[Brian Darby]

Gravity Magazine #01 has now gone to print and will be available nation wide absolutely FREE!!

Now we say that we're there for you guys to get your work into a national publication and here comes your spot...after viewing some of your photo's its clear you guys got some great material and thats lead us to offer out a dedicated Bouldering gallery in Gravity #02 - all you gotta do is get your best photos and send them through to gallery@gravitymagazine.co.uk for your work to be in a 12,000 strong national press...oh yeah...you'll make a bit of money too if your stuffs used!

Check out the website for full details on how to submit anything climbing related (including the opportunity to be the Cover Shot for Gravity #02 in October)

http://gravitymagazine.co.uk

just shout if you have any questions

Brian Darby
0845 094 2107

[Dude]

  Sheffield seems to be the only place not supplied? Maybe thats cause there are so few climbers here?

[Brian Darby]

Sorry! I just gotta update the website.

It will be available in The Foundry and both Hathersage and Curbar 'Outside' although if you use a different wall or outdoor retailer then ask them to get in touch with us and we'll organize a drop of the magazine to them - This incurs no charge whatsoever to the distributer.

This would also be a good plan wherever you are in the UK! If your local wall/retailer hasn't got in touch then you may miss out on your FREE copy so just ask them if they're getting it cos it'll be real difficult sorting it out after the 11th!

Cheers

Brian

[Sypeland]

For anyone climbing int dale, Brimham, Slipstones etc then you can get your copy in Pateley Bridge half way up the High Street.

Along with other esential supplies

[Houdini]

Dear Mr. Derby,

Having seen both of your issues I must say that your photo reproduction is really letting the side down.

Tip:  If they become excessively pixellated when you enlarge them - don't enlarge them.  Reproduce them smaller.  ie:  The telegraph pole in "What goes up."  This is particularly poor.  The pixellation of Steven Harris' landscape is chronic.  Shame - it's a stunning vista.  The pic to the left of Heasons' article is genuinely horrific.

Do you only accept digital snaps?  I think you are shooting yourself in the foot if you are.

A little more time spent proof reading wouldn't go amiss either.  Mistakes in handwriting are acceptable, but never in print.


Given that anything offered for free never lasts the distance, you deserve a pat on the back for having a go.  It's good to see that the mag is not as riddled with ad's as I'd imagined.  Keep trying hard.

This is a general regurgitation of comments gleaned from the Hood (not just myself).


EDIT - one more thing.  I think that your method of procurring snaps is fatally flawed:  if you paid for each and every photo on a one-for-one basis rather than the way that you currently do, you'll attract the talented snappers, and currently, you are not.

[Mick Ryan]

Given that anything offered for free never lasts the distance

You sure about that?

The Metro seems to be doing well.

http://www.metro.co.uk/

[Houdini]

Saw that one coming.  And look at the mess it's made of the Underground.  If only Gravity could hope for that large a captive audience.

[Brian Darby]

Thanks for your comments, we are listening, honest!

Producing a magazine is a very time consuming process. We work long and hard to turn a first draft article in to a workable edit that we can include in the magazine.

We have said on many occasions that picture quality may not be brilliant in some circumstances, this is because not everyone owns a 6 Megapixel camera. This doesn't mean that we won't use their image. We can only do so much with photoshop to correct poor images.

We are trying not to stretch images to the degree that they pixilate and in our defense they look perfect on-screen, even when we zoom in to check they are OK, but until they go to print and we get the results back we can't see what errors have occurred.

In issue 3 there are still a few pixilated images, sadly. However, we know that these were taken on maximum resolution on a 6.5MPixel camera so there is no reason what-so-ever that they should pixilate.

We are looking at some new software at the moment which should help combat this problem in future issues, and have also just purchased a great bit of kit which should help solve the proof reading. I think the magazine format and layout has come on leaps and bounds since issue one, so issue four out on December 14th should improve on what I feel has become a great production.

We are moving 11500 copies each month through distributors and have over 300 subscribers, so there is obviously a call for the product. If we can secure more advertising in the future then we will print more copies each month and increase the page content, which we ultimately want to increase to 140 pages a month.

I welcome your feedback, and appreciate any comments that you wish to raise that would help make Gravity a better production.

Cheers

Brian

[Monolith]

I have to say, Houdini's sentiments are a fair representation of what I've heard/think also. I'd just like to point out also, that the number of megapixels doesn't neccessarily have a sole bearing on the quality of the image generated. There are other factors to take into account when considering the quality of the camera. But don't ask me, ask some photographic wads on here for more information. Look forward to seeing how you've come on since issue one. Great to see so much enthusiasm from your team, all the best with its future.

