"Green Policies" Ruining It For Film Photography?

<blockquote>

<p>First of all <strong>neither </strong>digital or film is environmentally friendly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I googled up your comments on Kodak Park and found them to be true. It's kind of hard to find an article that breaks it all down but Kodak has been a willing major polluter. A Kodak moment apparently is a nice breath of fresh Dixoin. Mia Farrow does not buy Kodak products because they supported the Olympics in China but her issue is more about genocide. However it seems that photogrphy as a hobby is not good clean fun afterall. It's a shame. I wonder if Fuji is the same or do they manage their waste in a responsible way. This has been a Informative thread.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Craig, for an historical view of the "climate" issues. As I recall, about 10 years ago the "impending ice age" folks were getting a lot of press.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have very poor recall, then, considering the IPCC first assessment was completed <em>twenty</em> years ago in 1990. The press you are referring to dates to the 70s and it can by no stretch of the imagination be described as "a lot". It was a vanishingly small amount compared to the press for AGW even twenty years ago. But press schmess -- what was the science? Well, "between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling." (Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On several occasions in the past (e.g., the Triassic and Eocene epochs) the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 6x or more that of the present, but global temperatures were elevated no more than 3 deg C.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you referring to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Expansion? It was 7 C warmer at high altitudes. It was 23 C at the poles. It was a period of rapid and intense warming. We don't know what caused the thermal expansion, and the existence of warm periods before people does not imply people aren't warming the planet today, but interestingly -- because it is the percent change in CO2 that matters w.r.t. radiative forcing -- the perturbation to the Paleocene carbon cycle was a 70% increase. Since 1900, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased 35%.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The current "scientific" situation is clouded by the inconvenient truth that there has been no measurable warming in the last 10 years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was announced just this week by the World Meterological Organization that this has been the warmest decade going back to 1850.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Indeed, there are no statistically significant trends over the 90 years or so that accurate weather records have been kept</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed, there is the instrumental temperature record, whose warming due to internal variability is extremely unlikely (alpha < 0.05). In English that means there is a statistically significant trend: Earth is getting warmer due to external forcings.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For what it's worth, Mt. Etna alone spews about 30x the CO2 of all human activity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/co2-and-the-volcanoes/">Not even close</a> .</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>These facts were published in respected scientific sources, including <em>Science</em> and <em>Scientific American</em> .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Show me. I challenge you to place thse scrapings from the bottom of the denialist barrel in the legitimate peer-reviewed literature, which was surely cleansed when "the strategy to publically humiliate and supress all dissenting opinions was hatched."</p>

<p>I see many talking points that look <em>very </em> familiar. And I see passions flaring here.<br>

I'd like to point out that the electronic media - all electronic broadcast media - has been doing a horrible disservice to the public with broadcasting partial truths and in some cases downright misinformation.<br>

The worst offenders are pundits that have shows named after them. I've heard half truths and in some cases, outright lies. One of those people actually said that 2009 was the coldest year on record. That is a boldface lie. Those people make millions of dollars a year getting people's emotions up by telling half truths and lies which gets them more viewers and listeners and subsequently more advertising.<br>

TV, Radio , and most websites are horrible sources for information about environmental issues. I've turned my TV off and saved quite a bit of money in the process (Cable costs too much and there's mostly crap on.) and stopped listening to the radio - I'm <em>much </em> happier now.<br>

<em>Scientific American</em> is actually a great source and they do have skeptics that write there - contrary to what some may have heard from those pundits I've mentioned above.<br>

<em>National Geographic</em> is another one and it's also the best photography magazine out there.<br>

<em>Discover </em> magazine and the <em>Economist</em> are some other sources that have decent coverage on the issue.</p>

<p>OK, I'm done with this thread.</p>

<p>Is this forum no longer moderated? I'd suggest weeding out amateur science 101 from the posts about the environmental impact of photography.</p>

<p>sometimes i feel that people who say humanity doesn't impact climate and nature are city folk who go on a picknick a couple of time in the summer and get most of the info from TV and radio talking heads. even if you have a problem with science don't you have eyes? a simplest example - the river that have been carving the Grand Canyon just dies in the desert. the Colorado River died just a couple of decades ago. <br>

i spent the first 16 years of my life in Ukraine, when the winter came in the 80s it was for 4-5 months of freezing temp, with a least 4 weeks of -20C or bellow. it rerally gets close to -20C now. <br>

but to come back to the topic of the thread... both digital and analog leaves it's mark on the environment. each of us should try to squeeze as much as possible out of our equipment and everyday items in terms of longevity and in general do our best to generate as little waste as possible - this is our home. you'd be surprised how long that paper towel roll can last if you use 2 regular towels to wipe your hands and dishes.</p>

<p>i just read my comment and realize that i wasn't particularly clear on the Colorado River statement. :) i meant that Colorado River used to flow into the Gulf of California and now it just disappears in the desert before reaching the gulf.</p>

<p>is that so much due to global warming as the fact that American farmers refuse to use drip irrigation? And, lets not forget the wastefulness of places like Las Vegas...</p>

<p>this entire discussion is a "philosophical abyss." i've thought about this stuff before and get so twisted up in knots that i have to put my mind on something else. there is no perfect answer.</p>

<p>Daniel, the perfect answer is that we stop taking photos, put down our cameras, and kill ourselves.</p>

