"Green Policies" Ruining It For Film Photography?

<p>Fuji has an entire section for their "green endorsement": <a href="http://www.fujifilm.com/sustainability/commitment/green_policy/#priorityTargets">www.fujifilm.com/sustainability/commitment/green_policy/#priorityTargets</a> This is beyond the realm of digital vs. film, corporate desicions - profits/losses/, sagging economy, etc. It's pure politics from the top on down that must be having an influence somehow, somewhere. Like I've mentioned before, I talked to a photographer who said he won bids for jobs in that the clients thought him to be eco-friendly shooting digital rather than film. We have yet to see, how it might all pan out, all these $$ incentives for being green friendly. Of course Kodak & Fuji won't promote film, certainly not these days. I care about the evironment - who doesn't?</p>

<p>im not entirely sure digital is better for the environment... how many cameras get chucked in the trash when they die? what kind of chemicals are needed to make the sensor for a digital camera? im not entirely sure digital is really better, at least in the long term.</p>

<p>I believe that film photography is actually less damaging and dangerous for the environment than digital works. Many of the components, individually, have a very low toxicity; many occur naturally; many have a better decay pattern.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the EPA has reported that only about 10 to 20% of consumer electronics gets recycled (cameras were not specifically listed in their study, but computers were). This implies, component by component, we're making a huge mountain of electronic garbage. Of that, what is recycled is often handled improperly.</p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm</li>

<li>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60minutes/main4579229.shtml</li>

</ul>

<p>In order to figure up the actual cost and labor that would go into a zero impact style of environmental friendly disposal, try hypothesizing along these lines:</p>

<ul>

<li>Pick any object that you like</li>

<li>Figure up total hours you worked to earn the money for the object</li>

<li>Figure up approximate hours spent transporting & storing the object before you got it</li>

<li>Hours spent by each person to assemble the unit</li>

<li>Hours spent by each person to build each component</li>

<li>Hours spent by each person to extract the raw materials to build and refine those components.</li>

</ul>

<p>Now, compare that total with the amount of time and energy we invest in destroying, recycling or burying that object. If it doesn't approach what was put into it to make it the first time, then it's probably going to have to rot where we last put it. Usually that spot is in a large landfill.</p>

<p>Anything short of reusing or breaking an item down into naturally "rot-able" components is not "green."</p>

<p>We would need a massive social overhaul, not just financial investment, to create an environmentally friendly lifestyle for most urbanized areas. There would need to be an industry based on destroying objects that was as involved and sophisticated as the industries that made the objects. That structure doesn't exist.</p>

<p>Pound for pound, I believe film photo materials will be more environmentally friendly than used electronics because of their rate of corrosion and decay.</p>

<p>You probably won't have a large company selling you electronics bring this up anytime soon. It's easier to sell people on the idea that what's new is better. Since no one's going to actually look at what was done, and have a scientist analyze it; we'll be content to have peasants in far away places squatting in garbage heaps, melting plastic (and worse) for a living off of our electronic garbage.</p>

<p>The Energy Star label ain't going to cut it when we've got people using acid to try to leach out precious metals in some mud hut somewhere.</p>

<p>Well, I have the silver removed from my fixer once I have exhausted it. I also stretch and kind of reuse chemicals in my darkroom whenever possible.....If that counts for anything.......</p>

<p>On the film camera side, there's the film materials and the chemicals, but almost no new equipment being made. On the digital side, it's a new camera and new computer every few years plus more electricity. There's almost no enforced regulation of disposal of the digital stuff but in most countries the film chemicals come under environmental regulations (that are better enforced because it's businesses not individuals).</p>

<p>These might even out, or maybe digital comes out worse but I very strongly doubt that film comes out worse.</p>

<p>Don't forget the potable water (and temperture control of that water - which involves heating it, usually) involved in the darkroom, and the energy that goes into preparing, shipping, storing, and retailing the chemicals. That stuff all has to move around. The bags/bottles/jugs have to be manufactured, etc. <br /><br />Incidentally, my county dump as an electronics drop off point. It's <em>astounding</em> the mountain of stuff they collect for recycling - everything from whole TVs to dead computer power supplies, printers, and cell phone chargers. Tons, and tons, and tons of the stuff.</p>