[r-man]

Brian, my two-penneth worth... (you must be drowing in loose change by now )

There is a real sense of energy and enthusiasm about Gravity. Flicking through the pages, the words just seem so keen to be read, which is the reward for your open-house submissions policy. This is great. This is what often seems lacking in other British mags, which can be formulaic and stale.

On the design front, it all depends what you are aiming for, but at the moment, the general feel is Wacky. There's no sense of a unifying design ethic, and there's often a feel of clutter. My bias is always towards less-is-more - for one thing, the less elements you have, the less problems you are likely to encounter. Little things like how the pics are displayed - some have drop shadows, some have borders, some have nothing. Also, on photo pages, the photos often seem haphazardly arranged - eg. pg77, issue 3. Also, text layout - all the page margins are different sizes. And none of the text is justified! Unless you have really small columns, justifying text always looks more professional.

You are right about digital cameras - most digitals these days should blow up to A4 no problem, and pretty much any should be fine for smaller pics. It's really about attracting quality images, which hopefully you will get more and more of as your magazine continues to improve, and you sort out the image reproduction problems. Perhaps these have been putting people off submitting?

Once again, congrats on what you have achieved so far, and good luck for the future!

p.s. - What piece of kit will help solve proof reading?!

[Paz]

"p.s. - What piece of kit will help solve proof reading?!"

A sharp eyed pedantic volunteer who's got nothing better to do than correct (their/there/they're) and apostrophes in a script emailed to them, for free, as they'd only read it one way or the other anyway.  *

I thought a lot of the articles were of the foreign sport climbing trip by numbers Mark Glaister article variety, with less good photos and topos, or worse were of the mountaineering club journal variety.  Only being able to produce this sort of thing myself is one of the reasons why in the modern age I rant online, and no longer write in print.

but it was free so I ain't complaining, and indeed I thank you.   

*That was a hint about me possibly being willing to volunteer.

[andy_e]

I'll proof read too, I take a perverse enjoyment out of it. 

[Houdini]

I'll poof read too, I take a perverse enjoyment out of it. 

[andy_e]

Thank you for correcting me houdywoudy 

[r-man]

And poof. Just like that, he's gone.

[Houdini]

And poof. Just like that, he's gone to the Darkside of the Horn.

Sorry...

[andy_e]

That was because of your body though, not the correcting 

[Brian Darby]

Fair points guys,

I think issue three feels and looks much better than issue one which most certainly had a cluttered look about it. We keep playing around with format and layout and have changed printers this month which has complicated matters slightly as settings we used for the old printers have not worked quite as well with the new one.

For Issue 4 we have reset the borders of the pages, changed the page numbering, will be keeping to a standard three column per page setup at 9pt Tahoma font. Personally I am happy with the way most of the pictures are laid out, if we can sort out the pixilation problem for the next issue then I think everyone will be happy.

Seeing a different layout each month obviously looks and feels strange to a lot of people, but we have to play around a little to see what works best, we now feel we can pick the best bits from the past three issues and make issue four even better.

Keep your comments coming though, even when the next issue is out. The team welcomes your feedback.

Thanks

Brian

[chappers]

I think issue three... looks much better than issue one

apart from the fact that the picture on the cover is by far the worst front cover of any climbing mag that i have ever seen. i know that it should not put me off, but as a result i have not looked inside the magazine. (i am not trying to be rude - just constructive, a bad shot from an indoor wall just does not cut it i am afraid that is not what climbing is about.)

[squeek]

I picked one up, thought the front cover was a little of an odd choice, as it's not even a great indoor shot.  Think it's a good idea and magazine.  There are lots of articles I haven't read, mainly to do with the mountaineering/winter climbing because I don't have any interest in it, and in my little world it is separate to rock climbing.  But that's the good thing about it being free it doesn't matter if there's articles you don't like because you don't feel like you've wasted your money.

[butters]

There are lots of articles I haven't read, mainly to do with the mountaineering/winter climbing because I don't have any interest in it, and in my little world it is separate to rock climbing.

The mountaineering articles are pretty good this month actually - worth giving them a go and that is coming from a rock climber who holds the same views as you.

Have to agree with you on the cover shot - you can never make an indoor climbing photo look as good as one taken of outdoor climbing - it just doesn't work.

bluebrad

[chappers]

sorry, should say that it is a good idea, and i wish you well with it...