Sequencing article

[GrahamBy]

Nice article, thanks Andrew.

This quote I liked:
"I  believe, and I think there is evidence for this, that if you put a lot of ideas in, then the reader will get a lot of ideas out. The surprising point is that the ideas they get out might not be the same as the ones you put in. But really, that’s OK."

The other thing that could possibly be mentioned is that if you print across the gutter, you might think more about how the book is physically constructed. On Saturday I bought a used, but new looking copy of Mary Ellen Mark's "Exposer" (Phaedon... it might be called "Exposing" in an English edition). It has many images printed across the gutter, and by Sunday night the inside of the book had broken free of the cover due to me trying to flatten the spreads... 

[Rob C]

Double-page spreads are a vanity project. They destroy internal continuity of any image unless it already consists of two parts. It works online because there is no real, physical split, simply, at best, a suggested one.

If I may, below an examle of when the gutter (because it isn't physical) doesn't intrude or destroy anything:



Rob

[amolitor]

Thank you, Graham!

Bindings are really important, yeah. You really can't print across the gutter without a pretty "open" binding (although, now I want to try to take some pictures which would benefit from a deep ravine on the page.. somehow?). But bindings affect a lot more than that.

Colberg recommends, and I think I agree, figuring out what sort of binding is going to work "in general" with the project. Then ask yourself if this one allows you to print usefully across the gutter or not, and let that in turn inform your design and sequence. But to pretend that it's a logical progression, from  step 1, to step 2, and thence through step 17, is silly. You're always going back and revisiting and refining.

In a boat design they refer to a "design spiral" where you've constantly going around and around the same issues, refining, changing, but getting closer and closer to the center (the finished design) at each time around. Books are the same way.

As for what and how to print across the gutter, well, yes Rob. You want to make sure nothing is lost in there, but there are times and places it can work very well.

As I noted in the article, Sally Mann seems to use the gutter to:

1. divide a single picture into two, if there is a natural division, giving you 3 pictures for the price of 1!
2. suggest alternate crops.

I think these are very strong moves, she's not working against the gutter, she's not accepting the problem of the gutter simply in  order to print bigger, she's using the gutter to actually add to the work. I don't think she ever does full bleed across the gutter, which is obviously problematic since the strong vertical slice perforce goes right down the middle, and it would be serendipitous indeed if that was the right place to  put it.

Tradition suggests that while the gutter hurts, one can "get away with it" if there's nothing important in there and the binding opens relatively wide. I think we can do better, and I think Sally revealed a little bit of the way to me.

[GrahamBy]

There is also the option of saving the double-spreads for the centre of each signature, where at least you have a continuous piece of paper. I think that's what you find in Mini-Sumo, and one of Sieff's books that was done by Steidl.

However there is obviously a trade-off between the size-cost of the book, the desire to print big, and the gutter... especially for those who favour landscape format. I really appreciated the size of the photos in Exposer, given the amount of detail they contain. It's unfortunate that the book construction as then rather cheap... but otherwise I might not have bought it

There was a long discussion of the issues on on Jim Kasson's site:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/a-book-report/

Notably though, he suggests that you shouldn't do the sequencing yourself!

[GrahamBy]

Oh, something completely tangential but cool that I found while trying to remind myself of what signatures are called:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canons_of_page_construction

[farbschlurf]

Since there are so-called layflat options available, 2-page-spreads are more commonly used, and the seam isn't too disturbing. I guess thanks to the popularity of panos. Also leporello fold is possible, giving even more options. Though it's all a matter of price ...

[Rob C]

Graham - Not sure about this theoretical jive and its real value in the world. Yes, as you know, I also have mini-Sumo and Taschen obviously spent a great deal of time and resources making it - especially the real one, the non-mini at ten grand or something like that.

