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

pdeeh · Nov 17, 2012

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/artanddesign/series/photography-masterclass

cliveh · Nov 17, 2012

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 · Nov 17, 2012

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 · Nov 17, 2012

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 · Nov 17, 2012

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 · Nov 17, 2012

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 · Nov 17, 2012

summicron1 said:
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 · Nov 17, 2012

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 · Nov 17, 2012

pdeeh said:
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/artanddesign/series/photography-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 · Nov 17, 2012

ic-racer said:
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....

cliveh · Nov 17, 2012

In defence of digital photography, I would say that it is in fact just a different medium of capture. If you apply the same care and vision that some apply to film photography then great digital images are possible. The problem is in the fact that many digital photographers rely on multiple capture and selection (the machine gun effect) which doesnt really work. The best image capture is about understanding distance, perspective, composition, timing and much much more.

cepwin · Nov 17, 2012

True, and people have bought expensive cameras and left them in "auto" for years....never quite knowing what they had. Funny, I just picked up a graflex 22 on ebay and it is totally mechanical....there is no auto anything..anyone buying it back in the day had to have some knowledge of exposure or they would have gotten totally incorrectly exposed images.

mr grey · Nov 17, 2012

I agree on the 0.001%.Personally I have been suggesting reprints of the (All about) books from the fifties.
Henry

batwister · Nov 17, 2012

'We are leaving film behind as a somewhat (writer: "SNORT SNORT!" :munch fond memory.' Why do they need to tell their readers this if they already shoot digital? To validate their decision to shoot digital. Which means there is still a decision. The Guardian knows it's a hot topic and the feature is aimed at the amateur sharp shooter, while trying to win over the (more serious) film dabbling readers (who are hipsters) by telling them they are unfashionable. But the thing is... it doesn't work as marketing, because the Guardian's demographic tends to be mostly art school hipsters. If their readership all start shooting digital, they won't be hipsters anymore, and in turn, will have to stop reading!

Seriously, if the Guardian stuck to their guns, they would be championing film.

lxdude · Nov 17, 2012

Benoît99 said:
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.

Around here, television stations are doing that in their news programs. You think you're seeing a news story on something and it turns out to be a "sponsored feature".
When my TV died three years ago, I didn't replace it. I've had enough.

pdeeh · Nov 17, 2012

Interestingly enough, the printed supplement has only a single advertisement, inside the back cover.

hoffy · Nov 17, 2012

pdeeh said:
Interestingly enough, the printed supplement has only a single advertisement, inside the back cover.

But, did they mention any brand names or retailers in the copy? There are more ways to advertise then just running ad's.

AgX · Nov 17, 2012

From the Guardian:

The tsunami of digital technology has swept away, or is threatening to sweep away, so much that was not that long ago taken for granted: rolls of film, the film camera, dark rooms, processing labs, contact sheets, Polaroids and Kodachrome. As with recorded music and, imminently, printed matter, photography is a world in which all that once was solid is becoming immaterial.

Harsh words, but true. True in the sense of a tsunami leaving behind morsels. Morsels to be nourished by us.

I would sign that quotation. Now beat me up.

Prof_Pixel · Nov 17, 2012

cliveh said:
The problem is in the fact that many digital photographers rely on multiple capture and selection (the machine gun effect) which doesnt really work.

Come on now... that started happening in the late 1950s with motor drive Nikons several years before Nikon started making reflex cameras. The only difference now is that with digital you have a much bigger 'roll of film' to shoot.

Steve Smith · Nov 18, 2012

lxdude said:
Around here, television stations are doing that in their news programs. You think you're seeing a news story on something and it turns out to be a "sponsored feature".

Over here we get reports on TV news and in the papers about stupid TV programmes like the X Factor and other crap 'reality' programmes. I don't watch the actual programmes so I don't want to hear about them as news stories (which they are not).

Prof_Pixel said:
The only difference now is that with digital you have a much bigger 'roll of film' to shoot.

And as it is now free 'bigger roll of film' it happens much more than when it used to cost money.

Steve.

cliveh · Nov 18, 2012

pdeeh said:
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/artanddesign/series/photography-masterclass

If you go to guardian.co.uk/photography-masterclass-competition I notice that the winning shot on the cover of their booklet was taken in 1981. A wonderful composition and a cracking shot byRob Kenyon.

Prof_Pixel · Nov 18, 2012

Steve Smith said:
And as it is now free 'bigger roll of film' it happens much more than when it used to cost money.

It still co$t$ money to store all the images that are captured.

ic-racer · Nov 18, 2012

Prof_Pixel said:
The only difference now is that with digital you have a much bigger 'roll of film' to shoot.

Actually not. A digital image is a virtual image. You can't see it or hold it in your hand. It only exists as an abstract collection of 1 and 0. If you want to actually see it or hold it in your hand it has to be converted to an analog image.

Prof_Pixel · Nov 18, 2012

ic-racer said:
Actually not. A digital image is a virtual image. You can't see it or hold it in your hand. It only exists as an abstract collection of 1 and 0. If you want to actually see it or hold it in your hand it has to be converted to an analog image.

It may be "1's and 0's", but it doesn't simply exist in the 'either' - it must be stored on something physical. A memory card has some limited number of images that it can hold and is analogous to a roll of film - just as a roll of film must be 'processed' to see the images on it, so to must the images on a memory card be 'processed' to see the images.

Poisson Du Jour · Nov 18, 2012

Who said film is obsolete? The Guardian, in the UK? Presumably, the monarchy is also obsolete? Would they say that? You bet they wouldn't dare!
Let's not forget what The Guardian has: a digi image is a mathematical algorithm; it bears and has no resemblance to the scene it has captured until a computer does the parsing — that's where the clever stuff ends. A few digits does not a photograph make, and never will make, in my eyes.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency