I think you guys are being a little unfair regarding the editorial team at B&W. Liz knows her way about a traditional darkroom - I know, because I'm the guy who dragged her, kicking and screaming through it; before digital photography reared it's ugly head. And I know for a fact she found the transition to digital not very much to her liking. However, whatever Liz's preferences, the market went digital and, so, B&W had to go digital too.

As it happens, it's me teaching Jemima - from mid tone readings all the way through to split grade printing. She's a willing student but she only gets one day per month in the darkroom because she's chained to a desk dealing with subscriptions and order forms etc. How she remembers it all from one session to the next is beyond me; I can't remember why I walked upstairs five minutes ago, and I live in a flat.

I agree with you all that reading articles about 'how to make digital cyanotypes' can be trying. But if an article like that encourages just one reader to try doing the real thing, it's got to be positive, hasn't it?. B&W is never going to turn it's back on digital. But credit where credit's due - how many other mainstream magazines feature analogue at all?