« 'Color Picture' Print Sale Update | Main | Why Some People Hate Leica »

Tuesday, 13 December 2011

Comments

National Geographic doesn't count as serious photography?

A thoughtful and recherche review. Thank you Geoff. An impressive tome by any measure, though I wish the Times own Nicole Bengiveno had been included; she does wonderful work.

http://www.nicolebengiveno.com/

I find it interesting that the New York Times Magazine uses almost exclusively non-New York Times staff photographers.

Printing across the fold? Deal breaker.

PS, and the Smithsonian Magazine as well.

I'm always sad to hear about photos running across the gutter in a book.

I bought the collect.give book (printed by HP's Magcloud service) and it's great... except that half the photos have 1/3 or more run across to the opposite page. It serves absolutely no design purpose and manages to destroy the impact of the images themselves.

What a coincidence - I just received my copy of this book today.
It's wonderful and I can recommend it to everybody.
Leo

Time and Newsweek have reduced ALL their "content" to a "shriveled remnant" !

I think it's somewhat ridiculous to complain about printing across the gutter, especially when talking about images that were originally in the NYT Magazine. As seen in the reproduced spreads in the back, DOZENS of the images in the book were produced across the gutter in the Magazine. It’s a real shame to have contempt for printing across the gutter, as all this insures is that images are printed smaller than they could in a book.

I think one of the main reasons the NYT Magazine has continued to have presence in the world is BECAUSE of the design, not just the images. Time and Newsweek did not embrace contemporary page design and they’ve suffered for it. By limiting a designer to interact with just a page and not the spread, you’re forcing the design into a repetitive, boring, and ultimately antiquated place.

It is not “hipster design” to have images cross over the gutter. That’s just the way some proportions of the image fall when enlarged, and especially in books where images do not full bleed, as in this one. Also, in a book such where dozens of different image proportions need to be planned for, there is no trim size that can best accommodate for everything.

Lastly, in regard to this statement:

“Typography is good but not great; text is set in an old style digital Garamond lacking text (lining) numerals, but readability is fine.”

The typography is from the NYT Magazine itself, which up until this year used this version of Garamond for all its text. I’d also ask what “good” versus “great” typography means to this reviewer.

The comments to this entry are closed.