This is question we've asked ourselves a few times as we've flipped through cookbooks. Do we gloss over text and gravitate towards the recipes that are pictured? Does it make us more wary of trying a new recipe if we can't see what it looks like in the end? All of the recipes here at the Kitchn come with photos, of course, but that's not always the case, especially on the web.
Cookbooks, magazines, and websites are all over the place. There's Cook's Illustrated, which sticks to its black-and-white format, no splashy color photos. Their illustrations fit nicely with their mission, though; they break down recipes and evaluate each step and ingredient like scientists, so the erudite aesthetic kind of works. Plus, their recipes come with exhaustive instructions.
With cookbooks that only picture a few recipes for each chapter, we do tend to focus on those that are shown. And we think pictures are especially important on some websites, where you aren't exactly certain where a recipe came from or who's recommending it. While we know the recipes on the new website Cookstr (which we wrote about here) are from chefs, it's still frustrating to click on one that sounds promising, only to get a stock picture of a bowl of lemons or a single artichoke.
Overall, we think it depends on the recipe. Something pretty straightforward that we're familiar with? No picture necessary. Something exotic or involving a tricky step? Photos, please. And we definitely prefer photos with baked goods, since the browning of a crust or the consistency of a frosting is better seen than read.
What about you?
Related: Food Photography: Tips for Newbies
(Image: Flickr member itstimhwang licensed for use under Creative Commons)
What Drink Do You Order at a Bad Bar? 25 Food Writers Share Their Safety Drinks
How To Cook Tender, Chewy Wheat Berries on the Stovetop
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Red-and-Pink-Stripe...
Must-See Small Cool Homes: Week Two
Beth's Romantic & Retro Residence
For magazines and blogs I really need a picture but I've found over the years that for some reason the best cookbooks usually have the fewest pictures.
I like being inspired by pictures... Don't need pictures of the final result from a classic Julia Child recipe, but sure enjoy seeing everything else... Afterall, we eat first with our eyes, and imaging a meal is part of the fun of cooking it.
And what would Claudia Fleming's The Last Course be without pictures?
I much prefer recipes with pictures, but I have used recipes that didn't have them - notably from Cook's Illustrated. I guess it somewhat depends on the source and how reliable it is. But the pictures are so helpful in so many ways - to determine if you did it right, to inspire you for plating and presentation, etc.
digigirl, i don't know anything about "cook's illustrated", but just the name your comment that they didn't have pictures cracked me up!
illustrated but no illustrations? :)
maybe i'm too easily amused...
I love having pictures with recipes, and definitely get more excited about cookbooks with a lot of lovely photos. For me, though, the biggest selling point is the description! I want to hear the story behind the recipe - why should I make it? How much did you like it? How did the author come up with it, or what culinary tradition is it from? I've found I'm much more likely to make a dish if there's a good sales pitch along with it. If it's just a list of ingredients, not so much.
I enjoy having a picture to make sure I did it right. And I hate it if a picture shows substitutes that don't appear in the recipe- I mean, if you're going to show the dish, show the dish done the way it was written, explain the alternatives, or don't bother.
I like to have pictures as a guide when baking or making a complex dish.
It's not a deal breaker if the recipe doesn't have one, but I'm probably more likely to try a recipe that includes a picture.
it left out my plus symbol. it was supposed to read 'the name PLUS your comment'.
If the food is too styled and doesn't accurately reflect how the dish will turn out, then it's just frustrating, because you know in a home kitchen you will never reproduce something like that. So for that reason, I mostly prefer no photos in cookbooks. I understand magazines and websites really need to have photos, though.
However, if it's a really tricky recipe (especially if it's a dessert), I like to see the process and the end result, so I know I'm on the right track.
I think that cookbooks that are full of photos are just really overwhelming. I have a few like this and I just never pick them up. The books that I have that have a few photos (in photo sections) are more my taste. It may have inspired me to buy the book, but I rarely look at the photos once I start cooking from the book.
