I basically agree with what you are saying, but let me take a few quotes partially out of context:
Electronics in landfills has potential ground-water consequences. It is easy for a government to regulate the actual manufacturing plants (so long as they are based in a country that cares); not as easy to regulate the end-user. By coming up with more "benign" components at point of manufacture (as the film industry did years ago) we take the unreliable consumers (such as ourselves) out of the equation to a degree - so being careless when disposing of certain items becomes a smaller issue. Styrofoam fast-food boxes went through this, and plastic bags (opposed to paper) are going through this now.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
As for Kodak and digital, my opinion is that they were fighting a losing battle by trying to compete with companies that were well established in consumer electronics. They could have been (and may still) be able to be successful in the market if they didn't try to jump in with both feet and do it so quickly.
On a tangent, and I'm not saying film fits the same roll, but in a way film reminds me of ink-jet printers as far as where the money is for the manufacturer :)
Originally Posted by cliveh
I represent Kodak in no way. I am long retired, but worked there for 32 years doing R&D. I lived through and saw many of the things we discuss here. I have handled the first digital camera. It was about the size of a cigarette pack and used an 8mm or 16mm lens and a DIP made in-house for imaging. It had a thick cable that connected it to a computer. And it went on to be top notch sensors (sold off the division), top of the line SLRs (line dropped), high capacity flopticals (big failure in the market), and etc. I have given my views in interviews that many have heard here.
My comments are not perfect, but merely reflect my observations made from my POV. There are many many other PsOV. Just as an example, Kodak felt that general digital imaging would not become important until 2020. They based many decisions on that belief. I disagreed with this and said so publicly to my supervision, and pointed to the market as proof. They took their own POV to heart and based strategy on that. I did not change things.
Oh well, as I said, my own POV. No relation to EK.
And... Sadly... The question becomes, will Kodak still be important in 2020.
To somewhat remain on topic, if you consider non electronic cameras, then the balance would shift more in favor of the analog camera. No spent batteries in the landfill.
If the developer is the issue, Caffenol is always an option. Coffee, washing soda, and vitamin C. What's not to love?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Well, I just replaced the battery in my RZ. It was Silver Oxide.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
im well aware that kodak was a gigantic polluter and has since cleaned up their act
( although their campus is a white elephant because of all the toxins )
what i was getting at was that since the first photographs made through chemical means
plenty of people have had health problems ( to say the least ) because of whatever process
or materials were used at the time ... and while analoggers want to always point the finger
and say how terrible electronic photography is, how the landfill is filled with
old cameras and printers and media involved with it, they forget the legacy of chemical photography
whether it is upfront-user based or back end, materials-based.
what i was getting at is both sides have a pretty bad record ...
Indeed we are all guilty, I was reminded of an photo essay of the dumping ground for European electronic waste ///http://blog.leica-camera.com/leica-n...-award-winner/
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
I agree that electronics are a ground water hazard, I just didn't want to pin it all on photography, as I'm sure you understand.
Originally Posted by Truzi
My point is, though, that even though the film photography industry has cleaned up a lot of its act, we still use a tremendous amount of resources to do our work, and I said so to bring some balance to the discussion. ALL photographers bear responsibility to think about the environmental impact their practice has.
Part two was about bringing forth some aspects of digital photography that is not often discussed - the power required to operate the camera and the computer is just one portion of the big picture. Servers in data centers consume enormous amounts of energy, and what happens to that hardware after it wears out? The waste problem is gigantic. The largest man made structure on Earth is the waste dump at Killdevil Hills in New York State. The Western worls (most of it) exports trash to other countries in Africa. These are problems of gigantic proportions. Once the toxic substances leak into the soil and the ground water, it will be near impossible to clean. Imagine what that will do for ALL life on Earth that depends on it! It is a time bomb waiting to go off.
Originally Posted by jnanian
Kodak kept very precises figures on the health of its workers and they kept statistics on us as well. I had blood tests every 6 months while doing chemical work in the lab. The results showed that there was no statistical difference between EK workers and those anywhere else. No bumps in cancers or in skin rashes! Yes, I have seen rashes in photographic circles, but I saw poinson ivy with boy scouts! ;)
As for ecological impact, take a look at what can be done with a landfill with a little effort!
When I was growing up "the dump" was nothing more than an area that was out of town a mile and EVERYTHING went in there. In fact in a few years it was leveled and subdivisions were built over top of it.
Now landfills are carefully managed and have layers of covering put over the soil, then the waste, depending on the type is put in there. Hazard type materials are place in separate places and managed as well. In fact I believe that some are used to generate heat to run generators.
Here in the US those things are pretty heavily regulated, yes. The troubles are in the countries we export trash to. More than half of the trash we generate as a people end up in landfills in other countries, and they are not protected by the same laws.
Originally Posted by blansky