Newsletter Number 58

<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 
  • 31 Mar 2012 23:11
    Reply # 873461 on 873273
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

                                                                 Stavanger, Sunday, just

      The dilemma when turning web articles into printed articles

    Gentlemen,

    I don’t subscribe to the printed NL, but I guess it is a straight copy of the PDF version found on our website. Still the case with that "Peaking up the Junk Sail" shows something important: Web articles don’t compress well into amateur-printed newsletters. In this case 7 pdf-pages were compressed into 3 pages in newsletter 58 and then the details in the diagrams and photos simply must suffer. I don’t blame David Ty for that; it’s the way it is.

    So what makes it more difficult for an amateur magazine to look right than a professional mag? Lack of a professional editor and a professional graphic section!

    An example: Back in 1995 I wrote a reader’s letter to the Practical Boat Owner’s magazine (PBO). PBO had had a story about junk rigs which I wanted to respond to. My heading was something like "Junk Rig, does it have to be flat?" Supplied with the letter were some photos of Malena’s new blue sail and a rough sketch showing the barrel cut method of producing camber.

    PBO took it in, shortened it a bit and transformed my cocky, stumbling Stavanger-English, full of errors, into the sweetest little reader’s letter ever to grace their pages. The rough sketch was redrawn and even if the result was not much bigger than two stamps, the details were just perfect. Professional editors, professional graphic section - again, that is the difference.

    I have written letters to the JRA newsletter many times and they have in fact never been rejected. The changing editors have printed whatever I have written, un-edited, spelling errors and all (..and sometimes then some more...). It’s well and fine when they get it right, but that has not always been the case.

    So now there are 2 reasons why I prefer to produce write ups just for the web:

    1:) I can correct errors and add new info any time I like - that’s why I mostly add a version date.

    2:) I can make diagrams of bigger size which calls for lower graphic skills than when making crimped diagrams meant for printing.

    I don’t know the answer on JRA's dilemma here.

    Arne

    PS: Btw, here is a link to the original "Peaking up..." article  -  so much easier when there is enough space.

    Last modified: 13 Feb 2016 23:30 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 31 Mar 2012 23:04
    Reply # 873459 on 873273
    Deleted user
    I thought the print quality of issue 58 was fine. I particularly liked the non-glossy paper, and would be interested to know how 'green' it was (i.e. made from well-stewarded timber, or from recycled, unbleached paper or what? I feel the JRA should go the eco route if it possibly can, and shout about it.

    I haven't tried printing the medium resolution file on paper. Some of Arne's sketches in that version are difficult to read on screen; this may, however, be more of a function of the old monitor that's currently plugged into my old netbook, the screen of which has failed.

    Members need to bear in mind when sending scanned illustrations or digital images for the magazine that these need to be at a minimum resolution of 300 dpi (dots per inch) to give acceptable printed results, and that David may have to cut this back in order to get the downloadable editions down to a reasonable size. Please also bear in mind that when we upload images to this site we may trim their resolutions  to make download file sizes/times  acceptable to people who survive on dosh-eating dongles rather than liberating landlines.

    Readers may have missed members' earlier postings re magazine format here.
    Last modified: 31 Mar 2012 23:16 | Deleted user
  • 31 Mar 2012 22:21
    Reply # 873437 on 873273
    I just downloaded the medium res version of No58 again as I had the earlier uncorrected version. I can't see anything wrong with it, both content and quality are fine.
  • 31 Mar 2012 21:55
    Reply # 873430 on 873273
    Tom Wallace wrote: 

    How does everybody else feel because I must draw attention to the poor production quality of the last Newsletter (January 2012)? This applies to both the paper and the low res. download.

    Most of the photographs are unclear and not good colour and all of the line diagrams are illegible. Take Arne Kverneland’s article “Peaking up the Junk Sail”. Figs 1, 2, and 4 are far too small and labels unreadable. There is mention of a fig 3 but no such figure is there.  His pictures are too small. I have seen the original which is crystal clear with good photographs.

    Those of us who, being used to the magnificent magazine composed by Fred Barter over the years, have opted for the considerably greater subscription in order to have the printed and posted Newsletter feel we deserve a better product.

    I propose we revert to the status quo ante.

    Tom,
    Thanks for making this posting, it's always good receive constructive criticism. I got little feedback concerning issue 58 of the Magazine, but up to now, it's all been positive.

    I'm not clear what you mean when you say the "poor production quality" of "both the paper and the low res download". Do you mean that you would prefer glossier paper? The quality of the images in the printed copy is equally as good as it was in issue 57, and better than it was in earlier issues that we were obliged to scan from paper copies.

    The low res download is provided as a service to those members who have poor, slow-speed internet access. I would advise anyone who has broadband to go for the medium res download, where the quality of the images approaches more nearly that of the printed copy. To get the best possible quality of image in the file that was sent to the printer, a whopping file size of 97MB was necessary. Clearly, this is impracticable for members to download, so I reduced it to just under 15MB for the medium res download, the maximum size for some email inboxes.

    After I had uploaded the files to our website, some corrections and additions were made before the file was finally sent to the printer. It was an oversight on my part that I did not go back and update the copy on the website Download page, and I have now seen to this. I apologise. The content of issue 58 that you now download from there will be identical to that in the printed copy of issue 58. Fig 3 in Arne's article is now in place. 

    I have taken the view that the three most important features in a magazine for an association such as ours are content, content and content (the fourth is presentation). Fred took the view that presentation came first, and so we had a magazine that was unnecessarily glossy, wasted a third of most pages with empty space, and had a great paucity of new, interesting content. It was also frequently months late - by the time it was published, such content as there was had got hopelessly stale. Is that what you want to go back to? I don't. 

    Your committee is in the process of budgeting for next year. At current subscription levels, we can publish three issues a year at the standard of issue 58, packed with content - or we can go back to an expensively edited, glossy magazine issued less frequently. The content, as always, is up to JRA members to produce, but I hope that I have demonstrated that a more active JRA magazine editor, one who is more closely linked to the body of active JRA members, one who is actively involved in making junk rigs and using them, is better than one who is not any of those things.
  • 31 Mar 2012 15:49
    Message # 873273
    Deleted user
     

    How does everybody else feel because I must draw attention to the poor production quality of the last Newsletter (January 2012)? This applies to both the paper and the low res. download.

    Most of the photographs are unclear and not good colour and all of the line diagrams are illegible. Take Arne Kverneland’s article “Peaking up the Junk Sail”. Figs 1, 2, and 4 are far too small and labels unreadable. There is mention of a fig 3 but no such figure is there.  His pictures are too small. I have seen the original which is crystal clear with good photographs.

    Those of us who, being used to the magnificent magazine composed by Fred Barter over the years, have opted for the considerably greater subscription in order to have the printed and posted Newsletter feel we deserve a better product.

    I propose we revert to the status quo ante.

<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 
       " ...there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in junk-rigged boats" 
                                                               - the Chinese Water Rat

                                                              Site contents © the Junk Rig Association and/or individual authors

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software