Re: Post Factory

Chris,

One would have to consider very carefully the type of market and its
potential size but I think that some authors would do better by
selling their works on CD in .pdf format, which one can always print
out of course.

I won't dispute the fact that having a printed copy of this type of
work is more appealing, but from a purely economic point of view I
really believe that some works would sell much better as .pdf files.

Sandy

>Man, do **I** ever agree on this one, Judy!!
>
>Let me tell you, and I'm sure all book writers will agree, it is a
>long time before you even break even on sales of a book. With the
>thousands of dollars, not to mention literally thousands of HOURS of
>research, I put into the Experimental Workbook, I am sure as hell
>not going to put it in PDF anywhere.
>
>Not to mention the fact that I, personally, want to read a BOOK, not
>a MONITOR.
>
>Aside from the fact that the price of PF is ridiculously low to
>begin with! I would've bought back issues for twice that price!
>Look at the magazine back issue price, and they're mostly ads.
>
>Sell it, Judy, reprint it...it may be your children's only
>inheritance, for all you know. When my parents died, the stocks I
>got from my mother were decimated by Wall Street, but now my
>father's out of print book has risen to the $125 mark in places.
>Just too ironic.
>Chris
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 1:15 AM
>Subject: Re: Post Factory
>
>>
>>On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Sandy King wrote:
>>
>>>I hope that eventually all of the issues of Post Factory will be
>>>made available in .pdf format. Post-Factory was a unique
>>>contribution to the literature of alternative photography and all
>>>of the issues were interesting and informative. The material
>>>really deserves a wider audience than that of the paying
>>>subscribers, which I was from beginning to end.
>>
>>While I certainly appreciate the endorsement (thank you!), I'm
>>blessed if I can understand why "the material deserves a wider
>>audience than that of paying subscribers."
>>
>>Which raises the question (similar to one asked 10 years ago on
>>this very list when the claim was made "knowledge should be free")
>>of
>>why folks willing and able to spend, say, $5 plus shipping for a
>>single blank sheet of paper, that is, paper with nothing on either
>>side, that they may then proceed to wreck with a technical error or
>>other miscalculation, wouldn't spend approximately $4.50 + postage
>>for 48 or more pages covered with information, not mindlessly
>>stamped out by machine, but assembled painstakingly by others whose
>>time (which they're not making any more of) is more valuable than a
>>piece of paper.
>>
>>Or, why do folks deserve NOT to pay for what others did pay for...
>>isn't information MORE valuable than, say, a latte, or a sheet of
>>ultra deluxe paper?
>>
>>And another point. The History of Photography list is doing a
>>thread about retrieving depth-of-field info from manuals printed ca
>>125 years ago. Assuming there is a world with folks who can read, &
>>life not reduced to subaquatic organisms 125 years into the future,
>>is there a prayer that today's Internet info would still be
>>readable on those systems? It will almost certainly be lost, while
>>a pile of National Geographics, or even Post-Factory's moldering in
>>an attic would be readible, that is, assuming living creatures can
>>still read, not regressed from global worming.
>>
>>But keeping the info either way -- in printed form by reformatting
>>remaining issues for digital reprint OR on website for PDF-- both
>>are very labor intensive... (Malin worked VERY hard to get #1 in
>>PDF-- thank you Malin!) Why should that labor be donated free to
>>folks who don't care enough to spend what is of course far less
>>than the actual cost to produce? (I, for instance have donated my
>>time free these 6 or so years -- and actuarily speaking I have less
>>of it left than most folks on this list...) And of course
>>contributors, including Sandy, to both P-F AND the websites give
>>their labor free...
>>
>>I don't blame folks for taking what's free, but I don't see why
>>it's owed them...
>>
>>Meanwhile -- although having Issue #1 on the alternative
>>photography website has been a godsend (thank you, Malin!), so far
>>all but one of the new subscribers who viewed it there, wanted the
>>print version of #1 when my bricks & mortar printer gets his
>>digital machine re-re-refixed, although I offered to pro-rate price
>>and postage without it.
>>
>>But then these folks were actually paying "subscribers."
>>
>>I'll add that by cosmic coincidence, the same day as Sandy's
>>e-mail, I got an e-mail from Canada that a pack of issues had
>>arrived (very far north), adding, "I am so grateful that one can
>>still obtain such a delightful publication on real paper."
>>
>>But all these sources, real paper or virtual, are created by minds
>>contributing knowledge, experience and TIME (which in case I forgot
>>to mention, they're not making any more of) without pay. Websites
>>in the field are also, AFAIK, subsidised by labor of the site owner
>>(among others). And the formal intensive demanding labor of
>>producing either a website OR a publication in print cannot be
>>compared to casual fragmented discussion freely given on this list.
>>
>>(I do however wonder what, for instance, Phil Davis wrote for
>>publication gratis, while [ironically] reflecting on how much of
>>HIS information is now obsolete.)
>>
>>And I assume that approximately 450 pages of closely packed text
>>are NOT so easily whisked into PDF (Malin worked very hard on just
>>one issue) and don't see any particular reason to do so....Except
>>of course expectations. Folks have learned to expect website type
>>information free, though not sheets of *blank* paper.
>>
>>I have various problems ... but providing this material in other
>>formats isn't one of them. However, I do appreciate the
>>compliment, as I daresay do all contributors. Thank you.
>>
>>Judy
Received on Tue Sep 20 09:24:11 2005