Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,687   Posts: 1,482,339   Online: 891
      
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71
  1. #31
    Petzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena View Post
    There was a clip on one of the news shows about one guy in Bollywood. He has done 14 feature films in 2006. Those weren't bit parts either. He starred in that many. Imagine if Hollywood pumped out films at that rate.
    Let's not forget that India has a population of roughly a billion. And movie pictures are more important there than here. They have mobile cinemas to entertain the people in the rustic areas... We on the other hand are couch potatoes who don't go out to the movies because there are 100 other entertainment options.
    If you're not taking your camera...there's no reason to travel. --APUG member bgilwee

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Jack;

    There seems to be something to add to your reference that was left out for good or bad.

    The mercury emission from a coal fired electrical plant is distributed over the earth in the atmosphere and the mercury emission from the bulb is concentrated at the place where it is disposed of and then this concentrate gets into the soil as a direct contaminant. Assuming recycling, even that is lossy and some mercury would probably get into the environment.

    What is worse, 2 mg of mercury in a small stream running out of a waste site or 4 mg of mercury being emitted from the stack of a power plant and dispersed over a whole city? The amount per unit area is actually lower in the scond case, I suspect.

    IDK which is worse, but I assume that they are both equally bad in spite of one being neary 2x greater than the other. The problem is, no one really knows for sure and that is part of the whole problem. Some say NO mercury should be placed into the environment; that it should be a closed loop with no loss at all or should not be used.

    This is the problem. And, considering the amount of coal used for lighting vs coal used for running other equipment, lighting is only a part of the problem, not all of it. If everyone converted to fluorsecent lights and then lighting use was included in overall power consumption, we might not even be able to detect the difference.

    People just jump quickly to a conclusion. 'This is better than that', with a 'statistic' to show, but it has been said that anything can be proven with statistics.

    Mercury is bad. We should eliminate its use or escape into the environment. The fluorescent bulb is not all of the answer and may not even be the best one.

    PE
    Excellent post.

    What has also been neglected is that proper disposal of CFL requires tens of millions of individuals to follow the correct protocol in disposing of the bulbs. A failure of a large % of this community to follow these protocols would more than eradicate the reduction in Hg by the electric power generating industry.

    So, CFL affords opportunities to reduce Hg exposure but does not guarantee them.

  3. #33
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    but as I recall, US interior doors are crap too.

    Cheers,

    R.
    Hey, my house resembles that remark.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Petzi View Post
    Let's not forget that India has a population of roughly a billion. And movie pictures are more important there than here. They have mobile cinemas to entertain the people in the rustic areas... We on the other hand are couch potatoes who don't go out to the movies because there are 100 other entertainment options.
    Or worse, because some small art-movie houses I know run some artsy movies with DVDs with their video projectors and charge as much. Yeah, they have excellent tastes for what they show to their audiences, but I can rent their "tastes" at a local retal video place I go to also...

    Seriously, ten years ago, video projection was only an alternative method for the indie(not Indian, but indie)-filmmakers and film students with no budget and/or no method of showing their work otherwise, but not anymore, I guess.

    By the way, does the Indian cinema still rely on the film today?

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Or my question is, has there been any excellent non-film-based (I mean "digital" only) B&W movie made yet? I haven't watched many in the recent years, so I don't know the real trend. But if some people have already started proving it's just as good as the film-based type, we will probably lose the film soon or later.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,259
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Jack;

    Mercury is bad. We should eliminate its use or escape into the environment. The fluorescent bulb is not all of the answer and may not even be the best one.

    PE
    I don't now how many mercury thermostats were thrown in the dumpster over the preceding years before digital stats came along. The amounts of mercury contained in each thermostat were in the grams. At that time in the past I don't know if they used a containment system at the landfills.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by firecracker View Post
    By the way, does the Indian cinema still rely on the film today?

    YES

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    237
    Images
    4
    Ok, so I realize as analog photographers we are dependent on these companies to make our materials. What can we do to ensure that this industry lasts? I have been entirely devoted to Ilford papers since Simon is kind enough tocome on here from time to time and speak to us all. However, I still use Tri-X sheet film. There is no possible way that in the remotely near future that digital technology that matches large format film in resolution will become inexpensive enough. So Photo Engineer, how do we keep this stuff going?

  9. #39
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,710
    Images
    65
    If I had a solution, I guess I would be eligible for being called a prophet, but I have no solution and I'm not able to see the future. I'm not a prophet.

    PE

  10. #40
    Daniel_OB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mississauga, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    420
    The only films that are currently being mass produced ... All other films are such low volume runners...

    **** The meaning of “low volume” to Kodak and ilford or EFKE is veeeery different.
    ------------------------

    ... Companies that do not produce color or motion picture films rely solely on production of their B&W film and paper. Market fluctuations or declines must be directly reflected in production schedules and prices.

    **** I do not get what is a problem here
    ---------------------------

    Environmentalists are after all chemical industries...

    **** Polution from photography compare to car industry (emissions, oil change, …). We can rum for thousands of years still not reach one day pollution from cars and planes, garbage, plastic bags,…. And to you as chemical guy, can you imagine some chemicals mix after use to neutralize bad side of chemicals or to minimize the same.
    ---------------------------

    Fewer and fewer young people are going into chemistry ...

    **** This era is time of fashion, and will fade away for sure. Quick come, quick go. You probably target digital for younge people. Man, I use digital stuff too but not as photography, but can you imagine that photography, digital imaging, drawings, and painting, … are very different things. Today photography manufacturers are hited by “advance” of digital imaging. However painters are also in even worst condition. But it is just for one single reason: consumerism, fashion. Digital imaging is a new medium and is looking for the space on account of other mediums (normal).
    ---------------------------

    So, I believe that it is a race between how long film will be used ...

    **** A photographer that many believed in, started to advertise digital medium so all his customers gone to digital guy for he did not have such service. This is what happened to Kodak and is happening to stupid Leica too.
    ---------------------------

    … to create an all digital actor for a film, …

    **** This can works in time as now is, time where people do not care is something good or bad, true or lie,… time of no difference, time of consumerism and carelessness, time of fashion. Can you imagine Caravaggio (painter) going to see digital Gable (remember his dager). But it was different time. I will never ever pay or loose time to see movie of fictious thinks, things that I know in advance all is just someones dream. Do you think that people never more, in future, will be able to use their own brain?

    ------------
    This pretty much summarizes all information that I've been able to gather ….

    **** Photography is not is crisis by any means. You panic around huge profit, not about photography. The same is, even much more pronounced, in say automobile industry, shoes industry where no one any more buys leather shoes for $400 but rather $10-80.

    **** Honestly I have no intention to stock my supply, and expect to see Nikon F7 (might be a little later, when dust come down).
    Will be Kodak and Leica in business? Not something to loose time about, because I do not like stupid people. Will their demise (if happen) influence photography? Not at ALL. With time anyone gets what he deserves.

    And finally:
    If Kodak and Leica see competitions in digital imaging what they did to advertise their products, at least as digital manufacturers does with their products. How you see connection between cell phone, downloading, and photography.
    If photographers see danger to their profession in digital imaging what they did to advertise their work and advantages. Not close as digital manufacturers. They sleep and dream about of future of their profession and just panic around for no reason. Photography, with its uniqueness, will itself resist all that sh*** around. But many will pay on the way. Some more some less.

    For all other: I am B&W photographer, the same as from my first connection with photography was, and these days I am more busy with "film" photography that ever before, and all of my customers have digital cameras, some of them $10000 value.

    www.Leica-R.com
    Last edited by Daniel_OB; 04-09-2007 at 11:27 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin