Review - On This Earth, A Shadow Falls: Big Life Edition

Nick Brandt's A Shadow Falls has been in print since 2009 and is definitely a valuable addition to any collection of photo books. In October of 2010 a new book entitled On This Earth, A Shadow Falls: Big Life Editions^[1] was released. This book combines many of the photos from Brandt's first book, On This Earth, with most of the photos from A Shadow Falls. On the Big Life Editions Website, it's stated that the new book is meant to have printed pages that are a closer match to the original large-format prints. Also, it addresses Brandt's dissatisfaction with the quality of the first book. On his Website, On This Earth is described as "Poorly printed, small, many underwhelming photos, NOT recommended."^[2] His candor is refreshing. On This Earth, A Shadow Falls, however, is an impressive book that in many ways exceeds the previous two books.

Book Finishing

Front cover, On This Earth, A Shadow Falls

I like to know about the construction quality of a book, but that information is rarely provided in reviews; here are my observations about On This Earth, A Shadow Falls (abbreviated OTEASF). The book has a linen cover with a recess on the front for a tipped-on print made using the same printing process as the inside pages. The book can be purchased with an optional clear acetate protective cover. I chose to buy it, and it's proven to be very beneficial, protecting the book from scratches and finger prints. The sections of the book are sewn together through the fold at the spine. The sections appear to be bound together by glue and perhaps sashes. I'd probably incorrectly guess the weight of the paper used for the pages, so I'll just say that it is quite substantial; perhaps the heaviest paper of any photo book I own. The paper has a matte surface with a pleasant "tooth" or feel. The paper is much more like a fine-art inkjet paper than standard photo-book paper, and it affects the image quality. This choice of paper seems to be in keeping with the stated goal of producing a book that matches art prints. I'm not an expert on the production methods of books, so feel free in the comments to correct any errors.

Overall, the book seems to be well made. The pages feel as if they are held solidly in place, which is good because of their large size. Opening the book or turning the pages doesn't produce the cracking sound that I associate with cheap glue bindings. The pages are about 15 inches wide and 13¼ inches high. The largest single-page images are an impressive 14 by 12½ inches. Larger images extend across two pages. The book weighs about six pounds. Physically, it's impressive and gives the impression of high quality.

All copies of the book are signed by Nick Brandt. I checked Websites for Nick Brandt, Big Life Editions, and Photo-Eye (where the book can be purchased), and none of them listed the number of books being printed; obviously, this is not a signed and numbered edition. Inside, the contents are divided into two parts: the first part being photographs from On This Earth; the second from A Shadow Falls. Each section includes the introductions from its respective book.

Print Quality

I'm not going to try to objectively quantify the book's image quality; that's beyond the relatively simple measuring devices available to me, and I'm not as familiar with the methods of characterizing printed media as I am with photographic media. However, what makes this book different from the previous two is the process used to print the photographs. The printing is done by "quadtone reproduction." Quadtone printing is a monochrome process where four plates are used to print different levels of black ink. This concept will be familiar to owners of high-end photographic inkjet printers that include more than one black ink cartridge. For example, Epson's Ultrachrome ink set includes "light light black," "light black," and "black." These different black inks overcome a shortcoming of normal printing where black levels in an image are determined by the size or number of dots in a given area; the problem is that it becomes difficult to create smooth light-gray regions because the dots are spaced so far apart that they become visible as discrete black dots rather than visually merging into a continuous gray tone. With four plates, each one can be inked with a different density black ink from black to very light gray. Having more gray levels of ink means that when a black ink is transferred to the paper, even in regions with a large number of dots, the area will appear to be a continuous light gray.

Ideally, this process will result in better monochrome images; however, there are potential pitfalls. One is creating plates that smoothly transition from one black ink to the next. Failing to do this well can result in "contouring," where gradients seem to have steps or flat bands in them. Another potential problem is color shifts from ink to ink. Even inks used in a monochrome process can have color tints. Such color variation could result in shadows having one color and highlights another. Fortunately, Meridian Printing^[3] has done an excellent job controlling their printing process, and the book does not suffer from any of these problems.

