Cookbooks and PicturesCookbook
Posted 09 June 2007 - 06:50 AM
1) No Pictures
2) No Pictures, but illustrated with drawings
3) Black and white photos
4) A few color photos
5) Fully illustrated with tons of color photos and demonstrations throughout.
Posted 09 June 2007 - 06:53 AM
As for sketches - blah! Unless they came from a really amazing artist, don't bother me with them.
Posted 09 June 2007 - 07:42 AM
One of my favorite books for baking, the King Arthur Flour 200th Anniversary Cookbook, contains no photos and just a few drawings, whereas two of my other favorite cookbooks, Baking with Julia and Julia & Jacques Cooking at Home just wouldn't be the same without the excellent photos.
Then there are publications like the Balthazar Cookbook where the photography completely overshadows the text!
Posted 09 June 2007 - 09:14 AM
If it is a collection of recipes, such as Jr. League cookbooks (of which I have several and love), then neither photographs nor drawings are necessary as far as I'm concerned.
I have never found drawings to be very helpful. Interesting, but not necessarily helpful.
I read cookbooks for fun and while I never need illustration or photography in the "real books" I read, I love photographs in cookbooks. Even if only a tenth of the recipes are photographed, it seems to help me understand the "feel" of the cookbook and its author. (if done well, of course)
Edited by shellfishfiend, 09 June 2007 - 09:15 AM.
Posted 09 June 2007 - 01:37 PM
As for drawings, I'd just like to cite one example I do really like. "The Enchanted Broccoli Forest", one of the earliest Moosewood cookbooks, is filled with sketches and doodles (and the recipes are handwritten). None of them are meant to represent the food really, but it makes it gives a rediculos charm to the whole thing. There's some very tasty recipes in there as well.
Posted 09 June 2007 - 10:08 PM
There are many reasons why I don't like pictures in cookbooks:
1) all that heavy stock makes the cookbook weigh too much,as well as cost too much
2) some books contain pictures supposedly from the recipes, but the stylist changes them around to look pretty, sometimes even adding ingredients
3) most books with a lot of pictures contain pictures other than that of finished recipes; I don't need pictures of wine bottles, bowls of lemons, restaurant waiters, etc.
That being said, I am sometimes tempted to make some dish I would otherwise ignore, once I've seen a picture of it.
ďAre you making a statement, or are you making dinner?Ē Mario Batali
Posted 09 June 2007 - 10:53 PM
Posted 10 June 2007 - 12:49 AM
One photo per recipe is pretty much the norm with Japanese cookbooks. However, if I used that as my criteria for buying English cookbooks, my bookshelves would be almost completely bare.
Posted 10 June 2007 - 08:47 AM
Drawings can be distracting and silly, but on the other hand, sometimes that's great. What would The Joy of Cooking be without the drawing of how to skin a squirrel?
The photos that I don't care for in cookbooks are of the authors -- Food Network stars' cookbooks tend to be filled with them, which is a major reason I don't have any of them. I don't want pictures of Tyler or Jamie or Paula or Rachael; just show me the food, please.
Janet A. Zimmerman, aka "JAZ"
eG Ethics signatory
About.com guide, Cooking for Two
Ten ways you can help the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters
Posted 10 June 2007 - 10:20 AM
Posted 10 June 2007 - 03:34 PM
I think that photos are not necessarily a pre-requisite for a great cookbook, but it does very much depend on the nature or theme of the book.
Some of my favourite books have no pictures (Richard Olney, Elizabeth David) and some only very few pictures (Nose to Tail Eating). But then again, as I said, it depends. Restaurant cookbooks, where plating is inherent to successfully recreating the dish, definitely "sell" themselves on the pornographic and instructional/aspirational qualities of the food photography.
Then again there are other books where the food photography is just to demonstrate what some of the finished products might look like, but have very detailed photographs of important preparatory steps eg Yan Kit So, and The Cook's Book, for examples and Martha Stewart's Baking Bible.
And lets not forget about line drawings, such as those to be found in Julia Child, Barbara Tropp and Ruhlman and Polcyn's Charcuterie and Shizuo Tsuji.
Certainly, the overall "worth" of the book is not solely determined by food photography, and its rare that lack of photography has dissuaded me from purchasing a book, so long as the recipes were good and the sort of thing I wanted to cook, its ended up in my kitchen.
Oh, forgot to mention books where sometimes its more about the mood/feeling created by photos but with good/interesting recipes, such as White Heat, and those with not so great recipes but really nice shiny photos (sorry, but Donna Hay et al fall into this category for me! No offence!)
