S & T uses low end paper

Did anyone else notice the Sept 2005 issue of S & T switched to CHEAP
coated paper. The black backgrounds are horrible. The Gallery in the
rear of the issues has really bad printing results. The great pics by
the amateur photographers are not in any way done justice with this bad
reproduction.

Joe

In article , astrojoe
wrote:

Did anyone else notice the Sept 2005 issue of S & T switched to CHEAP
coated paper. The black backgrounds are horrible. The Gallery in the
rear of the issues has really bad printing results. The great pics by
the amateur photographers are not in any way done justice with this bad
reproduction.

Joe


I noticed that too and I'm not really pleased.

Thankk goodness that Nationl Geographic doens't do that.

Milton Aupperle
www.outcastsoft.com

If you two think this is not a change to the good, then visit the Skypub.org
website and lodge a cogent, tactfully written but firmly stated reply to the
Powers That Be. Complaining here doesn't do any good unless those Powers That
Be are monitoring this site, and in any case it shows a level of real concern to
complain directly to the source.

--- Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinprick holes in a colorless sky
Let inspired figures of light pass by
The Mighty Light of ten thousand suns
Challenges infinity, and is soon gone




"Milton Aupperle" wrote in message
...
In article , astrojoe
wrote:

Did anyone else notice the Sept 2005 issue of S & T switched to CHEAP
coated paper. The black backgrounds are horrible. The Gallery in the
rear of the issues has really bad printing results. The great pics by
the amateur photographers are not in any way done justice with this bad
reproduction.

Joe


I noticed that too and I'm not really pleased.

Thankk goodness that Nationl Geographic doens't do that.

Milton Aupperle
www.outcastsoft.com

I struggle with renewing S&T every year. The reviews are silly---ever seen
a bad review? You can read everything of value in the mag in about an
hour...it's a bit over priced too. But, the alternatives aren't any
better....

Doink

"David Nakamoto" wrote in message
news:XOtGe.51$DJ5.13@trnddc07...
If you two think this is not a change to the good, then visit the
Skypub.org website and lodge a cogent, tactfully written but firmly stated
reply to the Powers That Be. Complaining here doesn't do any good unless
those Powers That Be are monitoring this site, and in any case it shows a
level of real concern to complain directly to the source.

--- Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinprick holes in a colorless sky
Let inspired figures of light pass by
The Mighty Light of ten thousand suns
Challenges infinity, and is soon gone




"Milton Aupperle" wrote in message
...
In article , astrojoe
wrote:

Did anyone else notice the Sept 2005 issue of S & T switched to CHEAP
coated paper. The black backgrounds are horrible. The Gallery in the
rear of the issues has really bad printing results. The great pics by
the amateur photographers are not in any way done justice with this bad
reproduction.

Joe


I noticed that too and I'm not really pleased.

Thankk goodness that Nationl Geographic doens't do that.

Milton Aupperle
www.outcastsoft.com

Doink wrote:
I struggle with renewing S&T every year. The reviews are silly---ever
seen a bad review? You can read everything of value in the mag in about
an hour...it's a bit over priced too. But, the alternatives aren't any
better....

I've seen a bad review (by which I assume you mean a review that pans
the product) of software and books. Not as much on mounts, and hardly
ever on telescopes. It is natural and human to want to emphasize the
good points of a product, and even to justify some of the bad ones by
pointing out, well, the product doesn't cost that much, once you make
a few tweaks it works very well, etc. I doubt that Sky and Telescope
have much of a role in that, if any; reviewers are perfectly capable
of doing that on their own.

That it's natural and human doesn't mean that it's good, of course. I
would like to see more comparative reviews, but those are harder to
research and write, I suspect.

I spend rather more than an hour to read everything I find of value in
Sky and Telescope. But I'm pretty broad in my interests. If there's
anything I don't read as much of, it's telescope reviews, anyway. I'm
more interested in finding out what to do with the telescope I already
own than I am in deciding what telescope I'm not going to replace it
with.

