Photography books - dead tree or iBooks version?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 21335
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
I asked this question in a specific thread so thought I would create a thread of its own to gain more opinions.

I got an iPad back in February. Now I have always been a traditionalist when it comes to books and never bothered with a kindle, even though my dad and work colleagues love theirs. I have a few photography books from the likes of Joe McNally, Zack Arias, Chris Orwig, basically all about people photography. Now I don't want to appear Amish by not embracing technology so do I consider the iBook version of books I would like? The next purchase would be Gregory Heisler's '50 Portraits'. I downloaded the trial and it looked superb on the iPad and it's also 2/3rds of the price. So, what's your opinions and why?

Gareth
 
I have a number of books on my iPad but they fall into two patterns ... research/reference that I regularly use and reading/interest that I don't use so much as I prefer a book when it's something I'm relax-reading :)
 
For photo books, always physical. There are some wonderfully printed books that blow iPad images out of the water (a recent one I bought was Eamonn Doyle's i). I'm about 50/50 for digital (Kindle/iPad)/print when it comes to regular books though.
 
If they're 'how to do it' photography books buy the cheapest version you can find. But if they are books of photographs designed as books of photographs then it has to be paper.
 
Book. Soft cover, preferably secondhand.

I buy photography books from charity shops rather than buy magazines full of advertisements.


Steve.
 
Dead tree every time. I have a Kobo but it's on loan to the MiL at the moment. Same with my own photos, they get displayed as prints and rarely in digital form. Like Steve, many of mine have come from charity shops or other 2nd hand sources.
 
gazmorton2000 said:
I asked this question in a specific thread so thought I would create a thread of its own to gain more opinions.

I got an iPad back in February. Now I have always been a traditionalist when it comes to books and never bothered with a kindle, even though my dad and work colleagues love theirs. I have a few photography books from the likes of Joe McNally, Zack Arias, Chris Orwig, basically all about people photography. Now I don't want to appear Amish by not embracing technology so do I consider the iBook version of books I would like? The next purchase would be Gregory Heisler's '50 Portraits'. I downloaded the trial and it looked superb on the iPad and it's also 2/3rds of the price. So, what's your opinions and why?

Gareth
Click to expand...


Photography books are sh1t on tablets and iPads. Photography books are usually made with particular attention to detail when printing, and a crappy iPad screen doesn't even start to compare to decent books... particularly the really good photography books published by the likes of Steidl etc.

I love technology and use a Kindle almost exclusively for reading novels and other non image based books, but I'd rather spoon my eyes out than view a photography book on a damned tablet.
 
Last edited:
I think labelling anything as sh1t based on purely opinion is foolish....however I agree with the premise.

I use my Kindle now exclusively for novels etc., but image based for me you still cant beat the look and feel of a traditional book.
 
As above, for books of images, paper books every time. I have way too many that take up way too much space. I'll happily read photographic books on the Kindle on technical / philosophical subjects but you can't beat a well produced book. And even that pails in comparison with seeing a well produced collection of prints!
 
Thanks for all the input. It seems everyone who has replied is in favour of the paper version if it contains photos to look at. I will have to get it ordered soon then. It's a book I have been waiting to read for a while and the sample on the iPad was very good indeed.
 
viv1969 said:
I think labelling anything as sh1t based on purely opinion is foolish....however I agree with the premise.

I use my Kindle now exclusively for novels etc., but image based for me you still cant beat the look and feel of a traditional book.
Click to expand...

LOL... Viv... you've just said pretty much exactly what I've said.. except you're just more polite :)

IMO... viewing people's work on a 8inch screen is sh1t :)
 
Hi. I had an elements book on the kindle and a photoshop cc book as a paper copy.

Paper copy every time......by a long way.

S
 
For me personally, reading a book is much more enjoyable...I think I associate reading anything off a screen with work (n)
 
Pookeyhead said:
LOL... Viv... you've just said pretty much exactly what I've said.. except you're just more polite :)

IMO... viewing people's work on a 8inch screen is sh1t :)
Click to expand...

.....sigh :rolleyes:
 
Swearing: It's big... AND clever :)
 
The books I read have pages bigger than any Kindle device I've ever seen; and I've occasionally "upsized" to a larger paged book version when it's been available - I simply can't appreciate an image at the small size of any book reader. Possibly, if I saw a book of Edward Weston's photos on a reader with a 10"x8" screen - and the photos and screen had a full tonal range - then I might consider it. Might. I find reading from a computer screen far more difficult than from a paper page.
 
Ed Sutton said:
If they're 'how to do it' photography books buy the cheapest version you can find. But if they are books of photographs designed as books of photographs then it has to be paper.
Click to expand...
This is more or less what I do. But if there's nothing much in it if get a kindle version of a how to book as it saves book shelf space and I can carry it with me easier.
 
Thanks again. I only really have one 'how to' book by Scott Kelby. Think I have decided to go with the book on this occasion. I will get it ordered I think. :thumbs:
 
I read much more since I've bought a tablet to be honest, but I also have traditional books too.

Before tablets and ereader devices appeared on the market I have never heard anyone ever talked about the " tactile nature of print" All of a sudden all books wonderful are creations, that are a joy to touch, is it really that enjoyable to turn the pages of who's content is total drivel?

Unfortunately Traditional books have become yet another object that people with certain types of personality traits can get really snobbery and pretentious about.

Those who allegedly enjoy that tactile nature of book can never tell us exactly what is so enjoyable about turning over a paper page. They also seem to have forgotten about those books that are truly terrible and never should have been printed in the first place, There are those who believe photographic books should all be larger and papery, they obviously have not seen that there are a large quantity of photography books where the print quality is truly awful.

Rant over, although it is good to see that you are all reading this on an electronic device.
 
redsnappa said:
Before tablets and ereader devices appeared on the market I have never heard anyone ever talked about the " tactile nature of print"
Click to expand...
You were obviously listening in the wrong places. People were writing about the physical presence of photographs when tablets were something you took for a headache. :D
 
redsnappa said:
I read much more since I've bought a tablet to be honest, but I also have traditional books too.

Before tablets and ereader devices appeared on the market I have never heard anyone ever talked about the " tactile nature of print"
Click to expand...

Because the paradigm shift towards digital publishing has caused us to re-evaluate what we consider the norm, and so we begin to recognise the things we take for granted. And it's not just the tactile nature of books that are a plus, my Kindle Paperwhite, as much as I love it, still doesn't have the pixel/dot density to match a well printed book. But you can adjust the text size and it's far more portable, so I live with it. With photo books, there's the choice of ink and paper which greatly affects the way a photograph looks. Some of my photo books have a slight metallic shimmer in their ink. On others, the ink almost 'sits' on top of the paper which adds texture. You can't get that on a screen.

All of a sudden all books wonderful are creations, that are a joy to touch, is it really that enjoyable to turn the pages of who's content is total drivel?
Click to expand...

Tactility obviously isn't the sole reason why they're enjoyable. However, when looking at a photographer's work that I like in the first place, I've always enjoyed viewing their prints/photobooks far more than viewing slideshows on a screen. And in many cases, the method used in presenting a photo greatly enhances (or detracts) our perception of it. I wouldn't enjoy Ansel Adams' work nearly as much if I was forced to view them as horribly compressed JPEG thumbnails. On the flip side, I recently bought a Steve McCurry book where the gutter completely ruined a few of the photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top