But, though design obviously plays a huge part in how something looks, further theoretical claims on fluency etc. strike me as getting terribly close to hype, especially with books like Newton's or our latest shared baby, Lindbergh. One reads their claims on how the intention has been to develop a continuity, tell a story of parallel developments between both the clothes designers, their progress and PL's part in all of that amalgam of shared work. I accept that I may be too stupid to get it, but for the life of me, the only story that truly emerges is that our Peter shot a helluva lot of pictures of some celebrated models in his own, very idiosyncratic manner.

Frankly, looking at those images is the reason, the only reason, I put my money down. I have tried to follow the prescribed path to no avail: it's so inconsequential within the scope of the oeuvre as to be a nonsense. Exactly the same holds with Newton's book: as they say, it's the pictures, stupid!

Look at the book on Leiter that accompanied his final show (as our Lindbergh does his), and the essential power is in the images, presented with as little pretension as possible.

If there is a showcase for graphic design, I would suggest forgetting books, and researching top magazines and advertisements: not only do they, mags, have to cope with an ever greater amount of information (just look at how awful Vogue covers have become since dumbing down to show everything, including their knickers, in one space in hope of hooking the passing browser) but do so and remain attractive.

In the end, it seems to be true that the more simple something is, the better.

P.S.

I couldn't find the ISBN info in the PL book the other day: it exists! Right at the bottom of the very last white page! That took two lights on to see it as distinct from the "thanks also" list.

[amolitor]

As I recall, Jim hired a designer, but sequenced the photos himself? Or perhaps in collaboration with the designer?

It is without a doubt received wisdom across much of the publishing spectrum that you NEED to hire a designer, and also a bunch of other staff that, conveniently, a publisher can provide for you, generally for a fee. It is also without a doubt true that design is not something every photographer is any good at.

In essence, there's a spectrum from  going it alone all the way over to a fully staffed Cadillac process with a designer, someone to do all the pre-press work for your photos, a print guy to go on-press for you and a bunch of random blokes at the publisher to suggest papers and bindings and so on. The latter is a highly collaborative process, of course, and I see no reason that cannot produce truly excellent results. I love collaboration.

That said, I personally try to hold down the other end of the curve.  As Rob suggests, great design isn't going to save lousy content, and great content renders the design less and less important. It's a bit like photography isn't it? A horrid picture with perfect tonality is still horrid, but if the picture is great, who cares if the shadows are a little blocked up? I think that if you've got the skill to make nice pictures, and if you don't bite off more than you can chew, you can probably do a pretty decent design. Whether you want to, though, is quite another question.

All that said, if what you want is a book that's merely a container for some pictures, there's not a single thing wrong with that. Great pictures don't need any help.

My thinking is that books can be, but mostly are not, more than that.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Since there are so-called layflat options available, 2-page-spreads are more commonly used, and the seam isn't too disturbing. I guess thanks to the popularity of panos. Also leporello fold is possible, giving even more options. Though it's all a matter of price ...

Blurb have recently started to offer a lay-flat product. It's pretty pricey, though.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

Yes, I do think that having a reasonable photographic eye can make other design disciplines easier, but only to a limited extent. When I began doing calendar productions it turned out to be far from the simple thing that I'd imagined it to be from spending time watching art directors work with bits of my own photos; having to do the whole thing turned into a very long job - and quite a learning curve, one of the big lessons being that almost every damned step ends up a compromise, either in balancing costs, or juggling people or just fighting to have final printing that matched proofs.

Perhaps the most intimidating aspect of the simple design stuff in my work was typography: it almost paralysed me with fear. I believe it a huge art in its own right.

In all honesty, I wouldn't want to have to be there today. I suspect that people have become far more litigious, less likely to be willing to come and go a little bit and insurance must be out of this world - if one could get it!

The happy photographer must be the one doing his own thing in-house, with himself as client.

Books as simple containers for pictures seem a nice idea, but maybe that requires the situation I just described in the line above. Let's face it: everybody seeks glory, or at least a credit line, so everyone involved in some way will hope to leave a distinctive mark of their own, I'd guess.