<p>there might be a mountain of stuff, Matt, but as a percentage of all the electronic trash your county has, is it really significant? If its only 10% of all the electronic trash out there, its really not accomplishing all that much. 90%, then yes. but you have no way of really knowing, do you? And besides where is that stuff going after the drop off point? into the dump?... to some third world country where some kid will die because of the hazmats in some electronics?</p>

<p>there are shipping, storage, and retail energy expenses that go with digital as well - so thats not really par for the course. The energy that goes in to heating the chemicals is probably insignificant compared to the energy your computer used to write that last post. The bags, bottles and jugs were most likely off the shelf items that would have been made regardless of the chemical producers' intentions to put photo chemicals in them. The stuff for electronics has to be made for each electronic unit made..</p>

<p>There is nothing green about digital camera's in any possible way. They are just another form of e-waste and the dangerous chemicals and metals that you take pictures with will be in your water later on. It's just blowing smoke from both ends pretending that digital camera's or film camera's for that matter are green. If companies want to go green then they should close their doors. Consumers that want to go green should stop purchasing e-waste, driving cars, etc. Most of the products that we buy are made in a country that has little interest in protecting the environment and people that purchase products from that country are of the same mind.</p>

<p>Like the entire "Climate Change" marketing campaign, the concept that anything Digital is environmentally friendly is an outright fabrication or lie. Check out the manufacture of Silicon chips; It is one of the most dangerous and polluting industries ever known. Have a look at this link.<br>

http://cnx.org/content/m14503/latest/<br>

Scroll down to the section called "What are the health risks involved in the<br /> semiconductor industry?" Anyone who thinks that is more "Green" than film manufacturing and processing must be completely brain dead.</p>

<p>Electronics recycling for the most part means that the devices are sent to China where companies have agreed to take the stuff. Their people strip out metals that can be resold, then the rest - PCBs, plastic housings, etc. - is shipped to Africa where it is recycled to make large piles of crap on the outskirts of villages. The Chinese are not removing dangerous materials either. It's only recently that anybody's paid any attention to this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like the entire "Climate Change" marketing campaign, the concept that anything Digital is environmentally friendly is an outright fabrication or lie.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And if you believe that climate change is just a marketing campaign I have some extremely worried residents of Tuvalu I'd like you to meet. There are a lot of small island countries that aren't going to be there in 100 years. All of these things we do have consequences, and it's easier on our minds to pretend they don't exist but they do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if you believe that climate change is just a marketing campaign I have some extremely worried residents of Tuvalu I'd like you to meet.<br>

 </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Firstly, I bet you dont actually know anyone from Tuvalu to begin with. And by relating this as an example of climate change you show that you do no more than repeat the kool-aid, that like so many others, you've so easily swallowed, including the people of Tuvalu. And when rich countries provide money as compensation, then of course that country will continue to say they have a climate change problem.<br>

 <br>

The only flaw in the remark Russ made is that he didnt continue to say what its a marketing campaign for - its for a very small percentage of people to get rich(er) from. Goldman Sachs and Al Gore are two names that have strongly vested interest in ensuring the hype continues for their carbon trading exchanges.<br>

 <br>

The overall research is completely flawed - most researchers globally are NOT climate scientists by training, they have just associated themselves with the cause to get the research grants. And of course all the papers are vetted by panels of their peers as its a house of cards with everyones research based on the same underlying flaws. These flaws revolve around computer models that have been shown to be wildly inaccurate in forecasting any past events using historical data; the convenient use of start and finish dates of data sets; general data fudging; and the ease with which the masses are persuaded through fear and conclusion by consensus.<br>

 <br>

A much greater concern should be regular 90,000/12,000 years of ice age/temperate weather that has repeated itself over the last 1,000,000 years given now we are at the end of the current 12,000 years of temperate weather.</p>

 

I digress, so back on topic ...Im also certain that the "disposal" factor of digital anything would ensure that digital photography was far from being green in comparison to film-based technologies. Especially when the majority of digital camera bodies and their lens (mid to cheap equipment) have a use by date designed into them.

