Interesting facts on paper quality (hint for a certain publisher)

[Jukka Juutinen]

Fact: in a large format (A4) book with 320 pages the unit cost difference between poor paper and glossy art paper is no more than one USD! In other words, e.g. the average Classic hardback book would have 73 cents higher cost. So how many of you would shirk from paying 73 cents extra if the extra quaranteed a much better version of e.g. Steve Coates´s helicopter book?

[Ruy Horta]

Jukka, have you ever thought that some people might actually not like glossy art paper as much as you do?

[Jukka Juutinen]

No, not really as in every case I have asked fellow enthusiasts´ opinion on this I have allways been told that they prefer glossy art paper over crude, grainy paper in books. And this before letting them know my opinions.

BTW Ruy, do you really prefer bad quality over good quality? After all, the finer the surface of the paper is (i.e. finer=glossier), the better the printing quality can be. This is an undeniable fact. Of course, if the photo is a 9th generation scan by an incompetent tightwad using home PC (see e.g. Warship Pictorial-srs), not even the best paper can save it.

[Ruy Horta]

As to answer your indirect question directly, I do not find Classic publications of inferior quality, no.

[John Vasco]

Jukka,

Could you give some figures to back up your 'fact'? I would be most interested to see them, having had previous in-depth experience of publishing. It might be the case that in recent times the Asian printing market has undercut heavily western printers, and brought glossy art paper within the ambit of one dollar difference. That was certainly not the case in times past.

One other thing you do not mention, or consider, is the matter of a finite budget attached to the production costs of each book, set, in the particular case you quote, not by Classic, but almost certainly by the parent company. That budget encompasses everything, not just printing. It is a side of publishing that a lot of people fail to consider.

So perhaps you need to start getting off the back of Classic, and start writing common sense threads.

[Jukka Juutinen]

I won´t name the publisher, but here is the exact example: this publisher published a heavily illustrated hardback book with 320 pages in 8" x 11" size. The book as it is now uses very crude paper, far worse than Classic. Now, according to this publisher, replacing the crude paper by glossy art paper would have meant an additional cost of ONE USD per BOOK. And this book is printed in the USA. And the above exampel is perfectly corroborated by evidence from Finnish publishers. Or maybe the UK is a place where everything is the opposite of the rest of the world. Maybe.

As for the limited budget per production, why it is that the other companies under Ian Allan´s umbrella, like Midland Publishing, uses the better quality paper like the parent company itself?

And if the crude paper is so good, why do the promotional material of the same companies often use very glossy paper...

[Jukka Juutinen]

And if the budget is limited, far better way to cut paper related costs would be to cut the amount needed, i.e. less pages per book. And in Classic´s books there are plenty of opportunities ranging from better font to eliminating the excessive blank spaces.

[Franek Grabowski]

I think some people forget the difference between a book and an album. Frankly, I get more and more irritated with expensive, glossy coated and heavilly illustrated volumes with lesser and lesser knowledge inside. I suppose nobody dropped such a brick on a toe.

[Ruy Horta]

And if the budget is limited, far better way to cut paper related costs would be to cut the amount needed, i.e. less pages per book. And in Classic´s books there are plenty of opportunities ranging from better font to eliminating the excessive blank spaces.

You are at risk of not being taken serious if you continue this diatribe against Classic, who you only recently accused of printing books that were too thin.

1. paper not glossy
2. books too thin
3. not technical enough
4. etc

The list goes on, to me it appears to be a classic case of axe grinding.

Take it up with Ian Allan / Classic if you feel so strong about this issue.

[John Vasco]

Jukka,

You did'nt answer the question posed in my first sentence. The simple legal tenet of: "He who asserts must prove" applies here. Show the financial facts, or, quite simply, don't bother to post such vague allegations in the first place.

"And if the budget is limited, far better way to cut paper related costs would be to cut the amount needed, i.e. less pages per book." I have to say that this sentence appears to show a limited knowledge of the whole end-to-end printing process.


