post off: do cookbooks need photos?
As a food editor who scans a new cookbook daily, I’m beginning to develop an intolerance for image-less books. I admit, I’ll still always reach for my copy of Joy of Cooking (despite its lack of photos) when I find myself a bit lost in my kitchen , and there are certainly a list of others that I’ll let slide because of their place in the “cookbook canon” so to speak. But that said, I’m really pretty peeved when I get a seemingly fun new cookbook and then find it’s void of any pictures! I’m so much more inclined to try my hand charting new and unknown recipe territory when I have a picture of the end result to aim for. Recently when trying to pick out a cookbook as a gift, I hemmed and hawed over whether or not to pick a highly praised book by a well-regarded chef that had no photography or, a less hyped, image-heavy one. I eventually went with my gut and bought the book sans photos. I’m happy with my choice as the book seemed to go over well with its receiver, however, had it been filled with gorgeous photos of the food that sounded oh-so-delicious, it would have been no contest. My minutes spent deliberating would have likely been passed drooling over delectable food porn instead. So Shelterrific readers, we’ve talked about our favorites, but what are your thoughts on the picture debate? Should a cookbook have food photography, or is a well-written recipe enough to whet your taste buds? — Erica P.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:40 am
Pictures are a must! I read cookbooks like novels and the pictures just add to the enjoyment.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:53 am
I prefer a book with photos but I am not a good cook, perhaps a more experienced cook doesn’t need to rely on pictures as much.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:54 am
Pictures are essential. Since I am not a food connosseur (sp?) I need to see the finished product so I know what I am aiming for. Plus, I am a very visual person anyway!
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:06 am
I think that photos of the food help to fill in some of our senses when thinking about what we want to eat. With just the recipe, we only have our imagination to rely on. But, with a picture, we can see it….it helps to guess what it might taste like.
I’m the same about recipes online. If there is a photo of it, I’m more likely to try it than just reading a recipe. I never realized it until you brought it up.
Bring on the photos, people!
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:13 am
Just curious, how do people feel about looking at recipes online without photos?
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:16 am
Staff Meals from Chanterelle by David Waltuck has no pictures and completely changed my mind regarding the necessity of pictures in a cookbook. If food tastes this good - you’re cooking from it enough to get your own visuals.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
I guess it depends what you use a cookbook for. If you read them like novels or travel journals and keep them on your night stand then I can see the appeal of photos.
I use them to cook. There is no need for pictures in cookbooks. A few exceptions might be books about cake decorating or vegetable carving. How to Cook Everything by Mark Bitman, the New York Times Cookbook, Joy of Cooking, Mastering the Art of French Cooking, none of them have photos and you could spend your entire life cooking from them.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Yes, yes, yes. Now I have purchased a few cookbooks that don’t have photos, or that have minimal photos, so I guess I break my own rules. However, these are mostly focused on (bread) baking books or “how to cook everything” — reference books really. Everything else must have photos. Isn’t 99% of the fun of looking through your cookbook collection about drooling over the beautiful foods?
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:56 am
I will not buy a cookbook unless it has tons and tons of photos. I need to see what I’m making!! It’s also frustrating since I’m gluten free and gluten free cook books are not exactly in large supply- but I still wont buy one unless its got tons of pictures, thats just how stubborn I am.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
I’m not an experienced cook but have a pretty good working knowledge of what things will look like based on the recipe and its relationship to similar-sounding recipes. A thoughtfully written recipe doesn’t need a photograph, frankly. I use “The Joy of Cooking” constantly and it doesn’t have a single image, which doesn’t bother me. Similarly, my new favorite cookbook, Nigel Slater’s “The Kitchen Diaries,” is thin on pictures too, at least artfully staged ones. If you have an imagination and all the directions in front of you, simply and cogently presented, what does a picture add? Especially one that’s been styled out the wazoo by a photographer and food stylist using their bag of visual trickery?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
Since I decide what to make based on pictures, they are a must in any cookbook I buy. The more pictures the better. Plus, then I know what my food is *supposed* to look like when I finish. Mine never does look like the picture.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
I’m for pictures, and dare I say it, chat. Time is limited, and I love to sit for a few minutes (or stand at the counter) with a cup of tea and a slice of bread (or a pint of ice cream and a brownie), and dip into a cookbook for a few minutes. I think a picture helps flick my brain into “ah, food” mode quickly. You eat with your eyes! Sipping coffee, looking at a picture, and reading a little about the recipe are like having a chat with the author. (Versus having a conversation with a real, live human being.) Cookbooks without pictures certainly have their place for reference, or of course actually cooking, but I spend more time, on average, on a book with pictures.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:13 am
I was going to say that I need pictures, until I realized that most of my favorite cookbooks don’t have any pictures at all. In fact, I hardly cook from my picture-laden books, probably because I get distracted by all the pretty photos–or maybe because the perfectionist in me is intimidated by the highly styled images.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
I like pictures but I don’t need them. Sometimes pictures make me interested in a dish that I normally wouldn’t think to make just from reading the recipe because the picture is appealling but I can normally tell from reading a (good, well written) recipe how it would turn out.
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Rachel said what I was just going to say. All of it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I’m a bad cook and I think that pictures help out a lot for someone with my ’skill’ level in the kitchen.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
The pictures are great when I’m looking for something to make for guests. Of course it is not required for cooking, but they sure help the hunt for new recipes.
http://www.redlanternstyle.com
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I’m all for as many glossy photos as you can pack in! Having said that, it’s annoying when pictures are just used as filler instead of adding value. It’s often very helpful to see the finished product or a complicated step along the way, but I din’t need just pictures of eggs cooking, etc.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Well of course they need pictures! Plus I’d be out of a job if they didn’t have some.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:44 am
I won’t even buy a cookbook that doesn’t have a picture of at least 75% of the recipes listed, and really I want 100%. I do pull out my “How to Cook Everything” cookbook as a reference frequently, but only for cooking things that don’t really need a recipe. If I can’t see waht the end result looks like, I can’t get excited about even reading the recipe to see if it sounds good. I love Donna Hay and Ina Garten - and Martha’s hors d’ouerve book! I bought my husband an excellent Indian cookbook for Christmas and the pictures have been so important in that one because otherwise we would have no idea what he’s making.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:23 am
My library contains both, but for some reason I only cook from the ones without pictures. Perhaps because these are the ones written with authoritative voices?
October 8th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Another perspective–as a librarian I have to periodically go through and weed out old books from our collection.
In terms of cookbooks, a huge problem is that when books with a lot of photos get old, something happens to the color balance in the pictures, and the formerly appetizing food just ends up looking disgusting.
You can see this effect at http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards.html –I’m sure these pictures were quite tasty-looking at one time!
So my preference is for cookbooks with illustrations rather than photos, like my all-time favorites How To Cook Everything and America’s Test Kitchen’s The Best Recipe.
October 13th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I just received a great Greek cookbook without pictures–but it is beautifully WRITTEN…which makes it a “joy for cooking.”
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:38 am
As a self proclaimed foodie from Williamsburg, VA I have to say that I think the images of a dish inspire us even more to prepare the dish.
the picture also helps us to understand how the author intended the dish to look which can sometimes be hard to figure out.