pentaxuser
08-18-2008, 05:01 PM
Apologies because I have simply borrowed the opening line from the late, great Del Shannon's " Runaround Sue" The story has nothing to do with Del's two timing woman either although there is an analogy here with that kind of behaviour. Want to read on?
Well I better start at the beginning. I went into a local newsagent in a hurry while out shopping with my wife last Friday and saw what appeared to be the new issue of B&W magazine. B&W picture cover and a mention of B&W being best. I thought: "OK I'll give it another go". I couldn't browse through it as it had a see-through cover on it specifically to prevent it being read on the spot and not paid for. Fair enough, I suppose.
Lesson number one. If you can't examine contents, make absolutely sure it is the right magazine. This one wasn't the right one as was clear on returning home.
It was in fact "Practical Photography". Well all wasn't lost I thought. I had bought it quite regularly some 8-10 years ago and had thought it OK. At least this copy was no doubt the annual pilgrimage back to B&W photography which most magazines make when they pay homage( of the token kind mostly) to the "old days".
So there was bound to be something about film in it, wasn't there? You can't have a B&W issue without mentioning something about film, can you? I settled down to read on.
I was now into so many references to layers, curves and cloning that it had to be a magazine for mad and dangerous genetic engineers with a desire to build motorways in their spare time, surely?
I persevered. Sooner or later I had to see something about film surely? Well of course I did! Actually three references to be precise. The editor in chief used the phrase" Back in the days of film". A photojournalist, Nick Danziger in reply to the question, did he still use film, said yes lots of it but only in B&W He had gone across to digital for colour and the third reference? Well I cheated there. It was in reality a small advert by a company called Mailshots which mentioned it sold film, paper and chemicals.
I now had three questions: 1. Did the reference to "Back in the days of film mean that it no longer existed and had now all gone? Had anyone told Simon Galley and all those mouths he has to feed at Ilford? Things could be about to get real bad but there was always the fallback of teaching all the employees to play a banjo to entertain people queuing outside cinemas. Just a pity Mobberley isn't bigger with a lot more cinemas.
2. What was Practical Photography thinking of, interviewing a photojournalist who uses a medium that simply seems to belong in the past?
3. What was Mailshots thinking of? Paying good money to advertise products in a magazine which no one who bought it, would have any interest in as it was a 100% digital magazine, catering for a 100% digital audience. Well no-one except one customer in Daventry who had made a ghastly mistake. Sorry Mailshots. Much as I'd like to keep you going, my purchases will never even cover your advertising cost, let alone your total business.
Are you still all with me? Well good. Now you know why my story, like Del's, is sad but true BUT what about the analogy to Del's "runaround girlfriend" who was intent on also experiencing the charms of other guys. Well sad as it was for Del, I have no problem with that kind of thing or new photography. It was always the way of the world to try new things but in my innocence I had expected there to be some recognition that film still exists as do film cameras, darkrooms etc and just maybe in an issue on B&W there might be some meaningful reference to things analogue but alas, no such thing. It took "my breath away" as it did Tom's while he was flying. I preferred Charlie Sheen's antics as "Topper Harley" in "Hotshots" but that's another story.:D
If I were in charge I'd rename the magazine "Practical Digital Photography". It would be a more accurate name and might have saved me and Mailshots some money.:D
Thanks for reading. I have had a nice long rant which I hope has been mildly entertaining. I really must go now and chase my "Runaround Sue" who instead of going out with other guys is running around shops spending my money on frivolous things like food and clothes.
Still it could be worse. She might be spending money on certain magazines.:mad:
pentaxuser
Well I better start at the beginning. I went into a local newsagent in a hurry while out shopping with my wife last Friday and saw what appeared to be the new issue of B&W magazine. B&W picture cover and a mention of B&W being best. I thought: "OK I'll give it another go". I couldn't browse through it as it had a see-through cover on it specifically to prevent it being read on the spot and not paid for. Fair enough, I suppose.
Lesson number one. If you can't examine contents, make absolutely sure it is the right magazine. This one wasn't the right one as was clear on returning home.
It was in fact "Practical Photography". Well all wasn't lost I thought. I had bought it quite regularly some 8-10 years ago and had thought it OK. At least this copy was no doubt the annual pilgrimage back to B&W photography which most magazines make when they pay homage( of the token kind mostly) to the "old days".
So there was bound to be something about film in it, wasn't there? You can't have a B&W issue without mentioning something about film, can you? I settled down to read on.
I was now into so many references to layers, curves and cloning that it had to be a magazine for mad and dangerous genetic engineers with a desire to build motorways in their spare time, surely?
I persevered. Sooner or later I had to see something about film surely? Well of course I did! Actually three references to be precise. The editor in chief used the phrase" Back in the days of film". A photojournalist, Nick Danziger in reply to the question, did he still use film, said yes lots of it but only in B&W He had gone across to digital for colour and the third reference? Well I cheated there. It was in reality a small advert by a company called Mailshots which mentioned it sold film, paper and chemicals.
I now had three questions: 1. Did the reference to "Back in the days of film mean that it no longer existed and had now all gone? Had anyone told Simon Galley and all those mouths he has to feed at Ilford? Things could be about to get real bad but there was always the fallback of teaching all the employees to play a banjo to entertain people queuing outside cinemas. Just a pity Mobberley isn't bigger with a lot more cinemas.
2. What was Practical Photography thinking of, interviewing a photojournalist who uses a medium that simply seems to belong in the past?
3. What was Mailshots thinking of? Paying good money to advertise products in a magazine which no one who bought it, would have any interest in as it was a 100% digital magazine, catering for a 100% digital audience. Well no-one except one customer in Daventry who had made a ghastly mistake. Sorry Mailshots. Much as I'd like to keep you going, my purchases will never even cover your advertising cost, let alone your total business.
Are you still all with me? Well good. Now you know why my story, like Del's, is sad but true BUT what about the analogy to Del's "runaround girlfriend" who was intent on also experiencing the charms of other guys. Well sad as it was for Del, I have no problem with that kind of thing or new photography. It was always the way of the world to try new things but in my innocence I had expected there to be some recognition that film still exists as do film cameras, darkrooms etc and just maybe in an issue on B&W there might be some meaningful reference to things analogue but alas, no such thing. It took "my breath away" as it did Tom's while he was flying. I preferred Charlie Sheen's antics as "Topper Harley" in "Hotshots" but that's another story.:D
If I were in charge I'd rename the magazine "Practical Digital Photography". It would be a more accurate name and might have saved me and Mailshots some money.:D
Thanks for reading. I have had a nice long rant which I hope has been mildly entertaining. I really must go now and chase my "Runaround Sue" who instead of going out with other guys is running around shops spending my money on frivolous things like food and clothes.
Still it could be worse. She might be spending money on certain magazines.:mad:
pentaxuser