I do like having one good shot of the finished product, but more seems unnecessary. I find that directions laid out in a clear and simple format is most enticing
I think that illustrations add a human touch to cookbooks. Now, I love me a great beauty shot - but as a food photographer I feel we often do a disservice to readers and potential cooks by presenting an image that they will never be able to replicate. Back to the beauty shot, as a photographer, I can appreciate what it took to capture the image so often I am viewing it from more of a “fine art” perspective rather than a reference. I also feel that images whether photographic or illustrative MUST add to the story of the recipe.
Actually I love that photo of a pot, even if you cannot see what's inside. I am biased, as I am not only a food writer but also a food photographer, so when I get a cookbook I always look at the photos. For me it's not about needing the pictures to be able to follow the recipe but I like them to create a story and to convery a certain mood. That's why I loved your photo od the pot, it talks about a serene moment.
I have cookbooks that I admire for their design and photography but barely cook their recipies, if I am honest. Others, don't have many photos or they are not very good, but I love the way the recipies are explained and so I keep on coming back to them.
As a word person too, I hate to say it, but I only ever pick recipes out of a cookbook that are accompanied by a photo. I want to see what the dish might look like, before deciding. The only exception might be soups, sauces, dressings, toppings etc...where clearly a photo won't really help much! I appreciate it's a costly production exercise, but like with any project, surely quality should be more of priority than quantity. So perhaps a reduction in the number of recipes might be a bonus.
Yes, that might be exactly what it's coming to. A collaborator emailed me today to say that she's just signing a cookbook deal where every recipe will have a photo -- so that means fewer recipes.
I couldn't agree more with this. I really appreciate and value a well written recipe, I've written quite a few myself, but when I think about all my go-to recipes in my cookbook collection, they are invariably the illustrated ones. I perhaps subconsciously think that they must be the best ones in the book if the editor/author has picked them to be shot. Conversely, if I'm looking for something to do with a specific ingredient (I often use CKBK for that https://app.ckbk.com/), and I find a recipe that isn't illustrated, that wouldn't deter me from cooking it, it's just that in the usual run of things, I might have overlooked that recipe because of the lack of photo. I also think there is some middle-class 'Elizabeth David books don't have photos'-type snobbery around this subject which I really don't like.
Hah. I bet many people don't even know who Elizabeth David is these days. Back then, it was a legitimate style to write recipes as narrative and not have photos, but those days are long gone. Sometimes people try to bring them back and fail.
Way more important to me to get the words and recipe correct than have a photo!! I want the dish to taste awesome more than look awesome. This IMHO is a comment on how much more important image is over substance. I don’t like it.
It's not that I won't cook without a picture, it's that I am more likely to be interested in something if there is one. I get that not all recipes in a book can have a picture with it (because it will be 600 pages!), but like a few other comments, I appreciate and admire photography.
I also think for more complex recipes, a reference photos is helpful. I recipe tested something for an upcoming cookbook using spices and techniques from a region that were very unfamiliar to me. I found the reference photo helpful as a tester, but I think it's helpful for people who are maybe unfamiliar with something (process, ingredients, techniques) so they can say, "hey that looks good, I will take the leap into the unknown and try it!"
I agree, there should be a photo to represent each recipe. Photos help give beginning cooks the confidence they need to tackle a new recipe. And they give anyone who has cognitive challenges or limited energy more context.
Perhaps your next cookbook will have fewer recipes and more photos then. I always tell my clients to go for 100 recipes minimum in their cookbook proposals, but that will change, I guess.
Yep, the OOP costs have been consequential, but I just wanted to provide every tool possible because it will be a resource for the chronic illness community.
I've written a cookbook. I had testers, not professional testers. Not one of them asked for a reference photo.
I am also a foodstylist. I don't think our techniques of not cooking ingredients to the time indicated in a recipe in order to photograph a beautiful presentation is helpful if you are truly looking at the image for guidance.
I have worked with someone who becomes aggravated when the results from a recipe do not look like the photo. I always guide by encouraging her to learn cooking techniques if she insists on using "the source"
Last I learned to cook Indian cuisine from Ms Jaffrey's An Introduction to Indian Cooking not a single photo and it taught me well.
