I just read this "blog" about Blurb. I have read others about POD system and books. I don't know this user's background. Aside from his rather naive comments about bindings, etc, I do want to comment about his criticisms of the photo quality. Like many others, it's clear that Amirko does not have the background to understand the fine aspects of digital photography and the blurb printing system (Indigo 5000). It's imperative that to get good results on any POD, you have to use Adobe Photoshop and run test books, as the settings and profiles must be optimized. I have printed TWO high-end photography books on blurb, and while they are understandably not as good as a press book, and may not likely ever be, the results match my originals in terms of tonality and especially shadows and high values and detail. THis is because I matched each photography in terms of resolution, tonality, and made sure all the profiles were properly set for the Indigo 5000 and the paper it's printed on. Without that understanding and testing, information like that which appears here are useless to the reader who is not familiar with POD systems. Of all the systems (lulu, mypublisher, viovio) i have used, blurb is the most accurate. In fact, my book THE RANGE OF LIGHT was picked by a mainstream bookpublisher to consider, as they judged the photographic reproductions very accurate to the original prints. I am a professional photographer schooled in both film and digital photography. Thus, I do not find this or other similar critiques useful because they are uninformed and inaccurate. Blurb (NO, I don't work for them) rendered all my prints accurately and beautifully, but that's because I spent months testing their system with profiles and different settings and understanding the controls available.
- Mood:
annoyed
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
dantphotography- dantphotography
Syndicate
