I'm helping a publisher, and editor and a graphic artist select over 200 photos for a travel book. The call for photos netted over 7,000 images. Now we have to go through them all.
There's an insight in how it's done, the same technique I've joined in other market venues. And there's a lesson for all photographers in the process.
We've been working as a group rather than individually, viewing projected pages of 20 thumbnails. Images with promise go into another folder, while everything else "falls on the floor."
We are yet to click on a thumbnail and look at the larger photos. We're saving that till we cut the total below 500.
Every photo that has made the cut has very strong graphic impact with zero regard for detail and all the other stuff we photographers obsess about. The detail will certainly be a factor for final choices once we start opening individual images and making final picks. But the images have to have strong graphic appeal before they ever get to the point of closer examination.
Thank for bringing up this topic and sharing your thoughts on it. I am curious to know why is the selection criteria for pictures to be included in a travel book so focussed on strong graphic impact?
Regards.
Posted by Nancy de Flon on January 5, 2012 at 7:40 AM
Thank you so much for sharing this, Hank; I had begun to suspect as much, but now you're confirming it. It's kind of you to share this insight.
Interesting food for thought, Hank. You're right about lessons for all photographers in this process. Much the same I'd say, for forums like this one, where the graphic impact of the thumbnail determines how many hits it gets.
In post process I often reduce and view an image to thumbnail size just to "break it down".
Thank for bringing up this topic and sharing your thoughts on it. I am curious to know why is the selection criteria for pictures to be included in a travel book so focussed on strong graphic impact?
I asked the same thing Anil, in order to make sure all four of us were on the same page as we reviewed. In the words of the editor "Every page is a cover page and has to sell the book from across the room. People have to respond at a glance and WANT to take the closer look."
Interesting food for thought, Hank. You're right about lessons for all photographers in this process. Much the same I'd say, for forums like this one, where the graphic impact of the thumbnail determines how many hits it gets.
In post process I often reduce and view an image to thumbnail size just to "break it down".
That's an excellent observation Wayne, and I think it's exactly the same thing. Graphic appeal is the "lure" that gets viewers to take the look, then continue looking and study or interact with the photo.
I should add that this is the second edition of the travel book. Though it's a "local" production, it's very widely sold and distributed. The first edition put together by these folks with another set of photos sold just under 30,000 copies at over $20/, so I'm willing to take their word on what sells. I can certainly verify that strong graphics "sell" photos from among the original submissions.
Posted by Jim Bullard on January 5, 2012 at 10:52 AM
I know that is how it works in publishing but I have to say that I have noticed in viewing my own work that way, that I'm surprised how often something that looks great in a thumbnail fails when it is given a closer look. Conversely I have also noticed that some images that work well when viewed large are 'under the radar' as thumbnails. It does explain why there is a "look" to published images that (IMO) results in a 'sameness' to most published photographs.
I know that is how it works in publishing but I have to say that I have noticed in viewing my own work that way, that I'm surprised how often something that looks great in a thumbnail fails when it is given a closer look. Conversely I have also noticed that some images that work well when viewed large are 'under the radar' as thumbnails. It does explain why there is a "look" to published images that (IMO) results in a 'sameness' to most published photographs.
There's a lot in what you say Jim. And that's why we're going back to the larger views for final picks. But in the process I'm sure lots of technically good photos without the strong graphics are beyond consideration.
As for the "sameness" in print, I take that as a sign the folks that make marketing decisions are driven by what has sold for them in the past, and you have to change their minds if you want to try selling anything else.
Posted by Jim Bullard on January 5, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Publishing is a tough racket and I recognize that fighting for market share doesn't leave a lot of room for taking risks. Go with what ahs worked before is the safe route.
You bet. I'd do the same thing if I had a parent corporation or board of directors looking over my shoulder and signing my paycheck.
You don't get many second chances if your risk-taking results in sales drops.
But then again, if photos without the strong graphics sold well, there would be no risk in using them.
Posted by Andy Richards on January 8, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Hank: Thanks for this insight. It makes me think I need to look at how my images render as thumbnails, particularly on my own website. I wonder if there is any material out there for us to read about how images (e.g., size, aspect, etc.) render as thumbnails and which parts of the image will be within the frame of the thumbnail for purposes of including the most compelling graphic parts of our images?
I haven't seen anything about how things render as thumbnails Andy, but with my slooooooow web connection I'm not as widely read as many other folks.
And I'm not quite sure I follow this: "and which parts of the image will be within the frame of the thumbnail for purposes of including the most compelling graphic parts of our images" From what I've seen in my own image files and those under review, the coverage of the thumbnail is pretty much WYSIWYG to the larger file. If you're referring to rendering on a web site, I've seen some with a poor fit between their thumbnails and the opened image, but it's my understanding that is a problem that can and should be fixed. Dunno enough about it to say more than that.