I was hoping someone would reference her book, and others that have no photos. But maybe you feel comfortable with that because you are not a beginning cook.
People definitely get aggravated when their dish does not look like the photo. And why would it? It has not been professionally styled!
The same for me with Joy of Cooking by the Rombauers, Mastering the Art of French Cooking by Julia Child, and The Classic Italian Cookbook by Marcella Hazan. They all taught me well and not a single photo in any of them!
"Serious" cookbooks didn't include photography until the 80s. I like to think of Martha Stewart's Entertaining, 1982 as the one to set us off in that direction. Before that, of course, the corporate cookbooks -- Good Housekeeping, Betty Crocker, Better Homes and Gardens, et al -- had been including color photos for decades. We still get the occasional serious cookbook that is eschewing photos. I think of Alice Waters' The Art of Simple Food putting itself in the group of classics by going photoless 1-color in the 21st century.
In the early 1980’s I wrote Food Processor Cookery, published by HP Press. Their philosophy was How-to photos and a finished photo of every recipe, approx 150 recipes per book. The book sold 125,000 copies the first year due mainly due to the photos and only a “ one liner” intro below the title. Photography was expensive even then. Today’s verbose recipe copy is usually skipped over and useless.
Fascinating, Susan! Yes, some cookbooks benefit from process shots, definitely. The Pioneer Woman's cookbooks always feature them, but she is a big star with huge advances and she can request that format successfully. I didn't think about how today's recipes are longer. More explaining for people who don't know how to cook.
A photo might pique my interest in a recipe, but I’m a word person and either the title, the description in the headnote, or even the list of ingredients is just as likely to grab my attention. I view most recipe photos as aspirational, because it won’t look like that if I make it. If there are steps that are easier to show than tell, by all means give me process photos. But lack of photos is not a dealbreaker for me, in most cases…but they might help.
This topic really frustrates me! In all my years of writing and teaching, I find that new cooks may think they need the photo, but having the photo actually creates more anxiety for them. When their dish doesn’t look like the picture, they think they’ve failed and that causes even more anxiety in the kitchen. The ‘look and cook’ books can be great because they are showing processes and new cooks really may not have an idea of what creamed butter and sugar should look like. When I think of cookbook photography, it reminds me of when I saw the first issue of Martha Stewart’s magazine. I instantly dubbed both the magazine and the photos as ‘aspirational.’ I think she’s had an enormous influence over the role of photography in food. What we make at home never looks like the picture. As a cookbook author, I work very hard to make the instructions clear. I picture myself sitting on the cook’s shoulder, advising them through the process. As for the price, yikes. It certainly drives up the price of the book. Many photographers are paid more than the author. Of course the author has the potential to make more with a big bestseller. (Oh dear, I could write a 1,000 word essay on this!!)
Really good points about new cooks being stressed out by beautiful photos. I didn't think about the role Martha Stewart has had in promoting tons of photos, but that's a good piont too. Most authors do not write bestsellers though. Those are the exceptions.
While I have purchased cookbooks solely on the beauty of the photography, I don't feel that every recipe warrants a picture. I can see how it is appropriate for some steps but requiring it for every dish is a bit much. Often the photos I love are not even of the dish itself. It's the view out the kitchen window, the hands of the cook, the fresh herbs bundled on a cutting board.
The way the recipe is written is an important factor in deciding to whether or not I choose to follow it. If a book has poorly written recipes, I will never cook from it.
Is needing pictures over text a comment on the fact that we all spend too much time glued to our screens? People are too used to accustomed to turning to their screens to learn to do anything. Call me old-fashioned, I do think social media has it's place, but there is nothing like curling up with a hot mug, a new cookbook & a stack of post-its to mark the pages of future meals.
I laughed at that last line. That is exactly what I do and I love that part. Even the smell of a new book thrills me. Yes, atmospheric shots and landscape shots add so much but also add to the cost. These days the author almost always has to pay for the photos.
I, too, am a word person with publishing industry experience and most of my cookbooks DO NOT have photos in them; and if they do, it's a nice, glossy one at the beginning of a chapter. And I'm fine with that. If I want to see a photo of a finished dish, I can always google. 🤷🏾♀️
I won't comment further at the risk of being someone who shakes her fist at the clouds. 🤓
Love that last line, Tiffany, and also the first. You must have a lot of older cookbooks if they don't have lots of photos. In the "olden days" they were printed on different paper and "ganged," which means they appeared all together, sewn into the book somewhere, divorced from the recipes.