<p>Every time you perform a Google search, you kill a baby seal.<br>

<a href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece">http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece</a></p>

<p>I heard about a poll conducted by Kodak. This one was all about "green" prints at kiosks. They were market testing several different messages that claim there are no chemicals or waste products used to make prints at kiosks. I believe they use thermal printers at those kiosks. They clearly care about their image. In fact, they care enough to bad-mouth conventional color prints. </p>

<p>Regarding pollution at Kodak Park, the major "pollutant" has been methylene chloride which is used to make acetate base. There were a couple major spills that resulted in methylene chloride in the ground water. They drilled a number of wells and started pumping water out of them so that the methylene chloride would eventually be pumped out. The water pumped out of these wells was treated before putting it in the river. There were also a number of programs to shore up property values for home owners adjacent to the affected area. All this happened in the 80's and 90's and is very old news. The Superfund designation remains, but this is no longer a topic in the local media.</p>

<p>There is no technology that is so dangerous that it can't be handled safely. (And there is no technology so safe that it can't be mis handled.) </p>

<p>As for printing; there often is more waste with digital.<br /> <br /> Every customer is an expert.<br /> <br /> Less folks understand aspect ratios anymore; folks are more stupid.<br /> <br /> Thus one hallmark of digital printing is a many jobs have little waste; and few have a HUGE amount.<br /> <br /> The entire cost of dealing with digital customers about pixels; dpi upsizing is a waste.<br /> <br /> On a small job the inkjet ink and paper costs less than labor dealing with a customer.<br /> Artists have a 6th sense about creating a jackass input; one a tad larger than an industry size roll or sheet size. Thus after explaining this a zillion times; one just uses the next larger size and trims all the waste and it goes into a landfill.<br /> <br /> In is basically in some folks DNA to avoid anything standard. Thus a typical save the planet customer wants a discount for their cause; wants a deal or free; but the printing is one of the most wastefull.<br /> One lady has us print all these global warming save the planet propaganda; but comes in by taxi and the taxi waites outside with the AC on and engine. Other artist types want to iterate a zillion times with colors and hues; the whole trash can gets filed up with duds. THEN the one they like is the SECOND one; not the one 1/2 hour later. Alot to this printing media goes to folks who give money for lobbying group; they get old folks and gullible young folks to donate. The head guy drives a hot flash car; but has an electric too for show purposes.<br>

<br /> <br /> We rose prices to break even with this client since the scrap rate and labor is out of wack and they finally left; good riddence. It is good to fire a customer that is a total net loss and has such a god like agenda and preaches saving; but is massively wastefull. They would bring in some damp recycled crap paper and it would jam up ; or the darn colors would be a off. Their flyers would be dumb doc files filed with bloaded image sizes; a 27 copy per minute machine with a 3 Ghz CPU woudl slow down to 1 priint every 5 minutes. The job would take forever. making a pdf of it flattened is what we would do; this woud,take a hour or two with a dual core 3.4 GHZ box running 64 bit and 8 gigs of ram. The creator of these ill doc gems is an expert in all fields; and bitches why a 15 grand printer is not faster. Your beloved tax dollars and donations pay for these folks to create waste the Phd researcher is being paid by you to save the planet with a grant.</p>

<p>There is scrap in film and digital. With digital there are a few odd folks who really create super poor inputs that create massive scrap. Folks use printers to proof their work. You print the final itteration and then there is a typo and then they do not want to pay anything. Thus digital printing varies widely; often it is due mostly to scrap and handholding issues.</p>

<p>What about tangential environmental affects? I'm sure folks can think of many. I'm no expert in the medical profession, but I have wondered myself how health issues compare between the practice of film processing vs digital processing, from a "green" perspective. For example (and I'm giving maybe a worse case what-if here) after daily stretches of many many hours working at a computer for photo processing one may suffer from carpal tunnel, tarsal tunnel, neck strain, eye strain, and poor blood circulation in the legs, just to name a few. This drives the demand for remedies ranging from simple over the counter pain killers to complex diagnostics and/or surgery. The medical industry responds with their solutions. How green are the manufacturing processes or medical practices which bring about those solutions? Now do the same considering film processing in a darkroom. What are the potential health hazards there and how green are the associated manufacturing processes or medical practices which enable those required medical treatments? (By the way, that first example isn't such a mind stretch as I must confess I pretty much just described myself! I've been treated for all those conditions except for the eye strain, but I know my eyes have been affected because I can barely focus when I attempt to read an actual book these days, which I believe is a result of hours of staring at a backlit display on a daily basis!)<br>

I'm not trying to say one is better or safer than the other of course. But I will say that the reason I decided to get back into working with film, besides the fact that I just love it, is that I needed to get up and MOVE in the process of being creative. My day job forces me to be tied to a chair and pinned to a computer monitor and keyboard. The darkroom affords the ability to move my limbs, although there are the obvious limitations w.r.t. chemical exposure. Yet, I've never had to visit my doctor with complaints associated with doing darkroom work. I realize these are just my personal experiences, but I can't help to wonder if the statistical analysis on this question has been generated! How green is my darkroom (or lightroom) hobby not just in terms of the waste that I generate, but also in terms of the environmental impact of the medical treatments associated with the hazards of my darkroom (or lightroom) hobby?</p>