What is DK Style (Publishing)? How is DK style expressed? Can you introduce it in detail? Thank you here.

Speaking of "DK", people who make color books are no strangers.

This year happens to be the 30th year of this publishing house. Compared with Anglo-American Publishing Group, it will always be a century-old brand, and 30 years should only be regarded as a little brother. DK started as a "studio" 30 years ago, and soon became the first brand of visual reference books in the world, with an annual turnover of NT$ 100 billion (1999 figure).

On the occasion of major copyright transactions, you will always see DK active. There are indeed many publishers bigger than DK in the world, but not many can sell foreign language copyrights of almost all books like DK.

In the traditional publishing world, everyone is competing to write books, and the author is the key to publishing competition. Most of the great authors have been mastered by big publishing houses, and it is impossible for small clubs to stand out. Why can DK shine in the publishing industry? An important reason is that she has opened up a new battlefield outside written books.

Kindersley, the founder of DK, was born in graphic design. He has amazing insight into the essence of image reading and a unique grasp of the tools of art design. So DK combined these two things and created a visual revolution of graphic books.

Although the technology of color graphic books didn't start from Kindersley, it was really fully developed in his hands. DK has expanded the range of color books from traditional picture books, picture books and children's books at an extremely fast speed. Any publishing field that needs "knowledge affinity" has become the market that DK will enter. Science and technology, knowledge, maps, encyclopedias, DIY, picture books, dictionaries, bibles, art, life, gardening, cooking, preschool books, travel guides ... You can see the classic layout of DK in almost any non-literary book, with no pictures on a white background.

DK style shows the unprecedented affinity of traditional picture books in knowledge dissemination, and also shows the extraordinary potential of transcending language and cultural barriers. Therefore, DK has not only achieved success in the domestic retail market, but also won the favor of buyers in other languages in international copyright transactions. In the early years, some colleagues regarded "DK style" as a derogatory term, mocking it as just a beautiful thing. However, as DK books show more and more hard editing skills, this rather sour criticism disappears.

The success of DK is so sensational that almost everyone in the global industry wants to follow suit. Twenty years ago, learning DK might be a bit difficult (Photoshop didn't appear yet). 10 years ago, desktop typesetting and personal image drawing software had gradually matured, and learning DK design was absolutely simple-just "drawing on a white background". Who wouldn't?

But strangely, DK's design performance is so simple and easy to understand, condescending, and the required images, special effects and typesetting software are so cheap that almost no one can afford them compared with the scale of millions of Taiwan dollars needed by typesetting companies in those years. But from then until now, you have never seen any company that can really achieve DK's achievements and catch up with DK's extraordinary affinity for explaining knowledge (yes, it is not easy for anyone aged nine to ninety-nine to read any serious book with a huge amount of knowledge and gain something).

Even though you know that memorizing pictures on a white background is the key to forming DK style, you can't find many people who can really follow this style.

There are three possibilities: maybe what I said is wrong, and no one wants to learn DK at all; It is also possible that everyone has surpassed DK and there is no need to follow; However, I think the most likely thing is the seemingly simple style, but there are great obstacles behind it. If you don't really understand the meaning of that style, you can't learn it.

Do you think this is too mysterious? Listen to me.

For the image suitable for back removal, the subject target needs a complete and clear outline. It's easier said than done. Take the natural theme as an example. Almost every scholar and expert who specializes in animals and plants has a lot of positive films, negative films and slides in his research room (someone once told me that I have a lot of films here, and dozens of them are fine). However, there are thousands of films that are really suitable for rote learning. Some are lack of depth of field, the stamens are clear, and the petals are actually burnt off; Some pictures have some details cut off, the tail is not photographed, or the tentacles are cut off.

Of course, outdoor photography is not better than indoor photography, and biological photography is not better than still life photography (biological photography is still controversial in ethics). More importantly, the purpose of shooting is to express the characteristics of species or the relationship between species and their living environment. Different purposes will also produce different views.

The demand of "using it to remember pictures" has never been considered by academic researchers and eco-photographers (if anyone has, please contact me). This is not a technical problem (in fact, many scholars have reached the level of experts in photography), but at the beginning of photography, DK style has never been thought of.

Therefore, it is difficult for most scholars, experts and nature photographers to use the images of species accumulated in their hands for decades to make DK-style books. Those images are very suitable for making calendars, cards, academic reports, traditional illustrations and even taking part in photo competitions, but unfortunately they are not suitable for memory.

Why do you have to recite it? Anyone who has studied photography a little and understands the principle of composition knows that if you want to emphasize the theme, you'd better avoid the messy background when shooting. Kindersley reinforced this theory. Since we want to avoid background interference, we should directly remove the background and delete the background "noise", and the cleanest and pure theme information will naturally appear on the page. Sometimes pictures need to express the connection with the environment, which is another matter. )

This enhanced version of the composition theory is neither complicated nor profound. In fact, everyone understands. The problem is not that we don't understand, but the attitude of our editors to this theory.

If you think this idea is too simple, too common sense, unlike a gentleman, unlike the key to DK's success. Naturally, you won't be too persistent about it. You can't help looking at thousands of ready-made movies in the scholars' research room and thinking, those movies are also beautiful. Why do you have to recite it?

On the contrary. If you know that Mr. Kindersley's idea is simple, but it is inevitable, then you should start with the photography project and start from scratch for every movie. So you will face a long time-consuming and unpredictable editing road in the future (natural photography is not like commercial photography, anyone can plan the shooting schedule).

Why does DK lead coquettish for 30 years, but there are so many resource-rich big groups and old brands around the world, but no one can surpass them?

I think it's a matter of faith after all. If you believe in the power of DK style, you will go all out and forge ahead; If you don't believe in it, then you will adapt to reality-so you lose your faith and DK.

※ ※ ※

In 2000, due to the financial crisis, DK was forced to change hands and sold to Pearson Group in Britain, so Kindersley left the company he founded.

Kindersley's departure brought a tragic ending to his legendary publishing career. However, the DK style he pioneered not only continued to shine in the new and old centuries, but also set a Bemont obstacle for the global publishing industry. Even this year, I chatted with DK executives in Frankfurt, and I found that this obstacle is still a benchmark and an eternal test for them.

Well, I hope the end of this paragraph won't give you a hint that "since the DK operation failed, the DK style is not suitable". The success of editing and the failure of management are two different problems. Management is another major, and it is even more difficult to operate a company with an annual turnover of10 billion. Pearson can take over DK because he is a super group, and the knowledge of group management is their special skill, but the editing technology of DK is something they have never had. )