Customer Reviews

The Hatfield Photographic Lunar Atlas

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I saw this book for the first time last night in a Planetary Astronomy class at a local college, and ordered one for myself this morning.

It's exactly what I was looking for to identify features on the moon. It consists of about 20 plates (very sharp pictures) of the moon. The plates are on the right page, and on the left page is the matching drawing. The drawings are the outlines of the craters, mountains, valleys, rills, seas, and other objects, with their names. At the bottom of the left page, selected names are listed with their sizes, in kilometers. Relative ages are also indicated.

After a few short introductory pages, the rest of the book consists of pictures and drawings. There is an index page near the front of the book that shows the area of the moon that each plate covers.

The only reason I did not give the book 5 stars is because it does not have an index and grid system to help find a particular feature on the drawing page. If you are looking for the crater, "Archimedes", you are just going to have to search until you find its name on that page.

Still, if you have an interest in identifying features on the moon, this book will do it for you. I highly recommend it.

The importance of a good reference is incalculable for those who do any serious lunar observing, or for those who need to know exactly what they're looking at (or at least what they should be seeing). The Hatfield Atlas is by far the best lunar reference available. But rather than subject you to further ramblings-on about the merits of this book, I'll just state some straightforward points in simple fact:

The membership of our club includes about 140 dedicated amateur and professional astronomers. Many of us gather at our dark site facility to attend monthly star parties. If there is even the slightest moon that evening there may be a dozen or so telescopes trained on it well before dark. And those of us who do any serious lunar observing may already be consulting a single particular book which is kept on a desk in the observatory. Care to guess which book that is? "Yo, who's got the Hatfield's?".

The Hatfield Atlas is our 'official' lunar reference. Other references have been left out for the membership to browse and sample. Two of them drew favorable comments about their indices and cross references (and which are explicit advantages over Hatfield's). But as expected, we always go back to the Hatfield Atlas, and there are reasons. Plain and simple, you won't find better or more accurate renderings anywhere. If you want an exact reference, or if you need to match detail and gradations with what you see in the eyepiece, this is the book to have.

The first time one examines a reference of this quality, there is generally some astonishment at the high level of detail involved. My first inclination was to 'read' it from cover-to-cover, as one would regard a centennial issue of National Geographic. You will likely find the renderings here to be of equal or better quality and possibly more fascinating.

I highly recommend the Hatfield Atlas for both amateur and professional astronomers who have a need for the finest lunar reference available.

This book of elderly, sometimes fuzzy photos and rough drawings is outrageously overpriced, even with the small Amazon discount.
Try to find a copy of the far better Rukl Moon Atlas, or write lots of letters to Kalmback to get them to reprint Rukl.
The only virtue of this book is the paucity of any Moon Atlas - a juicy opportunity for someone - Hello Msrs. Tirion, Dickinson, Ottewell, Crossen, Kepple or O'Meara?
Help, help!

I regularly observe the moon through moderate aperture telescopes and find these low resolution images of little use. Even a three-inch refractor will show far more detail. There are better sets of photographs, covering most of the visible surface, available on the web.
However, the atlas will probably be useful to observers who are starting to find their way around the mooon's surface, as they will not be overwhelmed by fine detail.
If you want to see good quality images of the moon do not buy this book; look on the web.

The photos in the Atlas were taken in the 1960`s using B/W film and a home made 12" telescope. There are usually a variety of shots of each region taken under different libations as well as close-ups of important features. The accompanying diagrams are based upon the clearest photo and are detailed & hand written giving the names of craters etc.Apparently the feature names in the diagrams were updated in the 1980`s when a new repository of names was published.

THE HATFIELD PHOTOGRAPHIC LUNAR ATLAS is a modern, updated and slightly revised version of the classic (~1968) AMATEUR ASTRONOMER'S PHOTOGRAPHIC LUNAR ATLAS by Sir Henry Hatfield. The original work was published just before man landed on the moon - and thus moon observation was a "craze".

This "new" version, bearing Hatfield's name, uses Hatfield's original Lunar photographs that were taken, obviously, in the 1960's.

I've read other people's reviews, most of whom complain about the quality of the photographs. These photograph's were truly remarkable in the 60's ... and 70's ... and even for the 80's into the early 90's. Are these the best photograph's for today's standards? No. But part of the beauty of this book are the remarkable vintage photographs (just as many of us marvel at the sight of vintage cars or vintage motorcycles).

Specifically, this book is a "nice" (not great) photographic atlas of the moon. The sketches are "very good" (maybe not perfect). And the book's format/layout is STILL very useful for the casual and amateur astronomer.

Yes, the RUKL MOON ATLAS is THE STANDARD. But this atlas has been out of print for several years. A copy of Rukl's was recently listed for $579 on eBay! And I've seen Rukl's sell for $100-$175 on other Internet sites.

In summary, is Hatfield's the best? No. Is it very nice? Yes. Though I'd also agree that the price for this book is a bit too high ($25 is more reasonable), when compared to Rukl's, is THE HATFIELD PHOTOGRAPHIC LUNAR ATLAS worth $35? Yes.

It is what it is: an updated reproduction of a classic. It doesn't have all of the bells & whistles a 2004 Corvette has, yet isn't it still a joy to drive a vintage Corvette? You bet it is!

Old pictures and quite badly drawn maps of the moon makes this book feel to expensive no matter what it costs.

Although, it gives you (as a matter of facts) very much information of the lunar surfice when it come to manmade names of the different places. Still some names misses, like the crater named after Neil Armstrong - where is it?

I also wish a book that says it is an Atlas of the moon, sold year 2001, would contain fresh photos of better quality (The Hubble Sky Telescope could maybe do something for us moonfans!) and better drawings. And why not more information about how and where the names of the places came to real and, what I really miss - pictures of parts of the earth placed on the lunar surfice to give me a view of how big the craters and the moon as a whole actually is. And why not a part in the book with pictures from the Apollo missions?! More could be done.