<blockquote>

<p>The overall research is completely flawed - most researchers globally are NOT climate scientists by training</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You must be a climatologist-oops sorry, a climate<strong> scientist</strong> because you've done the real primary research yourself. So other than the often times misused cyclic climate pattern (remember 12,000 years is just a tiny blip in geologic time-far too short to be considered an accurate measure) please state your proof.</p>

<p>But back to the topic at hand, modern technological and societies are a part of life. Early postings show that our pastime is not necessarily "eco-friendly". I think the idea is to be conscientious in how we operate. As digital photographers, maybe it would be better if we didn't run out and buy the newest super-camera when the one we have works good enough. Film photographers should practice responsible chemical disposal methods. Craig's research may be correct and we have nothing to worry about, but what if it isn't. At least we are trying to minimize our impact on the environment.</p>

<p>I didn't see anything in that page, linked to at Fuji, that said anything about film vs digital. I did see plenty of stuff that most large corporations are working on too.</p>

<p>It's interesting that lots of companies are finding that updating their processes to make them more green saves them money in the long run.</p>

<p>Anyway, I didn't see any evidence in that page that Fuji's going to blow off film anytime soon.</p>

<p>corporations would do anything these days to add to their 'social and corporate responsibility' profile. the greenbug is just that. whether we do anything to be more environmentally conscious should be started at home through small measures, like reusing containers, growing our own, thinking twice before jumping into the car to buy a newspaper from the shop at the bottom of the road etc. i am not entirely sure if slapping a green badge on fuji's green coloured packaging would make it any greener!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[...] is just a tiny blip in geologic time-far too short to be considered an accurate measure) please state your proof.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

A nice trick in a public forum but that approach will not provide support to any argument that is built on no more than science by consensus. People should be very careful about what really does constitute "proof" and not approach it lightly.<br>

 <br>

And as you asked...</p>

<ul>

<li>Kirschvink, J.L., E.J. Gaidos, L.E. Bertani, N.J. Beukes, J. Gutzmer, L.N. Maepa, and R.E. Steinberger, Paleoproterozoic snowball earth: Extreme climatic and geochemical global change and its biological consequences, <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 97</em> </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Schermerhorn, L.J.G., Late Precambrian mixtites: Glacial and/or nonglacial? <em>American Journal of Science, 274</em> </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Imbrie, J., and K.P. Imbrie, <em>Ice ages: Solving the mystery</em> , Enslow Publishers, Short Hills, NJ, 1979</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Hammer, C., P.A. Mayewski, D. Peel, and M. Stuiver, Preface to special volume on ice cores, <em>Journal of Geophysical Research, 102</em> </li>

</ul>

<p><em>"I talked to a photographer who said he won bids for jobs in that the clients thought him to be eco-friendly shooting digital rather than film."</em></p>

<p>While people often say warm, fuzzy things like that in small talk, I'd bet the real reason they hired him had to do with his portfolio and his rates. In my own experience I've never had a client bring up environmental concerns regarding what gear I use. On the other hand I have had clients suggest all sorts of mystical advantages to shooting with film. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I know that in the Northeast, the whole processing chemical phobia has impacted photography and photographers for more than a decade. Mil photo labs pretty much don't exist because of environmental protection policies on a local/state basis. I was astounded to learn that my primary skillset - managing the photo lab - was useless here when I arrived in unit in '94. Why was it useless? Because local regulation prohibited the use of the lab.<br>

Could I set up a closet darkroom and proceed? Sure, so long as one of my neighbors didn't take a dislike to what I was doing and report me. All sorts of swell hotlines to call in and make anonymous reports, so it wasn't worth the risk. I haven't canned and sloshed film in over 15 years now.</p>

<p><em>A nice trick in a public forum but that approach will not provide support to any argument that is built on no more than science by consensus. People should be very careful about what really does constitute "proof" and not approach it lightly.<br /></em></p>

