http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/forests/greenpeace-book-campaign

It’s true that it’s possible to find paper products that are not destructive to old-growth forests, but they’re hardly the norm. Everyone can do their small part by choosing FSC-certified paper whenever possible :)

Having said that, I had a very interesting discussion today with a young writer on his way to grad school and the topic of the Internet came up. He mentioned that the Internet has leveled the playing field for artists in many ways and that these days anyone with a blog is a writer or a critic. He also mentioned he was concerned that this wide open playing field was dumbing down the writing profession and the potential income that a writer could make – seeing as now the assumed competition was so vast.

This scenario sounded rather familiar to me. Many professional shooters still struggle with the idea of the Flickr model and now with multiple routes for self publishing that can produce books with as little as eight pages anyone can be a photographer. In turn day rates have come down and Flickr photos have been used by companies that used to pay top dollar to have an original shot or a decent stock photo.

The question is, are art buyers loving the fact that anyone who can open a self publishing account can send them their very own photobook?

I like the photobook idea because it works wonderfully for larger projects and smaller runs. What I fear is that the photobook goes the way of the postcard – everybody’s doing it – and then it loses it’s appeal and becomes badly designed pieces for the trash.

As for the future, and whether or not these types of books should go digital. I think newspapers, magazines and the rest are still struggling with how to switch from their current formats and still make a buck. There are a lot of gimmicks like interactive covers popping up, but the public, for the most part is not so interested and the publishers are realizing that digital without a way to recoup their cash is an empty proposition. As visual artists, there will undoubtedly be great platforms for us to display our work on – most photographers I know of have some sort ipod portfolio already, but I feel like the photobook will need to be more than a series of images on a screen. I mean that could be a pdf for less money.

Maybe photobooks could become more interactive like the doc stories on Burn or Duckrabbit that take you on a journey or perhaps they could become a fabulous tool for collaboration between artists worldwide. Other than that, I think one shooter with a series of images on a display is not enough to make me think innovation for the future.

If one is ‘self-publishing’, it makes sense to always have a couple of copies of your work on hand. After that, POD is the way to go. There is no ‘inventory’ to monitor, and no excess waste if it doesn’t go anywhere.

If one is fortunate or famous enough to be ‘picked up’ by a long-standing and reputable publishing house that has the resources to promote and distribute your title far afield, great, but be aware that the revenues from such a venture are usually forgettable. Percentages are usually 7-10% of list. On line publishers offer slightly better returns of 30-35%.

The web is much more illusionary then many think. Meaning, the power could go out. Seriously. And then where would all this stuff be?

‘Open Source’ or ‘non-proprietory’ are fine if you don’t make your living off your work. There are a gazillion competent ‘amateurs’ out there who just like posting their pictures for the world to see. Crediting their work to their name is not so much an issue for them , (though I’d suggest that everyone likes to get credit for what they do, regardless if it is ‘free’ or not). But actually getting PAID to have others consume your imagery is an on-going challenge that demands both vigilance and ‘the law’ – meaning, this IS a commercial venture, not a pastime. Ask Heather.

The web promotes the illusion that information is FREE. Any self-respecting ‘content producer’ knows this is just not true. Aside from the intangible of time & effort, there is the actual expense of keeping a website ‘live’.

Wikipedia, as an example, heralds itself a s a ‘free’ encyclopedic site. But the truth is, BOMIS Inc. is the ‘holding company’ of Wikipedia, a ‘non-profit’ organization. It is still a business with (growing) employees and (growing) technical expenditures (ie. servers). Also, there is no telling what BOMIS will DO with Wikipedia in the forseeable future. They COULD privatize it and start charging a fee for the information that has been so readily supplied for free by the on-line community. Investors of websites eventually want to see a return on their investment. Consider Twitter. Same thing. For now it’s ‘free’, but can it continue to satisfy investors desires WITHOUT adding advertising revenue?

For years the web has been a kind of ‘free-wheeling playground & paradise’. I would argue that with its contiued adoption by the mainstream, this aspect will change dramatically as everyone increasingly tries to figure out how to make money off it. The field is going to get increasingly more crowded and increasingly more competitive.

One way for photographers to ‘stick out’ will be to have TANGIBLE marketable products that extend BEYOND their and the infinite stream of digital data …