Rob

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Oh, something completely tangential but cool that I found while trying to remind myself of what signatures are called:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canons_of_page_construction

This being LuLa, where some denizens like to start arguments about everything, I'm a little surprised that no one yet has suggested that "Nikons_of_page_construction" is superior to "Canons_..."

"Sonys of ..." anyone? 

[Rob C]

This being LuLa, where some denizens like to start arguments about everything, I'm a little surprised that no one yet has suggested that "Nikons_of_page_construction" is superior to "Canons_..."

"Sonys of ..." anyone? 

Agent provocateur!

Rob

P.S. Not the little boutiques...!

[GrahamBy]

One reads their claims on how the intention has been to develop a continuity, tell a story of parallel developments between both the clothes designers, their progress and PL's part in all of that amalgam of shared work. I accept that I may be too stupid to get it, but for the life of me, the only story that truly emerges is that our Peter shot a helluva lot of pictures of some celebrated models in his own, very idiosyncratic manner.

I'm equally stupid... there is not much progression that I can see in the Lindbergh book. The preface gives it away by commenting that you couldn't date any of his photos, his style didn't change. Well, if you're on a good thing and all... but I like that Sieff wandered off into landscapes, figures in landscapes, super-close portraits, super-wide etc etc. Newton went through phases, some of which I appreciated more than others, but I can imagine his mind turning as he tried different directions.

Unless it'a all a subtle trick to expose the systematic nicotine abuse models depend on to maintain their "ligne."

[Rob C]

I'm equally stupid... there is not much progression that I can see in the Lindbergh book. The preface gives it away by commenting that you couldn't date any of his photos, his style didn't change. Well, if you're on a good thing and all... but I like that Sieff wandered off into landscapes, figures in landscapes, super-close portraits, super-wide etc etc. Newton went through phases, some of which I appreciated more than others, but I can imagine his mind turning as he tried different directions.

Unless it'a all a subtle trick to expose the systematic nicotine abuse models depend on to maintain their "ligne."

Thanks for sharing my lack of perception!

Oh, Sieff, for me, is on another planet entirely. Thing about his book is that though I have to suss it out via Spanish and Italian, his writing survives all those middle-men and reveals him as a really interesting guy with a huge sense of slightly hidden humour on the human condition or, at least, the condition surrounding photography.

I wonder if there's a trace of woman dislike lurking in the Big L soul... he sure does not try to make them look good in any way at all. Hell, in the double-page spread of the "iconic" gaggle of girls in white shirts, he could always have managed to give one of the poor kids clean pants! Never needed Photoshop for that!

[Rob C]

Playing about with book ideas as well as making up little magazine concepts of one's own can be fun.

I did exactly the latter as an exercise in making something new out of old images that were otherwise just hanging around out of my sight. I did play with the idea of taking the project forward and getting more serious about it, but I soon realised that if one wants to be author of the entire thing, then one also needs to find helpful people who have the keys to whichever doors you require to be opened. That, believe me, is easier said than done: it's not that the people do not exist, as it is of their being busy people with businesses to run; they just can't spend the time on somebody's games. Which is obvious, once one wants to accept that reality.

Anyway, books are something else, and sure, self-publishing is an option, but considering all the problems, the things that obviously go wrong even with truly professional book producers, does the return match the personal investment? If you are very rich, I suppose it does, because it doesn't matter to your wallet, but otherwise - only the individual can tell.

I'm sure that creating a book totally online, with no hard copy, can be done well, and you have total control. All it takes is a good enough back catalogue and some time playing around with shapes and formats, and that forms a big part of the entertainment, which is what we are talking about.

I apologise for the quality of the image below: it was made quickly by cropping and joining three jpg files and scaled down to fit together at 810 pixels wide. Nevertheless, it illustrates the idea of what somebody can do just slouched down across the typist's chair. Well, there is no typist, I hasten to add, just myself doing said slouch. You can have a lot of fun after the shooting or library trawl. Even be an editor!



Rob