm would b easier than others to get right on a printed page. A subtly toned 8x10 contact print rather a lot harder due to the tonality and incredible resolution in an original. You may have this one sorted, but I would have thought the hardest bit would be finding a publisher interested or finding the cash to self-finance!

Good luck, but most importantly show us the images!!!!!!!!!!!!!!