Posted 10 June 2007 - 06:32 PM
now whether or not they include pictures, lithographs or whatever really does not matter as much as the content of the material. Is the author transmitting a concept for which I bought the book? If I want a picture book I will buy a coffee table book and that is that. Words have far deeper meaning than a picture...
Grimod in Paradise
more men then Neptune"
Posted 10 June 2007 - 06:46 PM
Great first post. Welcome to eGullet.org!
Posted 12 June 2007 - 12:03 PM
Also, if I am at a loss of what I am in the mood to cook, the pictures help inspire some dishes.
On the other hand, when I know exactly what I am cooking and just need some tips, my new york times cook book and escoffier have no pics and they are well used...
Posted 13 June 2007 - 07:26 PM
I like colour pictures. But I think they're much more important in a pastry book than a slow cooker book (though I still like a few pictures in the slow cooker book).
Manager, eG Forums
Ten ways you can help the eGullet Society - eG Ethics Signatory
Author: Soup - A Kosher Collection - Passover - A Kosher Collection - Website - Desserts Plus - Demos - @PamReiss
Posted 17 June 2007 - 09:41 PM
But on the issue of food porn photography, I loved Martin Picard's pisstake photo in the PDC cookbook.
and those with not so great recipes but really nice shiny photos (sorry, but Donna Hay et al fall into this category for me! No offence!)
I dare you to post that in the Donna Hay thread!
Posted 18 June 2007 - 09:56 AM
And I don't want to have to turn to the middle or back of the book to find the pictures. Pictures should be adjacent to the recipe or incorporated into the recipe.
Most people are visual learners to some degree, and pictures, as they say, are worth a thousand words.
And make the pictures color! And with good clarity and contrast!
I've been reading Peter Reinhart's American Pie, and while I enjoy the book and his "formulas," the pictures in there are terrible!
Bob R in OKC
Home Brewer, Beer & Food Lover!
Posted 26 June 2007 - 12:36 PM
I am working on a cookbook at the moment that is going to be ladeled with them. Perhaps the most detailed out there so far in terms of explanations and photographs. So far I have had a great response from test-cooks about the amount of photography littered throughout the book. You can see some exerpts at http://www.mattikaarts.com/wrightfood (not trying to plug anything here.. just thought some people might be interested.
I would certainly say for new cooks, pictures are a must.
Edited by Mattwright, 26 June 2007 - 12:44 PM.
Posted 14 July 2007 - 04:45 AM
Posted 14 July 2007 - 04:20 PM
Beginning cooks I've met all like lots of pictures in cookbooks. More advanced cooks have different opinions about pictures. If the food is unusual, the kind people may not have seen or eaten, then pictures are necessary. Once in a while I find a picture inspiring me to cook, but usually not.
A cookbook that is basically all text is problematic, unless I am extremely motivated to cook from the book because of its reputation. Instructive line drawings can be helpful, but not a pleasure to look at. I cook from Julia Child's Mastering the Art, etc., and Barbara Tropp's Modern Art of Chinese Cooking, despite the lackluster design. But so far I haven't tried Diane Kochilas' excellent cookbook, Glorious Food of Greece, because so much text puts me off.
A final word: Nothing ticks me off more than to read a recipe, look at the picture, and realize the picture does not correspond to the recipe. Those are the books I will not buy.
Edited by djyee100, 14 July 2007 - 08:12 PM.
Posted 15 July 2007 - 11:23 AM
At the other end of my scale there are books that stand alone as a reference. I often will take just one cookbook with me when traveling and need something light. Often the recipe is printed opposite the picture; and that means I canít tear out the recipes to leave the pictures behind so I appreciate books that have recipes (and photographs) all presented on a CD.
As for number and style of photographs, relevance depends on the basis of each case. If I were exploring a new cuisine, lots of picture and explanations of techniques are helpful, but for a cuisine that I know, itís just a waste of space.
And I donít subscribe to the idea that cookbooks are primarily a work of art; content before style always, please!
Posted 16 July 2007 - 02:14 AM
I don't like to use another chef's recipes, but I am always inspired by another's use of ingredients and flavor combinations.
A perfect example of a cookbook for me is Pierre Gagnaire's Reflections on Culinary Artistry.
Posted 21 July 2007 - 10:09 PM
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Cookbook
The Kitchen →
Pastry & Baking →
The Kitchen →
Cookbooks & References →
The Kitchen →
Cookbooks & References →
The Kitchen →
Culinary Culture →
Food Media & Arts →