"Or maybe the UK is a place where everything is the opposite of the rest of the world." This kind of garbage is demeaning to UK residents. I don't know where you are from, or where you live, but I would never demean you or your country the way you have demeaned my country.

[Jukka Juutinen]

John, what more can you need? I won´t name the publisher I received the info from a couple of days ago via one of the authors working for that publisher.

As the above info was corroborated by with 100% by two Finnish publishers, all I can say is that the UK must be a different world. Or maybe not. After all, e.g. Hikoki and Midland are British publishers and they use glossy paper.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Franek, I tend to agree with you on the lack of content but not on the "glossy expensivess". As I have pointed out, the difference between poor crude paper and glossy paper is minimal. And I don´t think you consider a 30-euro book cheap and a 31 euro book expensive if the contents were exactly the same if you could get much better durability and printing quality for that one euro investment.

[Jukka Juutinen]

I took this up with Classic years ago. They did respond but with words (message), not with deeds (=fixing the problems). And Classic´s early advertizing promised books that were og of premium quality in all aspects, not just amount of photos. And they haven´t so far lived up to the very promises they made.

And if it helps, I think Osprey would need the better paper even more as the current paper is no good and in addition is so stiff as to stress the not too strong spine if the book is opened flat (necessary e.g. to view the New Vanguard series cutaway in full).

[Nick Beale]

Fact: in a large format (A4) book with 320 pages the unit cost difference between poor paper and glossy art paper is no more than one USD! In other words, e.g. the average Classic hardback book would have 73 cents higher cost. So how many of you would shirk from paying 73 cents extra if the extra quaranteed a much better version of e.g. Steve Coates´s helicopter book?

I hope I'm normally more polite than this, but sometimes the situation calls for a more direct approach.

Jukka, why don't you find yourself a new hobby? You pursue this crusade/vendetta as if Classic had insulted your mother or something. If you don't like their books, don't buy them and we'll take it as read that you'll hate whatever they publish.

We all have our own likes and dislikes. End of story.

[John Vasco]

John, what more can you need? I won´t name the publisher I received the info from a couple of days ago via one of the authors working for that publisher.

As the above info was corroborated by with 100% by two Finnish publishers, all I can say is that the UK must be a different world. Or maybe not. After all, e.g. Hikoki and Midland are British publishers and they use glossy paper.

Ok, Jukka, let's get down to specifics. I'm not interested in the name of the publisher. Give me the financial figures that you claim result in a one dollar difference.
Give me:
a) number of pages;
b) black and white photo content;
c) colour photo content (if any);
d) coloured artwork content;
e) print run (and run-on costs, if relevant);
f) size of company (ie., number of staff);
g) staff costs in the preparation of the book as a total percentage of the book's budget;
h) publicity costs;
i) whether any part of the publishing process is sub-contracted, ie. proof reading, and if so, the percentage cost against the book's budget;
j) discount rate to outlets/retailers;
k) discount rates to direct sales customers;
l) author's royalties;
m) storage costs (if remote storage is used);

I don't claim the above list is exhaustive, and I'm not trying to be clever in outlining all of the above, but it gives you some idea of what is involved in the publishing process carried out by a reasonably sized company. What you have to bear in mind also, is that the unit costs varies proportionally to the size of the print run. So, the unit cost for a 1,000 print run is far removed from the unit cost for a 10,000 print run. And the margins in the unit cost between top quality paper used and lesser quality paper also necessarily vary according to the print run. If the publisher has its own printing works (After The Battle) then it's a diffent matter again. Another factor to consider is that the publisher pays for any waste that occurs as a result of the printing process. Printers usually print pages in multiples of 8 or 16 pages. If the final page count falls between those two figures as a multiple, then the cost for the whole printing process still fall on the publisher. That means in some instances publishers pay for thousands of half-sheets unprinted to be simply 'binned'. Publishing is not a simple process. We should all give thanks for the fact that the volume of works in print is as large as it is for the subject that is our interest.

