|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
May 25th 05, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Sky@Night mag - disappointing
Dear all,
Am I the only one disappointed in the new Sky at Night magazine? For me, the one word that sums it up is: CLUTTERED! 1 - The article about nebulae.... PERFECT! Nice stunning photos of nebulae that dominate the page - why not do the entire magazine like that, then? S@N has about 5 photos per page average. Look at the Sky & Telescope - 2 large photos per page. Astronomy IS big fantastic photo's - not clutter. This particularly annoyed me on the readers gallery pages, where the photo's were not done any justice at all (again, compare with S&T). 2 - It may suprise you to learn that research astronomy is done in the UK! To me, the British magazine should be SHOUTING at what wonderful science is done in the uk, not leaving them as footnotes half way through a story. Sorry, but I find it annoying when I see NASA getting credit where you could equally credit European & UK astronomers, if not moreso. e.g. I'd title the story about La Palma + WHT something like "Big British 'scopes"! (Or something like that!) 3 - Telescope tests - excellent. Nice and clear, no clutter. I look forward to the bigger toys in up and coming reviews. 4 - It started badly - 12 photos of Patric Moore in the first 5 pages. I'm not a fan! reasons include PM passing of other people's discoveries as his own; people writing books & articles for him and PM passes them off as his (what does he know about TouCams?! Since I know PM didn't write that sentance, I don't believe he wrote a word in the entire magazine, which is possibly unfair. But he does "cry wolf" too much, and so is doing himself an injustice); and the general public think that all astronomers are old men;... I know people will totally disagree with me, and fair enough, as long as you understand my PoV on PM! 5 - Sky@Night episode bit. I'm sure they could find nice photos of PeteL et al, without taking an excessive number of stills from the video of people in mid sentance - Chris looks like he's just about eat a fly, and Pete has his eyes closed! Could/should do better! 6 - I've not seen the CD-Rom myself... but I've been told not to bother, since it pops up in a tiny sub-screen! I could go on, but life is short. Basically, I'll continue to be buying Sky & Telescope, mainly because it is much better designed - clear & without clutter. (e.g. 2 columns per page, not 4 column per page and columns that last for just 1 inch before going to another column - that *is* dumb!) I'm just glad I looked at someone elses and didn't buy it! The only advantage in the S@N is that you get UK prices - although a quick comparison between S&T & S@N confirms John's suspicions... Just swap the dollar sign for a pound sign! These may sound like an unnessesary rant - but I'm just hoping that the magazine read this and so improve. I sooooo wanted to buy a good british magazine, but I feel I've been let down. The content may be good - but good content must be presented well, or I will just find an equally good content on a better designed web page. Infact, a good astro mag should be "pretty-pictures" driven, since the content can all be found on the web, but hard copy glossy images cannot. Any thoughts, comments? I hope the S@N team take on board some of these critisms. Das 
|
|
#2
May 26th 05, 08:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Totally agree with you Das.
The American magazines (S&T, Astronomy and NightSky) are far superior. But given time I think it will find its feet and become a good, well presented British magazine. Just as long as it does not turn into another awful Astronomy Now. Steve
|
|
#4
May 26th 05, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In reply to your rant about PM....
PM passing of other people's discoveries as his own; Got any evidence of that? I don't believe he wrote a word in the entire magazine, which is possibly unfair. Of course it's unfair! (so why say it?). It is very clear from the style that PM wrote a lot of those words, even if dictated. I've seen him type articles and books word perfect at 100wpm on this old typewriter. This comes from having the best all round knowledge of astronomy of anyone living - even in his elderly state now he's still very sharp. It needs to be remembered that without PM, we would not have a S@N magazine to debate! I thought the magazine was a bit cluttered when I first flicked through it. After reading the articles I am much more impressed, especially for the first edition. Ian Sharp. wrote in message ups.com... Dear all, Am I the only one disappointed in the new Sky at Night magazine? For me, the one word that sums it up is: CLUTTERED! 1 - The article about nebulae.... PERFECT! Nice stunning photos of nebulae that dominate the page - why not do the entire magazine like that, then? S@N has about 5 photos per page average. Look at the Sky & Telescope - 2 large photos per page. Astronomy IS big fantastic photo's - not clutter. This particularly annoyed me on the readers gallery pages, where the photo's were not done any justice at all (again, compare with S&T). 2 - It may suprise you to learn that research astronomy is done in the UK! To me, the British magazine should be SHOUTING at what wonderful science is done in the uk, not leaving them as footnotes half way through a story. Sorry, but I find it annoying when I see NASA getting credit where you could equally credit European & UK astronomers, if not moreso. e.g. I'd title the story about La Palma + WHT something like "Big British 'scopes"! (Or something like that!) 3 - Telescope tests - excellent. Nice and clear, no clutter. I look forward to the bigger toys in up and coming reviews. 4 - It started badly - 12 photos of Patric Moore in the first 5 pages. I'm not a fan! reasons include PM passing of other people's discoveries as his own; people writing books & articles for him and PM passes them off as his (what does he know about TouCams?! Since I know PM didn't write that sentance, I don't believe he wrote a word in the entire magazine, which is possibly unfair. But he does "cry wolf" too much, and so is doing himself an injustice); and the general public think that all astronomers are old men;... I know people will totally disagree with me, and fair enough, as long as you understand my PoV on PM! 5 - Sky@Night episode bit. I'm sure they could find nice photos of PeteL et al, without taking an excessive number of stills from the video of people in mid sentance - Chris looks like he's just about eat a fly, and Pete has his eyes closed! Could/should do better! 6 - I've not seen the CD-Rom myself... but I've been told not to bother, since it pops up in a tiny sub-screen! I could go on, but life is short. Basically, I'll continue to be buying Sky & Telescope, mainly because it is much better designed - clear & without clutter. (e.g. 2 columns per page, not 4 column per page and columns that last for just 1 inch before going to another column - that *is* dumb!) I'm just glad I looked at someone elses and didn't buy it! The only advantage in the S@N is that you get UK prices - although a quick comparison between S&T & S@N confirms John's suspicions... Just swap the dollar sign for a pound sign! These may sound like an unnessesary rant - but I'm just hoping that the magazine read this and so improve. I sooooo wanted to buy a good british magazine, but I feel I've been let down. The content may be good - but good content must be presented well, or I will just find an equally good content on a better designed web page. Infact, a good astro mag should be "pretty-pictures" driven, since the content can all be found on the web, but hard copy glossy images cannot. Any thoughts, comments? I hope the S@N team take on board some of these critisms. Das
|
|
#5
May 26th 05, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
I don't believe he wrote a word in the entire magazine, which is possibly unfair. etc. etc. He seems to be one of the least pretentious, most approachable and genuine enthusiasts I have ever come across with a mass following of fans inside and outside astronomy. This is rare indeed - and for an old Etonian, well nigh impossible. Only Humphrey Littleton gets even close. So there he is endorsing Starry Night for money while professing not to know which side of a monitor to look at. He looks to me like someone with a realistic view of a possibly expensive future in professional care garnering a last few shekels but others may take a less tolerant, (more anally retentive?) view. -- Clear skies Martin Frey --------------------------- http://www.hadhastro.org.uk N 51 02 E 0 47 ---------------------------
|
|
#6
May 26th 05, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Am I the only one disappointed in the new Sky at Night magazine?
For me, the one word that sums it up is: CLUTTERED! I'd have said busy or lively perhaps. Not having bought an astronomy mag for some years I was pleasantly surprised. jc -- http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/
|
|
#7
May 27th 05, 09:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 May 2005 07:00:25 -0700, wrote:
4 - It started badly - 12 photos of Patric Moore in the first 5 pages. I'm not going to get involved in matters discussing layout etc. but I will pick you up on this. You make it sound like Patrick sits there asking for more and more picture of himself to be inserted into the magazine. I can tell you from personal experience, the exact opposite is true and his desire is to see fewer pictures of himself! 6 - I've not seen the CD-Rom myself... but I've been told not to bother, since it pops up in a tiny sub-screen! Oh come on Das - you're supposed to be a scientist! "I was going to investigate the structure of DNA but someone has told me it's rhombic so I won't bother!". -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
|
|
#8
May 27th 05, 10:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Definitely not disappointing. Got hold of a copy last night and at first
glance the magazine seems very well put together. I've only had time to look at two of the free programmes on the CD but either of them would have justified the cover price on its own. I think issue 1 will be a hard act to follow!
|
|
#9
May 27th 05, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message ... On 25 May 2005 07:00:25 -0700, wrote: 6 - I've not seen the CD-Rom myself... but I've been told not to bother, since it pops up in a tiny sub-screen! To "try" to watch the mpeg video via the cd is dire to say the least, but run directly from the file, (full screen) it is brilliant. With a broadband connection, downloading is not an issue so the "free" stuff on the cd is pretty pointless. Anyways, I look forward to following the magazines development. Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
|
|
#10
May 27th 05, 09:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 27 May 2005 20:47:28 +0100, "David Sewell"
wrote: "Pete Lawrence" wrote in message .. . On 25 May 2005 07:00:25 -0700, wrote: 6 - I've not seen the CD-Rom myself... but I've been told not to bother, since it pops up in a tiny sub-screen! To "try" to watch the mpeg video via the cd is dire to say the least, but run directly from the file, (full screen) it is brilliant. With a broadband connection, downloading is not an issue so the "free" stuff on the cd is pretty pointless. Anyways, I look forward to following the magazines development. Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk When is the next issue out? i would like to get hold of a copy as i seem to have missed the first one
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
