I would like to ask MR why in their book series that they have to use the same photographs from the magazine & other previous books. I would like all fresh new photographs when I buy one of your books ( I just received “Model Railroading from Prototype To Layout”) as I’m a subscriber to MR & to open one of your books only to see re-runs on some of the photographs. Am I the only one who feels this way?
Hmm.
I can not obviously speak for MR, but here are a few reasons why “recycled” photographs may show up:
1} Once an apropriate photo is taken of something, lets say a GP40 Diesel engine in Chessie livery to refer to it as an example of a “GP 40 Diesel Engine”, is it really necessary when referring to a GP40 again to take a whole new picture of another livery of a GP 40? No.
2} Photos cost them time and money to aquire, either by paying a photoghapher, or purchasing a picture from a freelancer, or by setting up a vingette to take of something, so why waste more money when an existing photo already exists.
3}Sometimes a photo may be somewhat “once-in-a-lifetime”, that is a picture of a cracked drive gear on X brand of loco known for this frequent problem, may not happen with every loco of that brand so a photo of the cracked gear may be “priceless”, as the next 15 locos they take apart may not have the caracked gear. A photo of a Big Boy rolling by they have is GOING to be recycled as bigboys don’t run anymore. It, too is “priceless” GO figure.
4} is there really a need to wire up for another photo set of “how to wire a reversing loop” when one set showing a reversing loop wired up already exists? what will they change? the wire jacket colors?
5} Copywrite issues. If they already own the copywrite of a photo, you bet they will want the most use out of it as possible.
6} The cost of the book to meet your "I would like all fresh new photographs when I buy one of your books " requirement may, for the reasons above and more, make the book much more expensive than you and others are willing to pay. To set up and photograph a whole new set of photos may be somewhat cost prohibitive.
Just some thoughts, ideas and opinions for thought. Other thoughts, ideas, opinions may follow.
To answer your last question: Probably. To comment on your first statement: If a picture clearly represents something in order to help the reader understand a technique or example, why spend the extra $$$ and time to find or create another. While I might rather see a photo that specifically shows my prototype, I can still learn something from a photo - even if I’ve seen that particular one before in another issue.
tomkat, wouldn’t it be better and more expeditious to express your views and desires directly to the editors of MR or to Customer Service rather than posting it here on the forum? Seems to me that it might get you a direct response from those in charge rather than a bunch of opinions from those who don’t even work at the magazine.
My [2c]…
Tom
Its like this in all forms of journalism. Whether it be Magazine, TV, or Newspaper, they all have stock files, or general photos, that they have to be applied to general situations. For example. The other day, in the newspaper, there was a railroad club open house, and the photo advertising it said “From (Newspaper Name) Archives”. The situation here is that MRM usually has a diagram for one scenery book, and they keep the diagram to put in magazine articles, or further books. If the diagram works, why make another one? In your situation, the author probably didnt include a unique picture to illustrate the subject, so the editor included an archived photograph to do so.
I always get a kick how the TV news reports on a terrible snowstorm somewhere in the country and they show a Lettercarrier slogging through it delivering the mail. The only problem is, it’s “SUNDAY”. Or maybe they get Sunday delivery back east.[(-D]
Brent
Maybe this is a better comparison: In MR Special Issue “How to build More Layout In Less Space” has some of Its photographs re used in the MR Books Issue " Model Railroading from Prototype to Layout $21.95" These are not rare prototype photos but in house “shots” or same shots of featured layouts. For the cover price you would think you could receive new shots or other views from the original photo-shoot. That would be sort a like getting your favorite sports hero yearly card with the same photo on it. It is not a big complaint I just wondered if any one else noticed this.
Hi tomkat.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you. I would like to see fresh photos to accompany fresh content.
Mike
Yes I have noticed it, but as i posted above I understand the reasons why photos are reused. All publishing businesses do the same thing as our 14 year viewer/modeler and I pointed out.
You also state it has SOME {not ALL} of it’s photographs reused. SO It is Not ALL “stale” content.
You could also write a book and take your own “fresh photos” and submit it to MR for publication consideration.
You can always save yourself some agrivation and money and simply not purchase books that have “stale” content to you.
Just my [2c]
If I were to write a series of art tuition books, for example, I wouldn’t expect people to fork out their cash for the same set of how-to pictures. I’d make the effort to come up with new ways of illustrating each topic, or else I simply wouldn’t write it in the first place. But maybe that’s just me [and tomkat] [:)]
Mike
I can agree to a point, it would be nice to see some new stuff, if only so somebody who flips through before buying doesn’t say “I’ve seen that picture before. Oh, and that one. And that one, and that one, and that one, and that one, say, Don’t I already have the stuff in this book? I’ve got all the pictures.” It would also be nice if they do reuse a lot of pictures, to dig into the stack a bit and pull out some older ones with the same subject. There’s a lot of layouts with harbor scenes in them, and undoubtedly they have lots of layouts that had harbors in them, so let’s pull oe that’s 5 years old but still relevant over the one I saw last month.
