Earth Friendly Development Processes

Are there any alternative processes for developing b&w film that are safe for the environment? I do not want to use a digital darkroom but am fearing that this may be my only solution. If anyone out there can help I'd be most grateful.

Steven,

 

<p>

 

it is most admirable that you are aware of your impact on the

environment and the effects your photography may have. I might be

fooling myself, but I use Xtol and have set up a recycling scheme for

all waste. I have a farm in the Oregon coastal mountains, on a river,

and must capture all developer products and rinsings and recycle

everything. I print digitally to avoid the excessive waste products

associated with conventional enlarging, and make an effort to be

conscientious and respectful of our planet. perhaps digital will be

the ultimate green photographic process.

Greetings,

 

<p>

 

I realize this isn't an answer to your question, but the thought

struck me while I was reading your question. Is going digital really

a means of saving the environment? Is it better than conventional

processes? I wonder what impact the plastics that make the some of

the digital cameras have on the environment. I do know that printed

circuit board manufacturing is not earth friendly. What about the

ink, paper and IC manufacturing? Just beacuse it appears clean and

all the "nasty" stuff is hidden from us, does it mean it's earth

friendly? Sorry, but I just had to offer a different perspective.

Good luck in you endeavors.

 

<p>

 

regards,

I don't have an answer and will be interested to hear some responses,

but yes, you must look at the big picture! You might not polute your

local environment, but what's happening elsewhere for you to

be 'clean'? If your serious you will care.

Daniel and Pete both put their fingers on the wounds, and Nigel found

the keyword: the big picture. In fact, none of us is able to see this

big picture. If the manufacturers had their way, we wouldn't even know

that darkroom chemistry (or computer manufacture, for that matter) are

bad for the environment. Both technologies are bad for the

environment, the wet way because of the hazardous chemicals it uses,

which are not collected for recycling, and the digital way because a

lot of chemicals and energy are used to produce the hardware. Later,

in use, the energy consumption is the main issue.

 

<p>

 

As a rule, it is easier to keep the recycling chain unbroken when

as many of the environmentally harmful processes as possible are

centralised, i.e. at the plant of a manufacturer. This is in favour of

computers. It is possible to keep most of the hazardous stuff in the

plant for recycling. On the other hand, centralised production

requires additional energy to transport the goods to the consumer.

Whether more energy is consumed by shipping computers around the world

or by shipping photo chemistry, is a question which probably no one

can answer because it strongly depends on the life cycles of the

computer hardware in question.

 

<p>

 

When going the wet way, you may look for less toxic chemistry. XTOL is

probably a good choice in this respect as it contains much less of the

conventional, mostly highly toxic agents. For prints, Agfa's Neutol

Plus (Vitamin-C-based like XTOL) is similar. You should also make sure

you don't dump hazardous stuff down the drain just because it's so

convenient to believe it's biodegradable. It is not too difficult to

collect the material to bring it to a collection point for

incineration at a specialised plant, if such an infrastructure exists.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein

The industrial processes that bring you the camera and film and make

the chemistry we use is far more destructive than anything you might

do in photography. James

Although it would be nice to have a scapegoat, this is not exactly

true. A great manufacturer's plant is bound to comply with strict

legislation. Also, not only for the benefit of the environment, but

also to minimise cost, there is often quite a tight system of in-plant

recycling and reuse. So the total quantity of waste and

emissions produced by such a plant is comparatively low. This is quite

different for amateurs who do not collect their waste for recycling

or proper disposal. Each one of them may only dispose of a few dozen

gallons of toxic waste per year, the large number of amateurs who do

this makes for quite a quantity of hazardous matter released into the

environment w/o any treatment.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Thomas Wollstein