Jukka, in my opinion you are vitriolic in what you state, and selective in what you reply to. I acknowledge your right to submit your views to this board, and to support them in the ensuing discussion. However, I do think you need to take a more even-handed approach to subjects on the board, and acknowledge that other posters do have valid points, rather than totally ignore points to which you have no answer.

[Richard T. Eger]

Good grief guys,

You all attacking Jukka are taking yourselves way too seriously and, I'm afraid, acting a bit absurd.

Like Jukka, I prefer glossy over matte and, also like Jukka, have decried the quality of Classic printing, but, no one seemed to listen, so I didn't see the point of publicly harping on it. But, we all know that the squeaky wheel is the one that gets oiled and, if enough Jukka's say that they want better quality, they might eventually be heard. Or, maybe it is competition from the Far East, which has been ahead of the rest of the world for ages. Just think Monogram. So, why, after all this time, did Ian Allan recently install a world class printing press?

Ruy, you missed Jukka's point about fewer pages. He wasn't saying cut the content, but rather cut the blank space so that more is printed on each page and thus fewer pages are needed. Classic does use a rather large amount of blank space.

John, so he pokes fun a bit at the British. Get a life!! We here in the Colonies can take a bit of ribbing, too.

And, John, your demand for literally how much the publisher spends on toilet paper is ridiculous. It is a straight paper cost comparison. Oh, maybe glossy paper might absorb a different amount of ink, so ink cost might be slightly affected. But anything else is a constant and thus irrelevant to cost differential determination, assuming that one doesn't have to purchase a new press to make it happen.

Franek, you seem to be inferring that, if a publisher does publish on glossy paper, he will only produce a photo album and that text = knowledge will simply shrivel away to nothingness. Pooh! If you would like to break your toe with a glossy book with a huge amount of text, just drop the English language version Schiffer book, Willy Messerschmitt: Pioneer of Aviation Design, from your desktop, aiming carefully. This monster runs 435 pages and is enormously heavy. When new in 1999, it was going for $49.95.

Now, Franek, it isn't unreasonable for a publisher to want to use high end printing where it will do the most good, i.e., with photos. So, yes, you are right that that is where a lot of emphasis will be placed. Franek and Ruy, take a look at Donald Nijboer's Cockpit: An Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Interiors or Melvyn Hiscock's Hawker Hurricane: Inside and Out, then compare what you see in matte printing and let me know which one you think is better.

I guess I'm an equal opportunity offender, but, guys, don't act so darned defensively. Jukka has a valid point and should be respected for it, not ridiculed, as has happened here.

Regards,
Richard

[John Vasco]

Richard,

In reply to your comments, you tell me to get a life. Well Richard, I say to you go read all that Jukka has written in recent months. It has been in the main dismissive, negative, and with hardly any constructive criticism at all. His comment I took exception to was more than a little ribbing. See it for what it is. I can take piss-taking with the best, but his remark is beyond that. Wake up, Richard, to the fact that certain personalities on this board have a 'down' on certain nationalities, and certain companies, and seek to take a pop at them at every opportunity. Jukka's comment was a snide comment, and got the reply it deserved.

And it is perfectly reasonable for me to go to the lengths I did in my large post, simply because Jukka was making claims regarding comparative printing costs that he did not back up with hard facts. Or has 'political correctness' come so far in your eyes that I dare not challenge what he says, and dare not set out specifics regarding full costs in the publishing world.

You say in your last paragraph that Jukka has a valid point, and should be respected for it. Well, when challenged about his allegations he has come up with precisely nothing. I haven't ridiculed him, I have simply asked of him the tenet, "He who asserts must prove", and he has not provided any proof whatsoever regarding his claim to 'one dollar difference'.