Definitely. That was a normal design trend during that period. I never liked it, but I understand why they did it. They could print the rest of the content on cheaper paper.
I married a food photographer and I love pictures of completed dishes and ingredients, but I would never let the absence of an image stop me from cooking a recipe. I can tell by the list of ingredients and preparation if I’ll like it and there’s no way I’d feel confident cooking a recipe based solely on a picture. I’m a text kind of woman first. Thanks for this interesting post!
On one hand, I understand that people appreciate photos of dishes they're making. But as someone who lent their hands to many Cooking Light photos when I worked there, I don't know how much you can learn from a picture that had a dozen hands involved in creating it. I remember getting reader comments about their homemade dishes not looking the same as the photos. Of course, they're not going to, unless you have the right lighting, photo editor, food and/ or prop stylist.
I understand wanting to know you "got it right". But unless every recipe is accompanied with step-by-step photos, you technically don't know if you're getting it right along the way. (And even then, you don't really.) That's why I appreciate the folks who insisted on visual cues and sounds while cooking and encouraging folks to taste as they go. Just because your final product looks like a photo doesn't mean you'll want to eat it. (I'm having flashbacks of holiday photo shoots with turkeys, cakes and all the fixings looking pretty, even after sitting out for hours.)
And this is probably the former live culinary producer in me, but if you're a visual-learner, watching someone cook a dish (or cooking with them) in real-time is the best way to know you've gotten it right.
I think people forget how cooking is still a little bit of trial and error. You may have skipped a step, or you let something cook for too long, so your dish wasn't the best. Or your technique needs improvement. So, you try again, see what you could improve, and decide whether or not you want to keep making that recipe. Sometimes, I think we've become so consumed with shots of beautifully styled food we're afraid of making something ugly, yet delicious.
I really like all this perspective from someone who has helped create all those professional food photos. Maybe today, with so many "perfect" photos online and in cookbooks, and with the increased number of times we all eat restaurant food, there is way too much pressure to create something that looks (and tastes) really good.
I’m an avid cookbook collector and I also develop and photograph recipes for publications and my own work. Given that recipes have increasingly been primarily sourced on the internet/social media, where they’re always accompanied by photos (and often process shots), that’s become an essential and expected part of the language of recipe sharing. I fully get why the majority of cookbook buyers would want photos for each recipe, and I honestly wish it was more economically feasible to shoot and print more photos. I still love my books without photos (especially for research and stories), but when I’m planning a menu, I increasingly reach for the well-photographed books for the inspiration and guidance the images provide.
Very much agreed about that! I do think a truly excellent cookbook still finds its audience even without photos (so many examples in this thread), and after I commented thought about the huge success of Salt Fat Acid Heat and its use of illustration instead of photos. (And love your newsletter and this discussion!)
I do like having one good shot of the finished product, but more seems unnecessary. I find that directions laid out in a clear and simple format is most enticing
My kind of recipe reader!
And what about illustrations v. photos? Sometimes a drawing—particularly yours, Vicki—is inspiring
Thanks, Amie!
It worked for Salt Fat Acid Heat!
I think that illustrations add a human touch to cookbooks. Now, I love me a great beauty shot - but as a food photographer I feel we often do a disservice to readers and potential cooks by presenting an image that they will never be able to replicate. Back to the beauty shot, as a photographer, I can appreciate what it took to capture the image so often I am viewing it from more of a “fine art” perspective rather than a reference. I also feel that images whether photographic or illustrative MUST add to the story of the recipe.
That is a realistic approach, to think of the beauty shot as a piece of art.
Actually I love that photo of a pot, even if you cannot see what's inside. I am biased, as I am not only a food writer but also a food photographer, so when I get a cookbook I always look at the photos. For me it's not about needing the pictures to be able to follow the recipe but I like them to create a story and to convery a certain mood. That's why I loved your photo od the pot, it talks about a serene moment.
