Hi gang,

Quick poll: Which do you prefer in your magic books - photos or line drawings, and why? For that matter, I'd like to hear if you don't care either way. Thanks a bunch!

Chad

I prefer line drawings, but only if they are done well. For me, these seem to be the clearest method of conveying information and are less strain on my eyes when reading a book. For example, I think the drawings in Card College are excellent.

I don't mind photos, but these have to be well lit and in color. Mike Close's new e-book "Closely Guarded Secrets" does this very well, for example. In contrast, I have never liked the photos in Arthur Buckley's "Card Control". Granted, this book was published over 50 years ago. But compare these two books to see what a great variation in photo quality provides.

I always prefer a good CLEAR photograph!

Perspectively accurate line drawings FROM photos. There is nothing more crisp and beautiful for an instructional illustration than a lovely pen and ink drawing that is perspectively accurate.

I prefer photos as long as they are clear and at good angles. For some reason it just makes learning a lot easier for me, especially sleights.

I always preferred photos such as found in Stars of Magic, Routined Manipulation (Ganson), and Close Up and Personal (Regal). Even if the artist is working from a photo, the image is an approximation of the photo. You lose some shadow detail and perspective with pen and ink IMO. That's why I chose to use b/w photos in my new book. From a cost point of view, line art can be printed on less expensive paper than what's used for photos.

I prefer the line drawings. They distill the image into the important information only. Well, except for the nearly useless drawings in Canadian Card Control. Drawn with the artist's left foot, I believe. Other than that one, drawings are easier to use.

So, when's the book coming out????

Either, just so long as they are clear!

<rant mode: ON!>

Also, a note to the editors and layout people at the publishing houses - PUT THE ILLUSTRATING GRAPHICS NEXT TO THE RELEVANT TEXT!!!

There is NOTHING in learning magic that is more annoying than trying to learn a new routine, move or trick than having to page forward four pages (or back 32!) to look at the photos/illustrations for a new move!

Please, magic publishers - QUIT trying to be "clever" by putting the graphics on separate pages at the back of the book, on detachable pages, in a completely separate book (those Slydini books were a travesty because of that!) or at the end of a chapter for "easy reference!" There is NOTHING "easy" in ANY of those methods!

Put the graphics where they belong - WITH the trick and NEXT to the TEXT that they ILLUSTRATE!

<rant off>

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Lines.

are you coming out with a book Mr Long? Ill buy.

I agree with Lee here - as long as they are clear and in the right place.
BUT - very few of the photos in my books are clear, and some are awful.

A combination of both but it depends on what it is being said. Some Magic books with easy to see and understand color photos are a real pleasure.

Along these lines, I'm curious what the going rate is for an illustrator per illustration?

I'd also be interested in hearing the answer to the above question.

Caleb

Right on!

-Matt

Well-lit, good contrast, color photographs.

Regards, Steve

Line drawings.

I produced technical manuals for a few years and swapped from photos to line drawings because you can emphasize the details, you generally don't need to see an entire area in the same detail that photos produce.

I worked from photos, and use them as templates to trace over in Illustrator.

Take care

Jason

Hi Jason, that makes two technical illustrators here on the café!

In my opinion, for instructional purposes, if they are done well, illustrations are preferable (not just because I sometimes get paid to do them!). Look at the magnificent illustrations in Bill Tarr's Now you See It. They take a simple instructional book and turn it into something beautifully accessible. Look at the Art of Astonishment. Brilliant works, and again they add a great deal to the text.

The problem here though is that the illustrations the average amateur would produce would be inferior to the photographs that that same person would produce with their household camera (because at least the photo would be recognisable as hands and cards for example). This means that unless creators are willing to pay a skilled professional to illustrate their book they would be better off taking photos.

In order, I would prefer: a book with good professional illustrations, then a book with professional photography, then a book with amateur photography, then a book with amateur illustrations.

Just my opinion!
(Just as an aside though, in Jo Mogar's thimble book, Steve Beam has recreated a classic illustration from an old thimble magic book featuring two right hands instead of the usual right and left. It's a brilliant little bit, and it takes a while to figure out what's wrong with the picture! I bet the illustrator put it in just to see if anyone is paying attention! I'll bear that one in mind!)

I like Richard Kaufman illustrations quite a bit they are ART peices in themselves,
If your going to do close up photo's make sure to get a manicure first.

Line drawings . . . .

I love Tom "The Warpsmith's" Stone's Drawings. Beautiful!

M:C