Richard, you tell me to get a life? Take a reality check on this thread, and others, mate. Over time this board has been beset with people who are quite happy to castigate others, or make certain claims against others, or companies, that they have taken a particular dislike to. Go back and read the other topics/threads carefully, Richard.

"It is a straight paper cost comparison. Oh, maybe glossy paper might absorb a different amount of ink, so ink cost might be slightly affected. But anything else is a constant and thus irrelevant to cost differential determination, assuming that one doesn't have to purchase a new press to make it happen." This misses the point I was making totally. I was talking about the overall budget allocated to the production of a single book. Yes, finite budgets do apply in the publishing world. That's why I listed all the points that I did. You ignore that point completely. And that was the crux of my post. It is not a straight paper cost comparison. You are arguing from too simplistic a platform, and the danger is that others will come to believe that it is simply "...a straight paper cost comparison..." For a company the size of Ian Allen, who are the parent company of Classic as you know (but some others may not), ALL of those considerations I listed come into play. If they were not taken into account, they would soon be out of business due to having no structured financial business plan.

It is easy for someone like Jukka to criticise a company for not using the highest quality paper in their books at all times, and that is his right to speak his mind. But wait, this is a discussion board, so it is the right of others to challenge what he says, and ask for more information concerning what he asserts. Nothing unreasonable in that, Richard. Or is there? If there is, for the life of me I cannot see it.

And finally, you say that "You all attacking Jukka are taking yourselves way too seriously and, I'm afraid, acting a bit absurd.", and then you proceed to write a post that is every bit as serious as the ones you criticise. Hilarious! Additionally, where is the absurdity in what has been posted?

Richard, to quote your phrase, "Get a life!!"

[Ruy Horta]

I've removed my previous post because unfortunately I am both host, moderator and member, the latter has to make room for my other roles when it comes to this point in a discussion. Although I stand by the words, I should not (edit) make things worse by stating them.

I'd like to ask all parties to discuss this matter as constructively and objectively as possible, no forms of name calling or personal attack.

Lets stick to the issue.

[Nick Beale]

You all attacking Jukka are taking yourselves way too seriously and, I'm afraid, acting a bit absurd.



That's one interpretation, Richard!

I don't like much gloss paper or what I perceive as old-fashioned and cluttered layout designs. Would it be reasonable for me to post a complaint every time (plucking a publisher from the air) a new Schiffer book came out? Or would everyone get sick of reading it?

P.S. I also hate any attempt to evoke the Luftwaffe by using Gothic script but that's another story!

[Christer Bergström]

I have to say that I was very proud to present Alfred Grislawski - a man who had been treated unfairly by primadonnas in the Luftwaffe and in politics during his whole life - and Hermann Graf - well, unfair treatment is a too weak word - with what I regard as the best looking WW II pilot biography ever made. Now I am not talking about myself, but of the wonderful layout and printing quality and thick glossy paper, the excellent binding, etc, all made by the publisher.


And regarding knowledge - well, I haven't heard anyone complaining about the knowledge presented in this book.

http://www.graf-grislawski.elknet.pl/index.htm

http://www.graf-grislawski.elknet.pl/Photos/grislsign.gif

Above: Alfred Grislawski signing the book

At the moment, while I'm waiting for "Black Cross/Red Star", Vol. 3 to be published (later in 2005), I'm working on a similar biography, on Walter Schuck (in cooperation with himself): http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/messerschmitt-ace/index.htm

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear John,

Yes, I did say you guys were taking yourselves too seriously, then seriously took most of you to task. How else to make the point, but use the same seriousness of argument, other than a dismissive single-liner, which could be considered haughty and dismissive? So, yup, I transgressed.

I haven't caught all of Jukka's posts and understand, if this is a constant sore point he keeps rubbing, i.e., ribbing the British, then it is time for him to get the message and quit irritating the people he is trying to convince of his cause.