I have cookbooks that I admire for their design and photography but barely cook their recipies, if I am honest. Others, don't have many photos or they are not very good, but I love the way the recipies are explained and so I keep on coming back to them.
I loved that image of the pot also! You’re right. It does covey a mood. Serenity, but also comfort and safety.
Good points about the photos creating a story and conveying a mood. That is different from peering at the dish and trying to recreate it.
Yes, we all have cookbooks we don't cook from, but that doesn't draw away from their value.
As a word person too, I hate to say it, but I only ever pick recipes out of a cookbook that are accompanied by a photo. I want to see what the dish might look like, before deciding. The only exception might be soups, sauces, dressings, toppings etc...where clearly a photo won't really help much! I appreciate it's a costly production exercise, but like with any project, surely quality should be more of priority than quantity. So perhaps a reduction in the number of recipes might be a bonus.
Yes, that might be exactly what it's coming to. A collaborator emailed me today to say that she's just signing a cookbook deal where every recipe will have a photo -- so that means fewer recipes.
I couldn't agree more with this. I really appreciate and value a well written recipe, I've written quite a few myself, but when I think about all my go-to recipes in my cookbook collection, they are invariably the illustrated ones. I perhaps subconsciously think that they must be the best ones in the book if the editor/author has picked them to be shot. Conversely, if I'm looking for something to do with a specific ingredient (I often use CKBK for that https://app.ckbk.com/), and I find a recipe that isn't illustrated, that wouldn't deter me from cooking it, it's just that in the usual run of things, I might have overlooked that recipe because of the lack of photo. I also think there is some middle-class 'Elizabeth David books don't have photos'-type snobbery around this subject which I really don't like.
Hah. I bet many people don't even know who Elizabeth David is these days. Back then, it was a legitimate style to write recipes as narrative and not have photos, but those days are long gone. Sometimes people try to bring them back and fail.
Way more important to me to get the words and recipe correct than have a photo!! I want the dish to taste awesome more than look awesome. This IMHO is a comment on how much more important image is over substance. I don’t like it.
Hah! I like your attitude. Such a good point about image over substance.
It's not that I won't cook without a picture, it's that I am more likely to be interested in something if there is one. I get that not all recipes in a book can have a picture with it (because it will be 600 pages!), but like a few other comments, I appreciate and admire photography.
I also think for more complex recipes, a reference photos is helpful. I recipe tested something for an upcoming cookbook using spices and techniques from a region that were very unfamiliar to me. I found the reference photo helpful as a tester, but I think it's helpful for people who are maybe unfamiliar with something (process, ingredients, techniques) so they can say, "hey that looks good, I will take the leap into the unknown and try it!"
Certainly, photos are helpful. Especially as a reference. And they are beautiful, usually.
I agree, there should be a photo to represent each recipe. Photos help give beginning cooks the confidence they need to tackle a new recipe. And they give anyone who has cognitive challenges or limited energy more context.
Perhaps your next cookbook will have fewer recipes and more photos then. I always tell my clients to go for 100 recipes minimum in their cookbook proposals, but that will change, I guess.
My forthcoming cookbook has 76 recipes and about 100 photos.
That is the way it has been for a long time. Besides, individual cookboo authors can't afford to pay for 100 photos.
Yep, the OOP costs have been consequential, but I just wanted to provide every tool possible because it will be a resource for the chronic illness community.
I've written a cookbook. I had testers, not professional testers. Not one of them asked for a reference photo.
I am also a foodstylist. I don't think our techniques of not cooking ingredients to the time indicated in a recipe in order to photograph a beautiful presentation is helpful if you are truly looking at the image for guidance.
I have worked with someone who becomes aggravated when the results from a recipe do not look like the photo. I always guide by encouraging her to learn cooking techniques if she insists on using "the source"
Last I learned to cook Indian cuisine from Ms Jaffrey's An Introduction to Indian Cooking not a single photo and it taught me well.
I was hoping someone would reference her book, and others that have no photos. But maybe you feel comfortable with that because you are not a beginning cook.
People definitely get aggravated when their dish does not look like the photo. And why would it? It has not been professionally styled!
It was actually challenging since I do not use recipes. They slow me down. I went slowly, read and re read. She's a treasure
Nothing wrong with that. You were learning something new, clearly.