Here's an insight I just had in considering your questions:
When reviewing our own new images, do we open every single file on the first pass, or do we scan thumbnails before opening a select few that really catch our eye? I know that's the way I work, and it seems to be an exact parallel with what is going on with photo editors.
Posted by Cindy Garwood on January 30, 2012 at 8:03 AM
Hank,
Thanks for all the insight! This is a great topic. How do we get a copy of the book when it is published?
It's available through the Kodiak Chamber of Commerce, called simply "Kodiak" I think. They sell it at their site. If all goes according to plan this new edition will be out in May.
Their editor and graphic artist gave me a startling insight at our most recent gathering, in which we were opening the selected files for a closer look and final selections.
When we started the first image opened had some obvious HDR work, and the graphic artist said "Oh puke, HDR!" and the editor said every time she saw it she just wanted to put her head on her desk and cry. Interesting! They both hate the stuff. I questioned them pretty closely, and they actually preferred more of a "film" look with a narrower range of exposures right down to shadows that verged on blocked and highlights that were sometimes blown. They felt that much of the mood and emotion (their words) in photography was being lost to HDR.
All I can say for sure was that if they could detect HDR, they killed the image.
This is a tiny sample of editors and graphic artists of course, but it gives me food for thought now when I'm tempted to go for that last bit of detail simultaniously in both shadows and highlights.
Posted by Cindy Garwood on January 30, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Discussion
15 repliesThere's an insight in how it's done, the same technique I've joined in other market venues. And there's a lesson for all photographers in the process.
We've been working as a group rather than individually, viewing projected pages of 20 thumbnails. Images with promise go into another folder, while everything else "falls on the floor."
We are yet to click on a thumbnail and look at the larger photos. We're saving that till we cut the total below 500.
Every photo that has made the cut has very strong graphic impact with zero regard for detail and all the other stuff we photographers obsess about. The detail will certainly be a factor for final choices once we start opening individual images and making final picks. But the images have to have strong graphic appeal before they ever get to the point of closer examination.
Bottom line, no graphic impact equals no sale.
Thank for bringing up this topic and sharing your thoughts on it. I am curious to know why is the selection criteria for pictures to be included in a travel book so focussed on strong graphic impact?
Regards.
In post process I often reduce and view an image to thumbnail size just to "break it down".
I asked the same thing Anil, in order to make sure all four of us were on the same page as we reviewed. In the words of the editor "Every page is a cover page and has to sell the book from across the room. People have to respond at a glance and WANT to take the closer look."
That's an excellent observation Wayne, and I think it's exactly the same thing. Graphic appeal is the "lure" that gets viewers to take the look, then continue looking and study or interact with the photo.
I should add that this is the second edition of the travel book. Though it's a "local" production, it's very widely sold and distributed. The first edition put together by these folks with another set of photos sold just under 30,000 copies at over $20/, so I'm willing to take their word on what sells. I can certainly verify that strong graphics "sell" photos from among the original submissions.
There's a lot in what you say Jim. And that's why we're going back to the larger views for final picks. But in the process I'm sure lots of technically good photos without the strong graphics are beyond consideration.
As for the "sameness" in print, I take that as a sign the folks that make marketing decisions are driven by what has sold for them in the past, and you have to change their minds if you want to try selling anything else.
You don't get many second chances if your risk-taking results in sales drops.
But then again, if photos without the strong graphics sold well, there would be no risk in using them.
And I'm not quite sure I follow this: "and which parts of the image will be within the frame of the thumbnail for purposes of including the most compelling graphic parts of our images" From what I've seen in my own image files and those under review, the coverage of the thumbnail is pretty much WYSIWYG to the larger file. If you're referring to rendering on a web site, I've seen some with a poor fit between their thumbnails and the opened image, but it's my understanding that is a problem that can and should be fixed. Dunno enough about it to say more than that.
Here's an insight I just had in considering your questions:
When reviewing our own new images, do we open every single file on the first pass, or do we scan thumbnails before opening a select few that really catch our eye? I know that's the way I work, and it seems to be an exact parallel with what is going on with photo editors.
Thanks for all the insight! This is a great topic. How do we get a copy of the book when it is published?
Their editor and graphic artist gave me a startling insight at our most recent gathering, in which we were opening the selected files for a closer look and final selections.
When we started the first image opened had some obvious HDR work, and the graphic artist said "Oh puke, HDR!" and the editor said every time she saw it she just wanted to put her head on her desk and cry. Interesting! They both hate the stuff. I questioned them pretty closely, and they actually preferred more of a "film" look with a narrower range of exposures right down to shadows that verged on blocked and highlights that were sometimes blown. They felt that much of the mood and emotion (their words) in photography was being lost to HDR.
All I can say for sure was that if they could detect HDR, they killed the image.
This is a tiny sample of editors and graphic artists of course, but it gives me food for thought now when I'm tempted to go for that last bit of detail simultaniously in both shadows and highlights.