I don't know whether I am in the minority or not as regards a preference for glossy paper. I think, given everything else equal, we should be able to agree that a better image is preferrable to a poorer image. I gave 2 examples of books with superior printing. I have literally no interest in the Hawker Hurricane, but, when I took a look at the Hiscock book, and, considering that I was contemplating doing a co-author book with similar types of material, I snapped up a copy of this fairly inexpensive book ($21.95 U.S.). So, rather than belabor the point, let me offer you a challenge to pick up a copy of this book, then compare it to others you think are of good quality. If that doesn't set your sights higher, I don't know what will.

As for Jukka not providing the name of his supplier of information, he simply may not want to get the fellow in trouble with his company. He said as much as that. Demanding the name of deepthroat, having it refused with good reason, should end it right there. All Jukka was trying to say when he started this thread was that he had learned that glossy paper costs less that a dollar additional in the cost of a 320-page A4 sized book versus matte paper and, wouldn't we be willing to pay that small amount extra for the added quality? I repeat that the rest of the publishing costs are irrelevant, as we are dealing with a differential cost.

Regards,
Richard

[Jukka Juutinen]

Richard, thanks for the support! You have been the only one who understood my points perfectly.

Let´s refresh some facts. The book on which the one dollar difference is based has 320 pages in American 8.5" x 11" (i.e. the area per page is about 5% lower than that of the A4 format [210 mm x 297 mm]) format and is about an American Army unit. The book´s print run is 3000. The paper used resembles paper used in e.g. Grub Street´s "Buffaloes over Singapore" (i.e. of considerably lesser quality than the paper used by Classic). The total paper cost was approx. $22,000. Now, if that very crude (OK for printing text but very unsuitable for illustrations) paper was replaced by real glossy paper (e.g. International Air Power Review), additional paper cost would have been $3000 for the whole print run, i.e. one dollar per book. Now, some of you might ask why didn´t they use the glossy paper. Well, the book was intented for American mass market. As the book is, the cover price is $29.95 and the better paper would have pushed the price to $32.50 (to allow for bookseller discount). Now, due to the perverse nature of American mass market, that $2.50 increase beyond the threshold of $30 would have halved the sales, according to their market analysis.

That publisher was ready to admit that the European book market is different and here such effects do not take place. And I doubt that a $2.50 price increase of e.g. Helicopters of the Third Reich woud have affected the sales a bit.

[Six Nifty .50s]

Dear John,

Yes, I did say you guys were taking yourselves too seriously, then seriously took most of you to task. How else to make the point, but use the same seriousness of argument, other than a dismissive single-liner, which could be considered haughty and dismissive? So, yup, I transgressed.

I haven't caught all of Jukka's posts and understand, if this is a constant sore point he keeps rubbing, i.e., ribbing the British, then it is time for him to get the message and quit irritating the people he is trying to convince of his cause.

I don't know whether I am in the minority or not as regards a preference for glossy paper. I think, given everything else equal, we should be able to agree that a better image is preferrable to a poorer image. I gave 2 examples of books with superior printing. I have literally no interest in the Hawker Hurricane, but, when I took a look at the Hiscock book, and, considering that I was contemplating doing a co-author book with similar types of material, I snapped up a copy of this fairly inexpensive book ($21.95 U.S.). So, rather than belabor the point, let me offer you a challenge to pick up a copy of this book, then compare it to others you think are of good quality. If that doesn't set your sights higher, I don't know what will.

As for Jukka not providing the name of his supplier of information, he simply may not want to get the fellow in trouble with his company. He said as much as that. Demanding the name of deepthroat, having it refused with good reason, should end it right there. All Jukka was trying to say when he started this thread was that he had learned that glossy paper costs less that a dollar additional in the cost of a 320-page A4 sized book versus matte paper and, wouldn't we be willing to pay that small amount extra for the added quality? I repeat that the rest of the publishing costs are irrelevant, as we are dealing with a differential cost.