One other source: Pictures that got cut from the main articles. Maybe we saw Joe Blow’s layout, but the author didn’t focus on the harbor for but one picture, though when visiting the layout they took 4 or 5. Those other pictures I’d like to see too. And It’d be likely they already have them since the pictures were taken. But beyond that, we don’t HAVE to have 100% new.
I agree with Mike and Tomcat-13.
I don’t buy MR books because they have mostly recycled photos and articles. As a long term reader/subscriber, I have no desire to spend my money buying something I already have.
alan J
I buy the books because I don’t subscribe to MR. I occasionally buy an issue here and there, so the content in the books are new to me. Now that’s just me. If I was a MR subscriber for years and years and leafed through a “how to” book only to find over 50 percent of the pictures are reused, then I’d promptly put it back on the shelf. I would expect more for my money.
Chris
“Recycled” pictures don’t bother me. If the pictures provide a good illustration of the text , then they’re doing their job. What really gets my knickers in a twist is all those recycled words. I mean can’t they come up with new words for every publication they do? All they do is put the same old words in a different order.
Now that I think of it, while they’re at it, they should get more creative with the rules of grammar and syntax. Alternatively, they could get all kinds of interesting variations doing one book in English, the next in Urdu (with Pashtun photo captions just to keep things interesting) followed by one in Serbo-Croation with Magyar footnotes and the foreword in Hindi.
I don’t buy books for the pictures unless they’re picture books and even those often contain some pictures I’ve seen before. I buy books for the text. If the text is different, the fact that I might have seen some of the photos is irrelevant.
The demand for never-ending and ever increasing novelty is just mind-boggling. But then, what do I know? I’m re-reading James Burke’s “The Day The Universe Changed” for the 3rd time and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve cracked open Guy Dunscomb’s “A Century of Southern Pacific Steam Locomotives” in the last 45 years.
Andre
To a long-time subscriber of MR, it quickly becomes obvious that a lot of the MR “How to” books recycle entire articles from a couple of decades ago. Since I already own the articles, I have no incentive to buy the books - but my earliest self-purchased MR issue is July, 1948. To someone who graduated from high school in 2002, this is all new stuff.
As for recycled photos, a certain (to remain nameless) magazine, which owns the copyright to literally hundreds of photos of the same subject, recycles previously-published photos in their mail column and annual reprise when that subject is brought up again. That’s just one reason that I (and a lot of other people) no longer subscribe.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Its called “stock photos” or “stock footage” The same footage of the same planes being shot down has appeared in virtually every WW2 movie since the 1950’s. Watch any movie for the 1950’s or 1960’s and chances are you will see snippets of the same trains rushing by (like a person riding a train in California with footage of a GG1 pulled train). If you get ten generic railroad books from a big box book store, chances are there will multiple duplicate pictures inthe books.
Pretty much anything photo that Kalmbach has has appeared in another magazine. The whole point of publishing these books is to be able to reprint the same articles. That’s their profit margin.
As mentioned above, it is mostly old reprints, so I have stopped buying them.
I don´t want to support their habit of reprinting old material instead of actually writing or even rewriting the material for the books.
There may be interesting facts in them, but when you already have read it, I felt that I just lost interest in the whole book!
I am only starting to build my library so I cannot say I have seen reprints in the books I have but my thoughts are…Trains the wild, I am ok with some reprints, more so if it is of a fallen flag but would be nice to see a mix with some more modern engines paint schemes. Layout photos, give us fresh photos. Maybe to offset some of the cost of a setting up and paying a photographer and such, look through the archives of photos posted here if need be. I know I would trade the use of my photos for a free or discounted year of MRR magazine.
True, but we’re a cantankerous lot who need something to complain talk about… [(-D]
John
If the book is teaching something like layout design, building freight cars, etc., I expect the photographs to fully support the subject regardless of their publishing history. For something like the Great Model Railroad series I expect all new pictures and articles. Books that are collections of articles in MR I usually avoid since I have all but 6 issues back to 1948.
Enjoy
Paul
I agree.
But there is something to be said for taking articles that may be scattered over forty years of magazines and collecting them into a single volume, so everything is in one place. Or taking something that was presented in serial (e.g. project layouts), and making a book of it so one doesn’t have to have sixteen issues sitting out on the workbench.
I haven’t had to look for back issues for a long time, but sometimes finding the issue you need is harder than buying the book.