photo copyright Nick Brandt

A side-by-side comparison of prints from A Shadow Falls (ASF) with the same image printed for OTEASF reveals differences. Immediately noticeable is that the prints are not the same color. The ASF prints are warm while the OTEASF prints are closer to neutral. Another difference is that the paper in ASF appears brighter and has more of a satin finish. Readings taken with a densitometer of the paper base are 0.07 for ASF and 0.07 for OTEASF. The ASF images have higher contrast, and measurements of dark regions in the same images from both books reveal that the prints in ASF have a higher density (about 2.10 for ASF versus 1.80 for OTEASF). I believe that most of these differences can be explained by the choice of paper. The paper ASF is printed on may incorporate optical brightners, so it appears lighter, while the light-scattering properties of OTEASF's matte paper prevents the same maximum density from being achieved in dark regions. My opinion is that this lower dynamic range in the OTEASF prints is neither positive or negative; giving the benefit of the doubt to the photographer and printer, I would call it a deliberate artistic choice. Perhaps OTEASF does more closely match individual prints, or the paper for ASF was chosen because most photography books are printed on glossy paper and that's what purchasers of such books have come to expect.

The only disappointing consequence of the printing choices made is that some of the detail in the darker regions of the OTEASF plates is obscured. This is probably because of the lower dynamic range that is available. Upon closer inspection, you can see that the details are there, but the contrast in high-density regions is lowered to such a degree that details become muddy. This is one of the problems with side-by-side or dual-stimulus comparisons; in many cases any high-quality image viewed by itself will be perfectly acceptable to the viewer, and in fact before I put the two images next to each other I would have stated that the OTEASF prints were superior to those in ASF. After comparing them, I would describe them as different, but I wouldn't say that one was superior to the other.

Artistic Considerations

You've probably noticed that most of the review thus far has concentrated on physical properties of the book and printed images. This is true for three reasons. First, most photography book reviews fail to discuss these properties and for me they account for half the purchasing decision. I own several books that contain fascinating images, but poor print quality is such a distraction that the photographs can't really be appreciated. Second, this is a unique opportunity where the same images appear in two different books printed using different media, and the purchaser may need to make a choice between one or the other. Finally and most importantly, there are a multitude of reviews for OTE and ASF, and almost all of them are virtually unanimous in their fully justified praise for Nick Brandt's work.

Brandt's ability to photograph the wildlife of East Africa is extraordinary. From close portraits of a lion to panoramas of elephant families, Brandt's passion for his subjects is obvious and infectious. His subjects are treated as individuals, living beings that deserve dignity and respect. The photographs attack artificial distinctions between humans and the other animal life on this planet.

Unlike most wildlife photographs, these have a Pictorialist quality to them, as though they were made at the beginning of the twentieth century. The choice of black and white removes traces of the exotic that color might impart and emphasizes how the animals relate to each other and their environment. It is difficult to look at these pictures, especially the ones of animals we seem to be predisposed to like, for example elephants and big cats, without feeling concern for the subjects. What are they staring at in the distance? Where will they find shelter from the coming storm? How can a being so powerful appear so vulnerable at the same time?

photo copyright Nick Brandt

Conclusion

On This Earth, A Shadow Falls is an outstanding photography book. The book construction and the reproduction of the images is of the highest quality. The photographs are beautiful and moving. Like the best art, this book is enjoyable, but it should also make you a little uncomfortable.

There is a sad postscript to this review regarding some of the subjects in the book. While photographing in East Africa during the last decade, Nick Brandt became familiar with how poaching is devastating the populations of many species there, especially elephants. Many of the animals in East Africa are still in danger of being killed for ivory and other body parts. Brandt started an organization, the Big Life Foundation,^[4] to help protect the parks and animals in them. Sadly, one of the elephants killed by poachers is the one pictured on the cover of On This Earth, A Shadow Falls.


1 - Big Life Editions. http://biglifeeditions.com/index.html
2 - Books. Nick Brandt. http://www.nickbrandt.com/Text_page.cfm?pID=2706
3 - Meridian Printing. http://www.meridianprinting.com/
4 - Anti Poaching Appeal. Big Life Foundation. http://www.biglifeafrica.org/anti_poaching_appeal

Lost in the Amazon

I'd really like to see Amazon change the hierarchy of photography books and I suspect photographers would too. Currently it is almost impossible to browse for books of photographs as opposed to books about photography. This is how you navigate the categories today:

• Books
• Arts & Photography
• Photography
• Architectural
• Black & White
• Children
• Cinematography
• . . .

The structure itself is not intuitive, why Arts & Photography then Photography? Why is Cinematography under Photography, I would think that it would warrant its own super category? However the real problem is just casual browsing for a book of photographs (am I the only one who does that?). If you choose the category Black & White four of the first 12 entries are "How To" books. The change I'm proposing is relatively simple and looks something like this:

• Books
• Photography
• Photo Books
• Ansel Adams
• Architectural
• Black & White
• Old Life Magazine Covers
• . . .
• How To & Instructional
• Film & Lost Processes
• Aperture: SMALL number = MORE light
• Glamour (Amateur Porn)
• . . .

