I know I could probably (should probably?) send this post directly as an e-mail to Matt Usher, but I'd be interested in other folks reaction to this.
I just read through a post regarding the format of the magazine and how it has changed through the years and whether the breakdown of articles is really representative, etc. etc. and it got me to thinking about what I like and don't like about FSM. Generally I am pretty happy with each edition, simply because I really enjoy seeing other people's work. So, even if articles re-hash old topics or familiar themes, I still enjoy reading them. There is one thing, however, that I find myself frequently frustrated about (perhaps that is too strong a word, but I can't think of a better one off the top of my head).
I tend to be a visual person, so I find it easier 'learn' something when I have a picture to accompany any written description of the action. For that reason, the number and quality of pictures in FSM is a bonus. However, I do find that there are certain trends that I do not like. One is the tendency to describe a particular technique or process for doing something and to reference a photo that shows the finished product. This is as opposed to showing pictures that illustrate the actual technique or process, which are also common but do not seem to be the rule. So captions that say "I cut the flugelmeister with my sclepenschlub before attaching the drive sprockets", but show a picture of a completed drive train do not do me much good since I can't tell a flugelmeister from a crescent wrench. To go along with that, my second gripe is that sometimes what the pictures are supposed to show is not altogether clear. For example, I don't tend to build ship models, though I might, if I have the opportunity. But that means I am not particularly familiar with the nomenclature of ships' parts. In last months (November 2007) issue, I really enjoyed the second part of the article on the Schnellboot, but there were a couple of instances where I had no idea what the heck I should be looking at in the picture. For example, take picture #4. The caption reads: "Details added to the roof include brass grab handles, paper-towel blackout curtains, a loop antenna made of sodder, and a brass railing with lead-foil dodger." Ummm, OK, I see the loop antenna, but, what's a dodger? Where are the blackout curtains? It just seems to me, that in this day and age with the technology available, particularly when talking about specific (and often relatively small) parts, it would be easy enough and helpful to include a little arrow or some other graphic to highlight the specific feature (or features) being referrenced. I find this to happen with armor and aircraft models too. And even though I build both, I often have a hard time figuring out exactly what feature the picture is attempting to draw my attentiton to.
So, how about it Matt. Would you consider adding various devices to the pictures to help draw our attention to the specific part that is being discussed. For example, what if in the caption I used above, you had done something like: "Details added to the roof include (a) brass grab handles, (b) paper towl blackout curtains...." and then on the picture you had a little letter (a) on or near the grab handles, with a pointer, and a little letter (b) on the blackout curtains....
I don't know, maybe I am making much ado about nothing, but I know that at least once in every edition there is an article with pictures in it that I cannot relate what is being said in the caption to what I see in the picture.