That said, a good telescope review usually teaches me something about
telescopes I didn't know before.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

I'm not really sure why it worries me when I agree with Brian, more or
less, but somehow, neither S&T or A seem to be able to do a good telescope
review... Usually, it's NOT the fault of the telescope, good or bad, but
the reviewer... Or the unwillingness of the magazine to say anything bad
about their advertisers, for fear of losing them, or worse, being sued by
them. Don't laugh; we've seen that possibility pop up before...

Somewhere along the line, somehow, we need to establish a set of criteria
by which all scopes must be reviewed by, and optical quality is VERY
important here (I mean, in our hobby, if you're serious, what else IS
there????)... Not any "gee whiz, I really liked this", but REAL
quantifiable data that says this scope delivers, or it doesn't. No more
BS... If the magazines, or even SAA, can't do that, then no point in
bothering...

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.662
Longitude: -112.3272

"Brian Tung" wrote in message
...
Doink wrote:
I struggle with renewing S&T every year. The reviews are silly---ever
seen a bad review? You can read everything of value in the mag in
about
an hour...it's a bit over priced too. But, the alternatives aren't
any
better....

I've seen a bad review (by which I assume you mean a review that pans
the product) of software and books. Not as much on mounts, and hardly
ever on telescopes. It is natural and human to want to emphasize the
good points of a product, and even to justify some of the bad ones by
pointing out, well, the product doesn't cost that much, once you make
a few tweaks it works very well, etc. I doubt that Sky and Telescope
have much of a role in that, if any; reviewers are perfectly capable
of doing that on their own.

That it's natural and human doesn't mean that it's good, of course. I
would like to see more comparative reviews, but those are harder to
research and write, I suspect.

I spend rather more than an hour to read everything I find of value in
Sky and Telescope. But I'm pretty broad in my interests. If there's
anything I don't read as much of, it's telescope reviews, anyway. I'm
more interested in finding out what to do with the telescope I already
own than I am in deciding what telescope I'm not going to replace it
with.

That said, a good telescope review usually teaches me something about
telescopes I didn't know before.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Jan Owen wrote:
I'm not really sure why it worries me when I agree with Brian, more or
less,

I dunno, doesn't worry me at all.

but somehow, neither S&T or A seem to be able to do a good telescope
review... Usually, it's NOT the fault of the telescope, good or bad, but
the reviewer... Or the unwillingness of the magazine to say anything bad
about their advertisers, for fear of losing them, or worse, being sued by
them. Don't laugh; we've seen that possibility pop up before...

I won't laugh, but I don't think that the magazine really exerts any
pressure along these lines, except perhaps to avoid picking reviewers
that are known to be exceptionally critical. There's good reason for
that, I think. The utility of reviews falls of as they become really
critical (or really uncritical, for that matter).

Most published reviews, in Sky and Telescope or wherever else, fall
within those boundaries, although they probably veer toward the
benevolent. As I said, that's a human thing to do. Especially if you
already know that a manufacturer does good work by and large, you're
willing to overlook the occasional flaw, or at least to explain it in
some way.

People have pointed out previously that there are many domains where
good reviews are not quite as much the norm as they are in the amateur
astronomy world: automobile reviews, say, or stereo reviews. I think
there are some major differences, though, some objective differences
and some due to human nature.

I too would like to see some quantitative metrics, but I don't know
that the culture for such metrics is there yet, and someone would have
to do a lot of education for something like that to work. Stereophiles
know what a frequency response curve is; maybe it's time for amateur
astronomers to know what a modulation (or contrast) transfer function
is.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

David Nakamoto wrote:

If you two think this is not a change to the good, then visit the Skypub.org
website and lodge a cogent, tactfully written but firmly stated reply to the
Powers That Be.