The same for me with Joy of Cooking by the Rombauers, Mastering the Art of French Cooking by Julia Child, and The Classic Italian Cookbook by Marcella Hazan. They all taught me well and not a single photo in any of them!
It does make me wonder: if Joy of Cooking does another edition, will there be photos? I bet there's more pressure on them than ever these days.
Oh I hope not! I think the spidery and delicate illustrations are so fitting to the book.
Agree. The Joy of Cooking would be massive with images!
"Serious" cookbooks didn't include photography until the 80s. I like to think of Martha Stewart's Entertaining, 1982 as the one to set us off in that direction. Before that, of course, the corporate cookbooks -- Good Housekeeping, Betty Crocker, Better Homes and Gardens, et al -- had been including color photos for decades. We still get the occasional serious cookbook that is eschewing photos. I think of Alice Waters' The Art of Simple Food putting itself in the group of classics by going photoless 1-color in the 21st century.
True. Also Samin Nosrat's doorstop of a book, Salt Fat Acid Heat, without photos. It still managed to sell thousands of copies and become a classic.
In the early 1980’s I wrote Food Processor Cookery, published by HP Press. Their philosophy was How-to photos and a finished photo of every recipe, approx 150 recipes per book. The book sold 125,000 copies the first year due mainly due to the photos and only a “ one liner” intro below the title. Photography was expensive even then. Today’s verbose recipe copy is usually skipped over and useless.
Susan Draudt, Food Stylist
Fascinating, Susan! Yes, some cookbooks benefit from process shots, definitely. The Pioneer Woman's cookbooks always feature them, but she is a big star with huge advances and she can request that format successfully. I didn't think about how today's recipes are longer. More explaining for people who don't know how to cook.
A photo might pique my interest in a recipe, but I’m a word person and either the title, the description in the headnote, or even the list of ingredients is just as likely to grab my attention. I view most recipe photos as aspirational, because it won’t look like that if I make it. If there are steps that are easier to show than tell, by all means give me process photos. But lack of photos is not a dealbreaker for me, in most cases…but they might help.
This is how I feel too. "Aspirational" is a good way to describe most photos today.
This topic really frustrates me! In all my years of writing and teaching, I find that new cooks may think they need the photo, but having the photo actually creates more anxiety for them. When their dish doesn’t look like the picture, they think they’ve failed and that causes even more anxiety in the kitchen. The ‘look and cook’ books can be great because they are showing processes and new cooks really may not have an idea of what creamed butter and sugar should look like. When I think of cookbook photography, it reminds me of when I saw the first issue of Martha Stewart’s magazine. I instantly dubbed both the magazine and the photos as ‘aspirational.’ I think she’s had an enormous influence over the role of photography in food. What we make at home never looks like the picture. As a cookbook author, I work very hard to make the instructions clear. I picture myself sitting on the cook’s shoulder, advising them through the process. As for the price, yikes. It certainly drives up the price of the book. Many photographers are paid more than the author. Of course the author has the potential to make more with a big bestseller. (Oh dear, I could write a 1,000 word essay on this!!)
Really good points about new cooks being stressed out by beautiful photos. I didn't think about the role Martha Stewart has had in promoting tons of photos, but that's a good piont too. Most authors do not write bestsellers though. Those are the exceptions.
While I have purchased cookbooks solely on the beauty of the photography, I don't feel that every recipe warrants a picture. I can see how it is appropriate for some steps but requiring it for every dish is a bit much. Often the photos I love are not even of the dish itself. It's the view out the kitchen window, the hands of the cook, the fresh herbs bundled on a cutting board.
The way the recipe is written is an important factor in deciding to whether or not I choose to follow it. If a book has poorly written recipes, I will never cook from it.
Is needing pictures over text a comment on the fact that we all spend too much time glued to our screens? People are too used to accustomed to turning to their screens to learn to do anything. Call me old-fashioned, I do think social media has it's place, but there is nothing like curling up with a hot mug, a new cookbook & a stack of post-its to mark the pages of future meals.
I laughed at that last line. That is exactly what I do and I love that part. Even the smell of a new book thrills me. Yes, atmospheric shots and landscape shots add so much but also add to the cost. These days the author almost always has to pay for the photos.
