"In this guide we are leaving film behind as a somewhat fond memory."

[pdeeh]

The thread title is a quote from "Photography: A Guardian Masterclass", an 82-page supplement with today's Guardian newspaper.

There is are one or two other passing references to film, both of which imply its obsolescence. Slightly surprisingly, given the Guardian's demographic, even "lomography" isn't mentioned at all.

I quite understand why they would choose to focus on digital, but It does nevertheless seem a shame.

For those who don't read the Guardian, or who are not in the UK, and are interested, the text is available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi...hy-masterclass

[cliveh]

As a Guardian reader I find this very disappointing, particularly as their ‘my best shot’ page which they show about one day a week often features images taken on film.

[perkeleellinen]

I used to buy the Guardian every day when I worked 9-5 (actually 7:30-4:30) but now I work mostly from home I don't have time to take a paper. I do, however, have a soft spot for My Best Shot and if I do buy a copy I'll make sure it's Wednesday so I can see the photo on paper (and avoid the silly comments online). Lately I've been buying the Guardian Weekly which is truly international and about the right size for a weekly read. It also doesn't have quite the obsession with US and Israeli politics which the UK print copy has.

I toyed with buying today's to see this supplement but sort of suspected it would be depressing. Is it sponsored by Nikon?

Now, if the Guardian made a book of all the My Best Shot interviews and photos, that's something I'd definitely buy.

[pdeeh]

It doesn't seem to be sponsored at all.
It does have some good articles in it about photography skills, but but the context is almost purely digital

[batwister]

Funny then, that the accompanying image above almost every 'lesson' is a photograph made on film. I wonder if they could do the feature without mentioning or showing any film photographers? If they're really going to 'leave film behind' they should do it properly. Start afresh, referencing only those great digital photographers taking the MoMA by storm.

[summicron1]

It has nothing to do with film, folks. Absolutely nothing.

And, to be honest, it has very little to do with digital photography either. So what's up?

I work for a newspaper. Guess how many makers of film cameras are advertising in newspapers these days? How many dealers selling film cameras?

Now tell me how many dealers and makers of digital cameras and other gear are advertising....

Yup. It's all about money. Ad money. Newspapers everywhere are desperate for ad revenue because subscriptions don't pay for much more than the paper the dumb things are printed on. No ad revenue, no newspaper.

That sounds like a special section the Guardian is producing to attract ads by dealers selling photo gear.

Stories about film don't produce ad revenue? No stories. Tata film!

[blansky]

It has nothing to do with film, folks. Absolutely nothing.

And, to be honest, it has very little to do with digital photography either. So what's up?

I work for a newspaper. Guess how many makers of film cameras are advertising in newspapers these days? How many dealers selling film cameras?

Now tell me how many dealers and makers of digital cameras and other gear are advertising....

Yup. It's all about money. Ad money. Newspapers everywhere are desperate for ad revenue because subscriptions don't pay for much more than the paper the dumb things are printed on. No ad revenue, no newspaper.

That sounds like a special section the Guardian is producing to attract ads by dealers selling photo gear.

Stories about film don't produce ad revenue? No stories. Tata film!

It's also about some writer or editor who is just filling holes in the copy of the paper and throws in junk stories to beat a deadline.

It all means nothing.

Waaaaayyyyyy back when I sold advertising for a newspaper some "reporter" went out and covered a story about Hong Kong Tailors that travel from town to town and measured people for suits and then had them sent directly to the customer in 2 weeks. It was supposed to be human interest story. Unfortunately when it ran, the story was placed beside one of the top advertisers who ran a men's clothing store that sold very nice suits. The shit hit the fan. Bottom line, a lot of stuff in newpapers is just fluff to fill the pages.

[Benoît99]

Except for front pages and editorial pages, advertising drives newspaper content. When pages are laid out, the ads are the first items to be placed. Then, whatever space is left gets filled with news and related photos.

Since 1897, the motto on the front page of the New York Times has been "All the news that's fit to print." Those who know better say it should be "All the news that fits, we print."

When newspapers have a special section, like photography, cooking, travel, home renovation, etc., the purpose is not to provide information, it is to sell advertising whose revenues supplement the revenues from regular contracts.

Income from subscriptions and single copy sales covers the cost of paper, ink printing and distribution. EVERYTHING else is paid for by advertising revenues.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a special section on film photography or fax machines, although both still have users.

[ic-racer]

The thread title is a quote from "Photography: A Guardian Masterclass", an 82-page supplement with today's Guardian newspaper.

There is are one or two other passing references to film, both of which imply its obsolescence. Slightly surprisingly, given the Guardian's demographic, even "lomography" isn't mentioned at all.

I quite understand why they would choose to focus on digital, but It does nevertheless seem a shame.

For those who don't read the Guardian, or who are not in the UK, and are interested, the text is available online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi...hy-masterclass

If you are doing digital why would one need a guide anyway? The process is marketed for point and shoot. I'd guess less than 0.001% of digital images are taken by people that know what an f-stop is.

[hoffy]

If you are doing digital why would one need a guide anyway? The process is marketed for point and shoot. I'd guess less than 0.001% of digital images are taken by people that know what an f-stop is.

Ever since Eastman said "You push the button, we do the rest", there has been ignorant photographers....