Susan B. Lit is sitting in her office at the World Headquarters for the
Sky Publishing Empire. She is chuckling maniacly as she considers the
vision of the tentacles of the publication powerhouse she commands
creeping into every living room on the planet. Small children
indoctrinated with official Sky Publishing materials! The
possibilities!

At this moment, a visibly shaken Jane E. O'Brien breaches protocol and
walks unannounced into the office.

"Who let you in here? Doesn't anyone remember how to knock?", says
Lit.

Tearfully, O'Brien relates the Bad News: "We have received several
cogent, tactfully written but firmly stated complaints about the paper
quality of the 2005 September issue. I don't know how to respond! Who
made this decision? These subscribers are lowering the boom and ..."

"Ms. Lit", a disembodied voice snaps from all directions at once, "Mr.
Timothy F. Smith is here for his two o'clock."

Lit dismissively waves O'Brien silent and says "Let him in."

Smith strides confidently into the office, oblivious to the presence of
O'Brien. Indeed, he can't contain himself, and immediately announces:
"A brilliant maneuver, Ms. Lit! We saved tens of thousands of dollars
on the last print run because of the change to a less weighty paper
stock! The investors are just gushing with praise. If we had a stock
price, it would be up significantly. Here, look at these figures!"

For several minutes, Lit and Smith carry on excitedly, pouring over
columns of figures fresh from the SkyPub DataCube, located in a very
deep, undisclosed, location (safe from nuclear attack). They are
oooohhhing and ahhhhing like someone who is looking at the Orion Nebula
for the first time.

O'Brien shifts uncomfortably and coughs politely.

The other two look up, irritated. "Yes? What were you saying again?
Don't you have something to do?", asks Lit.

"Brian Tung" wrote in message
...
Jan Owen wrote:
I'm not really sure why it worries me when I agree with Brian, more or
less,

I dunno, doesn't worry me at all.

but somehow, neither S&T or A seem to be able to do a good telescope
review... Usually, it's NOT the fault of the telescope, good or bad,
but
the reviewer... Or the unwillingness of the magazine to say anything
bad
about their advertisers, for fear of losing them, or worse, being sued
by
them. Don't laugh; we've seen that possibility pop up before...

I won't laugh, but I don't think that the magazine really exerts any
pressure along these lines, except perhaps to avoid picking reviewers
that are known to be exceptionally critical. There's good reason for
that, I think. The utility of reviews falls of as they become really
critical (or really uncritical, for that matter).

Most published reviews, in Sky and Telescope or wherever else, fall
within those boundaries, although they probably veer toward the
benevolent. As I said, that's a human thing to do. Especially if you
already know that a manufacturer does good work by and large, you're
willing to overlook the occasional flaw, or at least to explain it in
some way.

People have pointed out previously that there are many domains where
good reviews are not quite as much the norm as they are in the amateur
astronomy world: automobile reviews, say, or stereo reviews. I think
there are some major differences, though, some objective differences
and some due to human nature.

I too would like to see some quantitative metrics, but I don't know
that the culture for such metrics is there yet, and someone would have
to do a lot of education for something like that to work. Stereophiles
know what a frequency response curve is; maybe it's time for amateur
astronomers to know what a modulation (or contrast) transfer function
is.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Now, I'm REALLY worried...

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.662
Longitude: -112.3272

Doink wrote:
I struggle with renewing S&T every year. The reviews are silly---ever seen
a bad review? You can read everything of value in the mag in about an
hour...it's a bit over priced too. But, the alternatives aren't any
better....

In my experience people who complain about telescope reviews are (1)
overly negative and unhappy about everything and wish to see their
negative attitude reflected in the magazine, and (2) don't seem to
understand basic principles of reviews such as the idea that optical
quality is the least interesting and most variable aspect of a
telescope...

If it's crap then don't waste paper with a review of it! There are real
problems with the S&T reviews, but in my opinion not being negative
enough isn't one of them.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply have a physician remove your spleen