*deep sigh*
I, too, am a word person with publishing industry experience and most of my cookbooks DO NOT have photos in them; and if they do, it's a nice, glossy one at the beginning of a chapter. And I'm fine with that. If I want to see a photo of a finished dish, I can always google. 🤷🏾♀️
I won't comment further at the risk of being someone who shakes her fist at the clouds. 🤓
Love that last line, Tiffany, and also the first. You must have a lot of older cookbooks if they don't have lots of photos. In the "olden days" they were printed on different paper and "ganged," which means they appeared all together, sewn into the book somewhere, divorced from the recipes.
A lot of them are older (1970s-1990s, some early aughts). I found some hidden gems at thrift shops, used book sales, little libraries, etc.
Definitely. That was a normal design trend during that period. I never liked it, but I understand why they did it. They could print the rest of the content on cheaper paper.
I married a food photographer and I love pictures of completed dishes and ingredients, but I would never let the absence of an image stop me from cooking a recipe. I can tell by the list of ingredients and preparation if I’ll like it and there’s no way I’d feel confident cooking a recipe based solely on a picture. I’m a text kind of woman first. Thanks for this interesting post!
Oh good. There are stil some of us around. But we're not in our 20s and 30s, and maybe that's a different audience that is online all the time.
I’m sure of it! Although hubby just turned 55 and he prefers the visual. But he’s a visual artist so I guess that explains why.
On one hand, I understand that people appreciate photos of dishes they're making. But as someone who lent their hands to many Cooking Light photos when I worked there, I don't know how much you can learn from a picture that had a dozen hands involved in creating it. I remember getting reader comments about their homemade dishes not looking the same as the photos. Of course, they're not going to, unless you have the right lighting, photo editor, food and/ or prop stylist.
I understand wanting to know you "got it right". But unless every recipe is accompanied with step-by-step photos, you technically don't know if you're getting it right along the way. (And even then, you don't really.) That's why I appreciate the folks who insisted on visual cues and sounds while cooking and encouraging folks to taste as they go. Just because your final product looks like a photo doesn't mean you'll want to eat it. (I'm having flashbacks of holiday photo shoots with turkeys, cakes and all the fixings looking pretty, even after sitting out for hours.)
And this is probably the former live culinary producer in me, but if you're a visual-learner, watching someone cook a dish (or cooking with them) in real-time is the best way to know you've gotten it right.
I think people forget how cooking is still a little bit of trial and error. You may have skipped a step, or you let something cook for too long, so your dish wasn't the best. Or your technique needs improvement. So, you try again, see what you could improve, and decide whether or not you want to keep making that recipe. Sometimes, I think we've become so consumed with shots of beautifully styled food we're afraid of making something ugly, yet delicious.
I really like all this perspective from someone who has helped create all those professional food photos. Maybe today, with so many "perfect" photos online and in cookbooks, and with the increased number of times we all eat restaurant food, there is way too much pressure to create something that looks (and tastes) really good.
I’m an avid cookbook collector and I also develop and photograph recipes for publications and my own work. Given that recipes have increasingly been primarily sourced on the internet/social media, where they’re always accompanied by photos (and often process shots), that’s become an essential and expected part of the language of recipe sharing. I fully get why the majority of cookbook buyers would want photos for each recipe, and I honestly wish it was more economically feasible to shoot and print more photos. I still love my books without photos (especially for research and stories), but when I’m planning a menu, I increasingly reach for the well-photographed books for the inspiration and guidance the images provide.
Those are valid points, Sonya. The big players can afford a photo for each recipe and process shots in cookbooks, but not the rest of us.
Very much agreed about that! I do think a truly excellent cookbook still finds its audience even without photos (so many examples in this thread), and after I commented thought about the huge success of Salt Fat Acid Heat and its use of illustration instead of photos. (And love your newsletter and this discussion!)
I wrote a cookbook for beginners. It had no photos. It won James Beard and Julia awards.
Yes! Yes! Thank you Elaine.
But I was also thinking, what year was that? Things have changed.
Also, a client of mine who didn't have photos told me later that her publisher said it didn't sell enough copies for that reason.
1994