What's the first photo book you bought? The last one you pulled off the shelf?

[logan2z]

3) Too many, but I'd probably go for Early Colour by Saul Leiter.

Great book, I'm fortunate enough to have a copy.

 

[logan2z]

3) I have too many photo books already

I'm sorry, that doesn't compute

 

[foc]

1. Photography by Eric de Mare. ( I had a summer job in 1976 and bought this book at the same time as I bought my first SLR, a second-hand Praktica Super TL)

2. BPJ Annual 1981 ( to check Agfa CNS processing details)

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I think the first photo book I bought was a little one put out by the Getty on Andre Kertesz.

Last book I pulled off the shelf (never actually made it to the shelf) was Ralph Gibson's Self-Exposure.

 

[guangong]

The first photo book I bought was Newcombe’s 35mm Photo Technique. The last book I took from the shelf was Heering’s Das Rolleiflex Buch. Newcombes book is well written and very helpful for beginner.

 

[jtk]

The REASON I DON"T OWN MORE PHOTO BOOKS is that I have nearly never bought one before I saw original prints. That applied to Weston and Avedon, for example.

My only AA book: I helped him load hundreds of pounds of hypo in bags into his his International Harvester Travel All (an excellent 4X4 ancestral SUV). We'd just received a stack of his books where I worked (Adolph Gasser's industrial/professional warehouse). I grabbed an Artificial Light and he signed it for me.

 

[Pieter12]

The REASON I DON"T OWN MORE PHOTO BOOKS is that I have nearly never bought one before I saw original prints. That applied to Weston and Avedon, for example.

My only AA book: I helped him load hundreds of pounds of hypo in bags into his his International Harvester Travel All (an excellent 4X4 ancestral SUV). We'd just received a stack of his books where I worked (Adolph Gasser's industrial/professional warehouse). I grabbed an Artificial Light and he signed it for me.

Don't you think that is quite restrictive? Do you mean the specific works in the books you purchase, or one or some of the work by that photographer? Especially since much of that work may not be readily viewable in galleries or museums that are within one's neighborhood or on one's travels.

 

[jtk]

Don't you think that is quite restrictive? Do you mean the specific works in the books you purchase, or one or some of the work by that photographer? Especially since much of that work may not be readily viewable in galleries or museums that are within one's neighborhood or on one's travels.

You're probably usually right for people who can't experience "readily viewable in galleries or museums." But in America, most of us do live within a day's long drive to major cities,

Since entry into graduate school (1965) I've always lived within a couple of hours of San Francisco, and my most rewarding travels have been to New York City. Some people do of course reside incredibly far from galleries and museums, so they're less likely than they might like to see fine original prints by distant photographers.

I've missed a lot by not residing near Tokyo, for example, but I've seen incredibly fine prints in Tucson Arizona, a four or five day commitment from my home in Albuquerque New Mexico, Albuquerque itself exhibits fine prints because we have a couple of fine galleries (mostly attractive to younger photographers)...and we have a sometimes excellent University gallery. As well, we have Tamarind Institute which shows photo work that's important globally ( but doesn't exhibit the usual Photrio photos).

To see this fine gallery I have to commit to a 4 hour round trip (allows an hour in the middle for lunch)

https://www.photoeye.com/GALLERY/ArtistsIndex.cfm?ExploreBy=1

 

[Pieter12]

You're probably usually right for people who can't experience "readily viewable in galleries or museums." But in America, most of us do live within a day's long drive to major cities,

Since entry into graduate school (1965) I've always lived within a couple of hours of San Francisco, and my most rewarding travels have been to New York City. Some people do of course reside incredibly far from galleries and museums, so they're less likely than they might like to see fine original prints by distant photographers.

I've missed a lot by not residing near Tokyo, for example, but I've seen incredibly fine prints in Tucson Arizona, a four or five day commitment from my home in Albuquerque New Mexico, Albuquerque itself exhibits fine prints because we have a couple of fine galleries (mostly attractive to younger photographers)...and we have a sometimes excellent University gallery. As well, we have Tamarind Institute which shows photo work that's important globally ( but doesn't exhibit the usual Photrio photos).

You are lucky to be close to the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson. They hold many important collections there, I'm sure the exhibitions are stellar.

 

[logan2z]

You are lucky to be close to the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson. They hold many important collections there, I'm sure the exhibitions are stellar.

While a physical print of a photograph is always significantly better than a reproduction in a book, I would be hard-pressed to be without a good collection of photo books at my fingertips.

I'm close to the SF MoMA and Pier 24 Photography in San Francisco and they both have a pretty good permanent photography collection, but only a small fraction of it is ever on display.

It's nice to be able to go to my bookshelf whenever I want and view reasonably decent reproductions of photographs that I might not see for months/years otherwise.

 

[Pieter12]

The REASON I DON"T OWN MORE PHOTO BOOKS is that I have nearly never bought one before I saw original prints. That applied to Weston and Avedon, for example.

My only AA book: I helped him load hundreds of pounds of hypo in bags into his his International Harvester Travel All (an excellent 4X4 ancestral SUV). We'd just received a stack of his books where I worked (Adolph Gasser's industrial/professional warehouse). I grabbed an Artificial Light and he signed it for me.

That made me think of Weston's photos in Leaves of Grass. The reproduction is horrible in that book. I have since seen some of them in other books and they are quite nice. I'm glad that one wasn't my first Weston book.