35mm film and how much we are required to waste

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zsas

EvH/ Brian - I don't think David is really looking for any change. His motive was to point out this truism and defend his motive for pointing it out. He seems disinterested in talking beyond his "discovery" re consumption of materials in artistic pursuits.

David - Let's consider the flip side, would rapid winding cameras, like those used in the 80's to capture high speed photographs (eg sports photog, birds in flight photog, etc ) been able to support the frames per sec that they evolved to because 35mm had two sets of sprockets? Would the surface tension of the film snap if it was like Super 8 or Super 16? Would the camera makers have had to charge more to support 35mm cameras that had two teeth vs 1 row of teeth or none at all? When you propose, with almost disdain, how 35mm evolved so inefficient (ie wasteful), is the end game of better quality the only motive....no....it's a ballance. I find the topic kind of pointless because you don't seem interested in us affecting change in our habits to promote a society that uses less...

---

A car wastes at the very least 75% of the gasoline you put in it. A CFL lamp wastes around 90% of the energy it uses. Then there's all the other waste... plastic made from petroleum, only to be tossed in the landfill... and on and on.
I'm not getting very excited about 35mm film.

I'm just glad we can still get film, sprocket holes and all. ;)

Ha... me too. I'm glad to still be getting film!

WRT "waste" I guess I'm much less worried abou thte possibilities of optimizing waste (maximizing efficiency) only becuase I knw that there is much more waste that happens further up the chain. Although 75% of the fuel in our cars may get wasted... that is a small portion of the waste that occurs during delivery, manufacturing, and mining the raw products that beome gas. Same with film.

It depends on how you frame the 'issue'. I capture on 4x5 image on 12,900 sq mm when I shoot large format, and only use 2,150 sq mm of film (including the waste) when I shoot 35mm. So large format seems wasteful, but I intend to keep shooting it.

I've often wondered how much wastage there is in the manufacture of film, be it 35mm, 120 or sheet? My understanding is the you start off with large sheets of film which is cut to suit different formats at the end of the coating process. How much film is 'lost' during the cutting process?


Christian

You also have wastage in in the emulsionmaking and coating stage. Anyway, all wasted materials go to a recycling system, which even in case one could extract all material and re-use means costs.

zsas: Thank you for correctly elucidating my points and you do have a point of your own: NO, probably the rapid-fire exposures of the eighties and nineties would have had to have been compromised. The large, double sprocket holes mattered with this.

And von Hoegh: surely we are not 'required' to waste this much film if we do not use 35mm film. That 'requirement' becomes a moot point; I was inferring 'given that we use it'.

Seriously, folks, is there anything really wrong with innocently 'noticing' the rather amazing fact that almost half the film in 35mm does not form an image? That assessment does not have to mean that I am imparting lamentation along with real tears and angst or threatening revolution! It's simply a fact that I thought would be interesting to 'notice'. There is nothing that now has to change as a result ot 'god' David bringing this to unversal attention. And, as an advantage, productive analyses of just what constitutes 'waste' were forthcoming. Thus, we all learn and widen our horizons. Nothing ill intended. - David Lyga

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Lyga

... Seriously, folks, is there anything really wrong with innocently 'noticing' the rather amazing fact that almost half the film in 35mm does not form an image? ...

---

No there isn't. Neither is there anything wrong with pointing out a different opinion. It is all discussion... which is good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Lyga

And von Hoegh: surely we are not 'required' to waste this much film if we do not use 35mm film. That 'requirement' becomes a moot point; I was inferring 'given that we use it'.

Seriously, folks, is there anything really wrong with innocently 'noticing' the rather amazing fact that almost half the film in 35mm does not form an image?

---

But all the 35mm film is neccesary to the film functioning properly in the camera and thereby forming an image that we can project, scan, or enlarge.

The engine in a car wastes at least 75% of the gasoline we put in the tank. This inefficiency is inherent in Otto cycle engines, and according to the specific fuel consumption curves of dynamometer tests published in the 11th edition Brittanica, it hasn't changed in over 100 years, because it can't change. I find that appalling from an engineering and conservation standpoint. But I don't find it prevents me using a car when I need one, because there's no other option. Same with 35mm.

It seems to me you're putting a lot of energy into remarking upon the very very obvious, while ignoring the point that there's no other option if you want to use that type of camera.

But our minds are flexible, so can a type of film be changed, as has be done in the past. As one can ask why still type 120, a film quite nasty in some respect, is still manufatzured, one can also ask why the industry stuck to type 135 in spite being to their disadvantage. This is a valid question to me.