Regards,
Richard

There are other practical reasons why most books are not published on high-gloss or semi-gloss paper. Printing large amounts of small text over hundreds of pages is generally not a good idea, because the glare off the glossy surface increases eye strain. That drawback will become more noticable if your room lighting is uneven, in which case you will be rubbing your eyes after a long reading session.

For most people, readability is more important than picture quality, but I can understand why many customers would rather see unit histories and technical histories printed on gloss-coated paper because these tend to contain very many photos, drawings and paintings.

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Six Nifty .50s,

You do raise a very valid point which I hadn't considered. I grabbed 3 books and did a sitting chair comparison and I could see exactly what you are talking about. You can position the matte paper in any position without affecting readability, but care must be taken with the glossy paper, which is really semi-glossy, as glare can easily occur. And, as the pages will tend to hump near the spine, one needs to be careful.

So, maybe those old time book designers knew something we lost - putting the photos in clumps on gloss paper, while keeping the text on matte. Of course, there then isn't the immediacy of text to illustration.

I'm not exactly sure now what the compromise should be, but I am not happy with the photo reproduction quality on matte paper. I want to see the subtle shading differences and not have them lost in a sea of black or monotone. Grab Hiscock's book and you'll see what is achievable. Then the question is how to get there without glare.

Regards,
Richard

[Jukka Juutinen]

I have heard this sorry excuse before. Any book becomes unreadable if the light comes from certain angles and as a person who reads several hours a day I haven´t noticed any particular eye strain due to gloss. I do have experienced eye strain, but due to insufficient lighting, coarsely printed text (one Finnish doctotal thesis on summer 1944 campaign was cheaply printed on matte paper and the text lacked a great deal of crisp) on crude paper, too large and poorly chosen font or too wide column. I have found that Jane´s yearbooks suit my eyes very well, crisp printing, small font and 4 columns per page.



There are other practical reasons why most books are not published on high-gloss or semi-gloss paper. Printing large amounts of small text over hundreds of pages is generally not a good idea, because the glare off the glossy surface increases eye strain. That drawback will become more noticable if your room lighting is uneven, in which case you will be rubbing your eyes after a long reading session.

For most people, readability is more important than picture quality, but I can understand why many customers would rather see unit histories and technical histories printed on gloss-coated paper because these tend to contain very many photos, drawings and paintings.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Since I have been accused of negativism, I offer you some positive critique. Do grab Warren Bodie´s book "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning" (Motorbooks). I think this is the best aircraft book in terms of layout I have ever seen. No wasted space, illustrations are well blended with the text and the font is very well chosen. 256 glossy pages, softcover large format for $25.

Worth noting is also Eagle Editions and their quality. First class paper, first class binding. My only complaint is the largish font used in the recent To War with the Yoxford Boys book. Urbanke´s Green Hearts has better and smaller font.

[Ruy Horta]

It isn't simply Glossy rules all and not using it means an inferior standard, which is strongly applied by one party here.

Personally I prefer good quality matte paper over glossy paper.

There must be more very silly people like me out there...

Last comment from me on the issue.

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Ruy, et al,

Points are raised pro and con. But, I also sense a buggy whip mentality: That's how it has been and should be into the future. We wouldn't have "progress" in its most general form if it weren't for someone trying to improve something or creating something new, like the computers and Internet through which we are having these very discussions.

As I have collected magazines that date back into the 40's, the change in quality has been very apparent. My 40's magazines are generally on very cheap, now quite brittle, matte paper. Photo quality is coarse halftone. Color? What color? Things got a tad better with the RAF Flying Review, better quality paper, but still matte, and still of dubious photo printing quality. This was later supplanted with Flying Review International, produced on semi-gloss paper (what, I think, we are lumping together with glossy), but of still less than stellar photo quality printing. This transitioned into the first incarnation of Air Enthusiast International, which wasn't a notable improvement in print quality, except that the color plates looked better. This was followed by Air International, a potential step slightly backwards. Today's Air Enthusiast may be a mite better. Overall, though, there is a definite improvement over the quality of the 40's and 50's.