<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. That didn't work, so the strategy to publically humiliate and supress all dissenting opinions was hatched. Gore's response to the question "Why do you still eat meat?" (cows generate methane, which has 20x the greenhouse effect of CO2), was less than gracious.</p>

<p>12,000 years spans human civilization and then some, and is a "blip" only in cosmological terms. 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. The current "scientific" situation is clouded by the inconvenient truth that there has been no measurable warming in the last 10 years. Indeed, there are no statistically significant trends over the 90 years or so that accurate weather records have been kept. For what it's worth, Mt. Etna alone spews about 30x the CO2 of all human activity. These facts were published in respected scientific sources, including <em>Science</em> and <em>Scientific American</em>. As of late, they have not been buried nor rewritten by the UN Ministry of Truth.</p>

<p>This is all about money, power and who wields it. If photography gets trampled, who cares?</p>

<p> I imagine we are all moving towards lot's of restrictions. However if someone wanted to help the environment then ride a bicycle. I have a Bianchi Milan City bike and I ride to work and to the market every day, except when it's raining. I toss my N80 into my Blackburn bike bag and take it with me quite often. </p>

<p>All of these forms of applied science and art could be made safe and environmentally friendly if we were willing to put the work into disposing of it all properly.<br /><br /> We don't need additional restrictions. We need the creation and expansion of sound maintenance and disposal structures that would be reasonable to use.<br /><br /> Almost all of our efforts are about profitable manufacture, with no effective attention at all to maintenance and disposal. All we do is push the burden of responsibility on the new, underpowered, owners, and ignore the sad results.</p>

<p>Regardless of our politics, none of us have been actually taking the measurements and analyzing the data; now, have we? We're all stuck with what somebody else says because we haven't done the labs ourselves. </p><p>Yet, it's obvious: we have serious problems with trash, especially plastic products. As photographers, we have only to turn to the pages of past issues of our beloved National Geographic to find excellent photos of mounds of trash and other signs of pollution. That mountain of garbage wasn't a big pile of Kodachrome wrappers. A lot of it is from un-decomposed, refined, petroleum products like hard plastics. </p><p>We can have a mountain of useless plastic right before our very eyes, and people will be afraid of Dektol! Come on, now. Let's prioritize our collective response to the pollution problems based on the size and impact of the mountain of waste. </p>

<p>Certain localities (including the state I live in) are requiring electronics manufacturers to take back their products at their expense and recycle them at the end of their useful life. That would encourage them to design electronics to be easier to recycle. The future is clearly digital so I think we ought to think about how to minimize its impact.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Certain localities (including the state I live in) are requiring electronics manufacturers to take back their products at their expense and recycle them at the end of their useful life. That would encourage them to design electronics to be easier to recycle. The future is clearly digital so I think we ought to think about how to minimize its impact.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I'm talking about - the current electronics "recycling" programs, which are mostly there due to regulation and marketing, aren't cutting it - you might give an old computer to the company that sells you your new computer, but the old computer just ends up being stripped of the metals that are most easily recovered then the rest of it is sent to one of many piles of crap in Africa, where there is plenty of land and no money. People are slowly catching on to this being a problem. I read a really good article on this a while back but I can't find it... but <a href="http://www.mnn.com/family/baby/blogs/how-e-waste-is-poisoning-the-worlds-children">here's one article</a> that's not quite as investigated and <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/10/ewaste/index.html">here's another one</a>.</p>

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

To compare them, you would have to go all the way back to their subsequent inputs. A non-camera example: bamboo flooring. Although Bamboo is a weed and grows about a foot/day, it needs quite a bit of energy and water to make them into flooring and more to darken it. Then you have to ship it from China! Is that really a "green" product? Is it better than slow growing American oak? That's for you to decide.<br>

The same goes for digital vs film.<br>

Also, if film manufacture isn't that toxic, then why is <a href="http://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/fskodakp.htm">Kodak Park one big toxic waste Super Fund site</a> ?<br>

It ain't from digital manufacturing.</p>