Robert Groves wrote:

Annie Hill wrote:
Brian's 'green comment' is also worth pursuing.  Using any paper, sustainable, unbleached or otherwise is a strain on Gaia.  Those of us who do not get a printed copy, or print out our own, are taking a green alternative.

I use paper charts and prefer to read paper books and magazines. Paper is renewable, recyclable and sustainable. Computers on the other hand transfer the pollution of production and the dangers of recycling to third world nations. They are made of plastics and metals none of which are sustainable. Many businesses have jumped on the band wagon that the digital era is a greener alternative. The green is the money that goes into their pockets. I support the concept of a sustainable and greener paper magazine of high quality for those who prefer hard copy. 

I'm afraid I don't recognise the newsletter/magazine that Tom Wallace refers to - the one I received was well produced, perfectly readable, jam-packed full of relevant and current content, and the diagrams were no smaller nor less readable than those in some of the recent Fred Barter produced ones.

I don't experience the photographs as being unclear or not of good colour - the focussing and exposure are down to the original photographer and the light conditions at the time.  A lot can be done on contrast and colour balance using software, although I don't know if FB went to those lengths.  Nothing can improve lack of focus or camera shake.  When I was involved in turning the previous printed magazines into digital format I spent quite some time on each photograph in each issue with photo processing software.  The reason for this was that, it seemed to me, all the photographs were balanced for an overall visual effect, whereas the rig on each boat was far too dark to make out the detail of the sail panels, battens, etc.  I took the view that it was exactly this detail which was of most importance in our newsletter, rather than having pretty pictures of seascapes obscured by those infernal junk boats.  The downside (if it is one) was that backgrounds then tended to become a bit washed out.

I will concede that there are none of the attention grabbing photos, spread over two pages, as Fred used to do at the head of some articles.  For that you need pictures of a high quality to stand the enlargement, and I don't know if the publishing software and printing process David uses are capable of it.  Perhaps some full page photos would fill the gap?

The only doubt I have is that it may be difficult to fill newletters regularly when so much content is provided in each one, and the intention is to produce three instead of two a year.  Down to you, Tom, and all the other members, to get writing.

                                                                    Stavanger, Sunday

(..spring is supposed to be here soon, but the met office promises us a couple of frosty nights now, so I am not so sure. I’d better stay inside and nurse my sore throat...)..

                                     ..I suggest...

My last posting about the dilemma of the printed NL may look like sulking and it certainly lacked the important factor; a constructive idea on how to improve things.

But first of all, I don’t think that the NL58 is bad, it just has the same problem as all newsletters have had when lots of stuff has to be compressed into a small area. Compressing photos is not a big problem; it is when diagrams are crimped to half or quarter size that we get in trouble. When text and details get unreadable, the efforts of the writer will be in vain.

Sooo, I suggest that the next newsletters are made in two versions; one for the web and one meant for printing. It does not have to involve much extra work. This is how it can be done.

Could this be an idea?

Arne