Jump to content

"Green" Initiatives Ousting Traditional Photography?


Recommended Posts

<p>I was chatting with a "Pro" photographer the other day and was astounded if not alarmed of all the clients he told me about who chose him in that he worked in digital he didn't polute the environment. Might he have been exagerating - has this been a growing trend in shaping the business end of photography? Hey, us film users care about the environment like everyone else. I should've asked him if he drives a car...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>That's an odd reason to pick somebody, considering that some huge majority of pros use digital now. I wonder whether it's even true. There are nasty chemicals used in making chips and circuit boards and a lot of the work happens in unregulated Chinese facilities (where with film you can buy from regularly inspected US and Japan sources) and digital cameras have planned obsolescence.</p>

<p>In green architecture, one of the big things is invested energy - the energy used in the process of making the equipment can be more than the energy used by the equipment over its life span, so combining that with the nasty chemicals introduced in making digital products, the act of choosing/re-using a 30-year-old camera over buying a new digital camera is itself a "green" decision. Then factor in that your chemical use (and remember that if you live in a country with strong environmental laws, the manufacture, use and disposal of the chemicals is regulated) is offset by your not spending time on a computer - and given the powerful computers and large monitors photographers use, the computer use can represent 400, 500 or more watts of electricity.</p>

<p>There are other questions I don't have enough info to answer - for example, what has more impact on the environment, a chemical printing process using US made materials in a US lab or inkjet using Chinese made chemicals?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I work in the semiconductor industry. The chip manufacturing process uses tons of toxic chemicals and lots of water. The chip then goes in a system using other toxic chemicals and in 3 years when you upgrade it goes in a landfill. I love what I do but I don't lie to myself and think that digital cameras are more green than film.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>first the negative:<br>

we heat with coal.<br>

as it is affordable. on ss retirement you don't have much choice<br>

BUT our car is very economical and our house is very engergy efficient<br>

not our opinion, it was tested by the state.<br>

now photography.<br>

true " chemicals" are used to process film and print pictures<br>

but the labs are businesses and are subject to enviromental laws as are the film manufactures.<br>

rules here in the USA are fairly strict.<br>

THAT SAID:<br>

when digital camera or a part is made<br>

it is made in a third world country.<br>

plastics and other manufacturing causes many harmful by-products.<br>

( recall Sharp commenting on the LCD plant that is very earth -friendly)<br>

ithe plant is in the USA.<br>

however, when thest things TV or Cameras are manufatured overseas, there are few if ANY<br>

restrictions as to pollution or anything else.</p>

<p>back to film:<br>

Kodak and others drastically improved the quality of prcessing chemicals<br>

and stopped making the older processes that were FAR MORE toxic.<br>

so the pollution levels of photo chemicals has been reduced a LOT over the years.</p>

<p>the same enviromentalists often give a lot of lip service<br>

someone pointed out the pollution caused by ol baraks trip to copenhagen<br>

equal to 400 car trips to chicago, i think.<br>

and for what?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>That's a bogus myth about digital cameras being "green." Most of my friends have gone through at least 3 or 4 digital cameras in just the past few years. They just dump them in the trash. Yeah, in most cities you're not really supposed to do that and they have certain places where you're supposed to take "e-waste." But NO ONE really does that. When something electronic breaks, they just dump it in the trash. I do the same thing.</p>

<p>And don't think that you're being environmentally responsible just because you take electronics to a recycling place either. There was a program on tv recently about how a lot of those recycling places that CLAIM they dissassemble computers, digital cameras, and other electronics in a safe way are actually just shipping them to China. People get paid dirt communist slave-labor wages to work in landfills all day, melting down plastic parts and de-soldering circuit boards. The waste ends up in a river. </p>

<p>People often also completely exaggerate how "dangerous" photographic chemicals are. The fact is, the household cleaning chemicals you use to clean toilets and showers are much more dangerous than photo chemicals...especially black and white developing chemicals.</p>

<p>I'll bet that photographer you spoke to is trying to use those bogus myths as a selling point on his glossy brochures. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm with Randy and Chirs on this one. I guess that you do use quite a bit of water but we have a septic system so the water ends up being recycled and it does not cost anything for water. Just the electricity which with digital you would need to run your computer and charge your camera. I have read that used developer makes a good fertilizer for your garden so the chemicals can't be too bad.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you process your own film and dump the chemicals into a stream without any treatment, you are doing some damage. If you dump your camera or computer equipment on the road side, you are doing some damage. If you put your process effluent down an approved sewer that has effective treatment then there is minimal concern. It is also possible to concentrate your effluent, seal it in drums and have it taken to a responsible solid waste disposal facility (as is done in Norway). There is no material so toxic that it can't be handled safely. Colnversely, there is no material so safe that it can't be dangerous. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"But NO ONE really does that. When something electronic breaks, they just dump it in the trash. I do the same thing."</p>

<p>Many of us do the right thing whatever type camera we use. It is not that hard to look at a MSDS sheet for whatever chemical you use. It is not that hard to look in the Yellow pages to look for a recycling place for your electronic equipment.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well there is a big fad in "Green Crud" these days. Everyone pays lip service but few actually understand how polluting the electronics industry is. There have been strict EPA laws on how much silver effluent labs can release for the last 15-20 years. If the standards were equally strict in the electronics industry you'd only be allowed to purchase 2-3 computers or digital cameras in your life! Very little of what people believe these days has any base in rational thinking or solid information. There is more heavy metal and toxins in a can of Tuna than the average photolab releases in a week.<br>