Is that good enough? Not in my book. How many of you out there have taken a book or magazine image and scanned it at 100, 200, 300 dpi or more? Immediately you saw that the image wasn't analog. It's a halftone, or, in the case of color, likely multi-pass printing, which can make it look better, but it still isn't analog. But, with today's 5 megapixel cameras, we are getting to the point that the results of film analog and digital can't be differentiated in the range that we would find useful. So, it isn't that the printed image is digital, but how coarsely digital it is. That's the improvement that we should be pushing for.

Remember when Monogram had a lock on quality? There was Monogram, the gold standard, and then every other publisher. What did Tom Hitchcock know to create such a premium product? For those fortunate enough to have a copy, take a look at his 1982 edition of Smith & Creek's Jet Planes of the Third Reich. It was printed in Singapore. It doesn't match today's standards, but, back then, it set the standard. Why the Far East has the best presses in the world, I don't know, but, in my experience in buying books, they do. And they keep getting better.

I've got a 1998 Hewlett-Packard HP-722C inkjet printer. In its day, it set the standard. Today, it is out of date. We can get literally analog appearing prints off of the latest printers. Beautiful photos. There's a whole market in photo quality printers that has developed over the last several years.

I don't believe that the technology is not there to do better in magazine and book photo printing. Like Jukka, I want to see better.

Okay, let's take it from a pragmatic historian point of view. Say I want to compare photos from the print media. Is photo A a photo of the same aircraft as photo B? Not only do I want clear detail of the aircraft, but also what is in the background. I don't want to zoom in, only to see a sea of halftone dots. Last spring I spent a bundle on Ken Bokelman's Me 262 photos, only to find out that most were published in the 4-volume S&C Me 262 books. Shucks. But, what I do have, are analog prints. I can take them and blow them up to see fine detail, something I am limited to in the S&C books. Not only do I not run into dots, but I also can see subtle shading, rather than a sea of black or monotone.

How many of you have a photo in your collection, been there for years and years, then came along another photo and all of a sudden you realized the true significance of that older photo? You grab it out, put it on your scanner, zoom in on that one new detail, and then you say "Oh my G-d! I didn't know that was there! It's been there all along, but I never realized it!" If that photo is analog, you have a lot better chance at a Eureka moment than if it is something that was published in RAF Flying Review back in the 50's.

When I look at poor photo printing quality, I think, how sad, so much information originally available, but lost due to lousy printing.

Okay, I'm obsessing on photos. Clearly, the text is important. Depending on what is being presented, one or the other may be significantly more important that the other. Still, what's important to one may not be what is important to another. A single photo in a highly text oriented book may provide a crucial clue to a longstanding question. Here's such a case:

On page 181 of Hugh Morgan's Me 262 Stormbirds Rising is a photo looking from the rear into the fuselage of the U.S. Navy Me 262B-1a as it was slowly being disassembled by the Texas Airplane Factory. At the time, I was trying to assist Arthur Bentley for the fuel system layout illustrations for the 4-volume S&C Me 262 opus. It's a small printed image, but remarkably detailed, and withstood enlarging rather well. The fuel tanks had been removed, but the fuel lines remained. Still, there was detail I couldn't make out on the right side. I subsequently visited the Me 262 Project in Everett, Washington, where I happened onto an original color copy of the photo. Immediately, more detail stood out, which eventually helped in creating the final drawings.

The photos weren't the main thrust of Morgan's book, and some others were distinctly below par in printing quality, but that particular one was remarkably good. The point is you grab it where you can get it. Insisting on a rising tide to lift all boats mentality is the way to go. The status quo is not.

Regards,
Richard