On the other hand, I often love illustrations (not photos) to show me how to carve a roast or do something unusual. Thus Cooks Illustrated is a fav.
I love cookbooks with photos to motivate me, but they're not necessary. I tend to find them most useful when baking and greatly appreciate photos of key stages as well as the final product.
I don't need pictures to tempt me to try a recipe. They are nice, however, for explaining techniques, such as how to grip something when carving or break down a tricky squash. It's nice to see a step by step picture so I can learn how. But the finished product? Not necessary.
For any other Star Wars fans that saw the picture, read the post, and thought, "What?! You tease me, but don't tell me what cookbook that's from?" - here's the answer
"Wookiee Cookies: A Star Wars Cookbook" by Robin Davis (It includes a recipe for Princess Leia Danish Dos, ha!)
There's also a "The Star Wars Cookbook II -Darth Malt and More Galactic Recipes".
As for pictures - I don't need them when I'm picking a recipe. But I do tend to choose cook books based on the pictures that are in them. I don't need one for every recipe, but a few handfuls of pictures are nice. Williams-Sonoma books can always be counted on for gorgeous pictures.
I also appreciate pictures of the process, not necessarily the end product. It just makes the book feel more intended to be used, not just a coffee table book. Giada's books, if you can ignore the cleavage shots, show a lot of pictures of her actually cooking.
And pictures can turn me off to a cookbook as well. For example, "Eat Feed Autumn Winter" does not include page numbers on the pictures, so you have to go to the index for some of them. That's just lack of attention to detail.
BITTTMAANNN!!
How to Cook Everything Vegetarian. One Thousand and eight pages and not a single picture. Plus, it reads a little stream-of-consciousness-ish.
A picture says a lot to me. A cookbook that has no picture or diagram turns me off and I am not inclined to buy it or cook from it. I found the "Santa Monica Farmers cook book to be one example. Well written and no doubt the author is well experienced, but I would have preferred some photos or diagrams to encourage me to cook from it. I bought the book on line,not knowing that it lacked photos.
I have two resources with no pictures - Julia Child and the Dean & DeLuca cookbook. Even with D&D I find that it's harder to pick out a recipe, though it reads very well as a book.
I think there are two benefits - you see what the finished product is supposed to be (drawing you in while also providing a guide), and there's a break in the flow so you can more easily scan the book when looking for ideas. I'll flip through books looking for ideas and a book that's too dense doesn't lend itself to that method of recipe finding, while not having an idea of what the recipe is going to produce makes it harder to evaluate whether you feel like eating it or if it will go well with the rest of the menu.
Websites and magazines have to give photos, and multi-photo breakdowns are superb for the very ambitious recipes.
Honestly, pictures are often what entice me to buy a cookbook or try a recipe. I do have some cookbooks and recipes I use that don't have pictures, but I often find myself wishing they did--or that they had pictures for everything. I also really don't like it when there are 5-10 pictures stuck somewhere together away from their recipes.
For me, it is worse when an online recipe does not have a photo than if a cookbook does not.
Also, as an aside, it really bugs me when there are multiple things in a picture and they never tell you what everything is! Or when the page number isn't listed with the picture.
(One of my favorite cookbooks ever is Morimoto, because it has great photos of almost everything and the recipes are great inspiration.)
so many recipes, so little time. pictures that make me salivate mean that the recipe is more likely to get made.
The Wookiee Cookie cookbook is charming. My brother has it. I believe it came with stickers - "Use the fork, Luke" for instance.
Abigailbelle - I just saw your comment. That is funny, now that you mention it!!
But Cook's Illustrated really is that - it's often illustrated (drawings) instead of having photos. They do have some photos in their cookbooks and online, but not always.
A picture says a thousand words and we do eat with our eyes. Some authors of cookbooks forget that their books are not sold only in the USA or Europe, but in Asia, the Caribbean, where some of the ingredients may not be readily available. A cookbook should also educate so if a picture of the main ingredient and the finished dish or an illustration could be shown it would be 1000 times better.