Amazon will probably want to make up their own categories but hopefully they get the point. If you want a specific book a search of Amazon will suffice, but Amazon is one of the largest, if not the largest, catalogs of books in the world (I am aware that there are a number of ways to publish a book that will never appear on Amazon, regardless Amazon is still huge). I think it would benefit everyone, readers, photographers and even Amazon if photography books were better organized.

The benefit for readers is the ability to browse for photo books which is almost impossible today. The majority of books shown in the first several pages of results are How To books. There may be less of them and more photo books in later pages but after having to sift the wheat from the chaff for multiple pages of results I usually give up and move on to something else.

This would be an improvement for photographers and authors since their books would have a much better chance of being seen. People don't buy books they don't know about. This is also good for Amazon because I think they get paid by the book? My proposal is a win, win, win.

Finally thoughts: calendars should not be included among book results. "The Big Butt Book" is mis-cataloged under Portraits. And yes, I will continue to buy old fashioned books if they are photo books. I have no interest in viewing photographs by say Jerry Uelsmann on a Kindle.

Thank you for your consideration.

QMP9UY6KWVT8

How wedding photographers drive customers away (and what to do about it)

After searching for wedding photographers today I've come up with a list of shall and shall-nots for wedding photographer web sites (many of these can apply to any type of photography).

First: don't use Adobe Flash (as opposed to flash photography, which I'm all for). I know Flash allows you to position things just so with cool effects in a way that HTML and CSS do not, but its negatives are too high. The Flash plugin has to be installed in the browser. Script blocking like NoScript means your site will have to be unblocked. Flash takes more time to load than an HTML page. Each one of these is a barrier to potential customers. If you think you need Flash to get your message across effectively, then rethink your message.

Don't use slideshows, Flash or otherwise, to show your work. You or a web designer can spend a lot of time trying to get the perfect timing to synchronize pictures with music or displaying a picture on-screen for just the right length of time so that a viewer can appreciate your talent. But after all that effort your judgement will almost always be wrong. I didn't want to sit through a slideshow at the rate that the photographer wanted, I wanted to go faster (or sometimes slower) but on some sites the automatic slide show was the only choice. I had problems with slideshows that had previous or next buttons, often the controls responded sluggishly and in a few they had no effect at all. Also, there is no reason to ever play music. I was already listening to my own audio thank you very much before your renaissance guitar muzak started. It's infinitely worse when there is no way to mute it! I became frustrated and left such sites quickly.

You shall not watermark your pictures in any way. I know there is a lot of fear about pictures being stolen, but a watermark is distracting and often ruins the photograph. Do you want potential customers to notice your watermark, or your work?

Don't have a lot of text. You're a photographer right? If text takes up more space on a page than photographs then it's wrong.

Do tell a story with your photographs. In fact tell your story by telling your customers' stories. Your potential customers visiting your website don't care how you feel about their special day and how you are gonna work really hard because you believe in the power of love. They want to see your style, even more they want to look at your pictures and imagine themselves in them. What you choose to show should allow viewers to do that without distraction.

Allow customers to see your work quickly. Don't worry about elaborate slideshows with thumbnail navigation and music; don't even do single picture Flickr-like viewing. Allow your customers to see a group of pictures that tell a story on one page. Some photographers allow you to choose from a list of weddings and then a set of pictures from that wedding are displayed on a page. No waiting for Flash or clicking clunky navigation buttons; scrolling allows all the pictures to be seen at the viewer's pace.

Know what your customer's are buying, not what you are selling. A photographer probably wants to sell prints, photobooks, or DVDs so that they can eat. But I believe the reason customers go to a photographer's website is to see if they like the style (at least that's what I was doing). The first thing a customer should see is your pictures, not the products they can make with them. Things like products and pricing and "about" pages should be available but if potential customers like your work, they'll be willing to spend some time (probably a second or less) hunting for them on a menu.

So the advice to photographers (of all kinds) from an amateur about what your website should look like is: make your photographs easily viewable, tell a story with your photographs, and don't distract from the story. As an example Paul Rowland Photography is the most effective website I saw today. It's not perfect, the home page features Flash loading, but the list of couples' names under Weddings leads to blog-like pages where the photographs are the main focus, they are easy to view at my pace and they tell a story that any potential bride could imagine herself in.