Re: Well written logs (was RE: (IAAC) Obj: NGC 7000 ...)
>Having said this, I find that a few logs seem to simply re-state the classical
>Dryer descriptions, and these are, well, dry. I mean, "pretty faint, pretty
>small" doesn't make me want to pack up the scope and head for the hills.
Just to moderate this way of thinking and because I am a pro-Dreyerlike
these simple descriptions are more a homogeneous collection of observations
that is made to compare easily different objects or different instruments
or observers or observing sites.
For example, an eeF galaxy in a 8inch could become F in a 16inch, etc.
I mean that from these kind of description, one can imagine what the object
could be like in its own instrument even if the original description was
made with a different instrument.
Of course, "well written" description are marvelous and entertaining (and
Lew is gifted for that purpose), but when I went to perform a quick check
or comparison between my reports and others', the relevant descriptions
points (brightness, size, shape, etc.) are somewhat lost in the text and it
takes a considerable more time to dig them out.
For this purpose, I found Steve Gottlieb, Sue French or Steve Coe's "dry"
reports far more easier to handle, even if you have no pleasure reading
them as a book.
For me the ultimate description report would be an short "dry" introduction
where one could find the basic "dry" description (a la Gottlieb) followed
by one (or several) "well written" paragraphs dealing with the related
facts (difference of views between powers, surroundings, etc...).
Just my point of view, and clearly: a report whatever its style is better
Carpe noctem, Yann.
11 impasse Canart, 75012 PARIS, FRANCE
To stop receiving all 'netastrocatalog' lists, use the Web form at: