• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / A book report — mull survey

A book report — mull survey

February 11, 2017 JimK Leave a Comment

This is part of a series about my experiences in publishing a book. The series starts here.

In yesterday’s post, I took apart a copy of Staccato, and learned that the reason  the pages weren’t laying flat was that the part of the mull in the spine area was too stiff to allow it to do so. I don’t relish cutting up books, but I thought that maybe I’d learned enough from yesterday’s dissection that I’d be able to learn how other binderies handle this issue with less invasive techniques.

I started with a book I had ordered a while back, but never opened. 

 

This book has many pages per signature, which should in theory keep it from lying flat:

But when you open up the book, even with no break-in, the spine bows nicely, and the pages lie pretty flat:

Next up, the 1987 edition of Frank’s masterwork:

Note that the spine is bowed the wrong way, which would actually help if it were flexible enough, but it isn’t:

A bit of force makes no difference; it’s as if the spine were glued down.

Next, the 2000 edition of the same book:

The spine on this one bows just fine:

Now, a Eugene Richards book:

This one has images that span the gutter:

And the spine bows quite nicely:

How about an older book:

This one has had a lot of use. At first glance, it looks like the mull works differently, since the headband is straight and the spine itself is bowed:

If we flip the book over and look at the other end of the spine, we can see that the headband is missing. Now it looks like the one on the other end just came loose:

The glue in this older, well used, book can no longer hold the quires to the mull. However, the stitching is still holding, and the book is in no danger of falling apart.

I did find several books that curved the mull in the other direction when the book is closed:

This should reduce tension of the mull when the book is open:

All in all, it appears that no exotic techniques are necessary to get the spine to bow properly. It’s just that the part of the mull in the spine region is too stiff in my book. To be sure, this is a acceptable, if not perfect,  situation. The pages do indeed lie fairly flat after the book in broken in. But it’s not perfect, and it looks like it didn’t have to be that way.

 

 

 

 

The Last Word

← A book report — disassembly A book report — disassembling a Blurb book →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.