Computers and digital cameras are not "green". Buying less crap and using what you've got until it wears out is good economy, and helps the environment indirectly.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Not to argue that digital cameras are 'green' but to counter-argue that political forces are getting rid of film/developing because it 'pollutes'. I ran into this in an Army photo lab... the state of Mass. imposed so many restrictions and limits that the Army just closed the lab, so we couldn't process/print our own film, had to send it out instead.<br>

There has to be some amount of reason applied to this stuff, else we get to the point in restricting carbon emissions that someone will be told not to breath (we are a carbon-based life form after all).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I attended a PMA (Photo Marketing Assosiation) trade show back in 1992 because of a book I wrote on cameras. I wandered around the show, checking out various stuff, and at some point wound up over in the area where the photo processing equipment manufacturers had booths. Back in 1992, there was already a strong move toward environmentally safe processes, many of which amounted to dewatering the chemical waste so that it was in solid form when disposed of or incinerated. I talked to one of the reps, and he said that the entire industry was moving toward this in a defensive move to stave off tightening environmental restrictions.</p>

<p>So, once again, we have a case of politicians with overactive senses of environmental responsibility playing to a constituent base because it's an easy way to look good and get re-elected. And it works well because Environmentalism is the New Religion for many people. One of the characteristics of any religion is that certain articles of it are matters of faith and require no proof. Environmentalism has now reached this level.</p>

<p>Nowadays, if something is labeled as "green," I usually won't buy it on a matter of principle. At some point recently, businesses have decided that they can turn a profit if they label their products or services as "green." I choose not to support this way of thinking.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The whole "green" thing is a crock anyway. Follow the money. It's all nonsense pumped up by the crooks in government and their dupes in the media. Certain segments stand to benefit mightily in a financial way from so-called green initiatives. Look at who they support politically. A crock.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Let's not overgeneralize "green" because a few businesses are using it to market their products like they do with "Low fat", "healthy", "all natural", etc.... With any product there are going to be pluses and minuses with environmental impact and it's horribly difficult to calculate it because of the global nature of all businesses these days. Even if something is "green" as green can be, if it's shipped from across the World, that transportation is using up quite a bit of fuel. It also depends on what is important to you. Is it water usage? I don't know how much water usage is used to create one sensor and all the other chips in a pro-body digital camera, but the typical digital camera has what? 300,000 frames to it? Which is 8,333 rolls of 36 exposure film. How much water is used for not only making the film, but also processing it?</p>

<p>Toxic chemicals used in the production of either comes into it, too. How toxic are they? How long do they stay in the environment? Exactly what are the health effects on humans and what is the damage to the ecosystem?</p>

<p>The ecosystem is so complex it's very hard to ascertain which is better. Something could seem to be incredibly "green" but come to find out it does some horrible damage down the line. Hydro-power is a great example. Many green power people love it but it's having a horrible impact on the Northwestern Salmon fisheries - those fish ladders aren't doing what they're claimed to do. So what's more important? Keep the fisheries up or reduce CO2? That's when another solution has to be found if we want both and I think it is possible.</p>

<p>Everything has its strengths and weaknesses but to just chuck everything out as being BS is horribly misguided and will ultimately cost us in the end. We also have to be wary of any silver bullet solution - the "one" solution that solves everything. There is none.</p>

<p>And I don't think it has to be an either or proposition. There are solutions that can solve all the problems - we just need to put our heads together and have rational discourse.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"I once thought that digital imaging was 'green' but it's manufacture uses many extremely toxic chemicals and gases. Special plumbing is used to control and monitor gases and sensors throughout the plant warn of any leaks, no matter how small. Saftey and responsible handling is of paramount importance. There is no doubt that these substances are best dealt with by an experienced chemicals company - which is exactly what Kodak is - leaving no residual chemicals for users to dispose of and ensuring that digital capture is environmentally friendly."</p>

<p>Source: <a href="http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/dcs.html">http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/dcs.html</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In big inkjet printing; the fumes are dangerous thus we have hoods to vent the crap off.<br>

<br /> As for waste; digital creates waste manytimes.<br>

The lay dumb public has a difficult time understanding ppi; dpi; resolution. One has a dumber group of folks to deal with; alot cannot even understand aspect ratio anymore.<br>

<br /> The general public knows enough to be dangerous ; thus they dictate to printers how to do our work; or they bring in jackass files. The customer is always right. Thus one has to tiptoe and try to get their original digital file; instead of their upsized bload files.<br>

<br /> Customers who are photoshop certified; work in graphics are often too full of egos to learn. They shoot with a digital camera;then print it with their inkjet; then they flatbed scan it at a zillion dpi. They create this giant TIFF file that will not fit on a CD; it requires a DVD. One gets an image that is 800 to 1200 megs upsized from a 1.3 to 3 megapixel camera. The resultant file is bloaded; with lost shadows; lost highlights; with all the warts from their dumb home printer. Sadly I have seen this a hundred times.<br>

<br /> In a away it is like everybody is a fine cook today;they go to a fine eating place and dictate to the head cook; and bring in their inputs of dead mouse and dead dog. Today with digital; dealing with the lay public is a big cost as a printer.<br>

<br /> In schools many have disposed of the evil darkroom; and the school has now the super green yearly new printers and scads of cartridge to buy; which all goes into landfills.<br>

<br /> It really doesnt matter if the old chemical based darkroom was not all that bad. Calling it bad makes buying digital easier; one justifys scrapping out the old ways. At a local college; computers used in the digital class get hosed up all the time; thus now they reghost the computers each day; to remove all the crud students place on them.<br>

Yes EACH DAY on some; some each week. Students have thumb drives and are warned not to leave any work one over night. Thus one has the the cost of IT support and reghosting. With cameras the school had their own; but they get dropped all the time. Thus now each student needs to have their own at least P&S digital; or pay a deposit if the schools camera(s) are used.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...