Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,198   Posts: 1,531,453   Online: 830
      
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 115
  1. #91

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    592
    Most art pollutes. I'm in a painting class right now where we are using oil paint. Not only do we have the paint but also the medium we mix it with and the solvent to clean brushes. Every paper that touches any of the things must go in a hazmat container. On the lid of the two containers, it says to change every week I believe. A lot of the paints we use contain cadmium. But you don't see people who use acrylic bash people who use oils.
    Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014

    Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa

    http://darkroom317.deviantart.com/

  2. #92

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    103
    Just a bit about pollution and than back to topic: Do they really think that a little bit of chemical waste that a selective group of people (us APUG-ers) dispose in the sewer will distroy the world? And the chemicals we all (well not all, but a lot) use to clean the toilet, use to color our hair, nail remover etcetera doesn't effect the inviroment?
    Back on topic: I only had good responces when using an analogue camera. As a beginner I use a digital compact camera for composition and to get the general idea of what I'm going to do. After that I use the analogue camera. Sometimes someone asks why I use the "obsolete" analogue camera. That's when I show them two pictures. One made with a fairly good digital SLR, printed on good quality paper with a decent printer. Second picture made with the analogue SLR, printed at the local 35mm print shop. That's when they know why.
    However, in the modern world with computers, internet and digital cameras, many people want at some point to share their pictures online. So the pictures have to be digitalised at one point. Why not start from the origin and use a digital camera?
    It's all about what you want. Do you want instant satisfaction to share with the world or do you want to create and use light as a paintbrush?

    To end with a funny anecdote: our 2 1/2 year old daughter finds camera's intreguing, ever since she was one. When I take a picture with a digital camera, she always wants to see the result. Sometimes she wants another picture taken when she feels the previous picture isn't what she likes. A couple of months ago I used an analogue SLR. She wanted to see the result, but ofcourse there was nothing to see. "hmm, broken." she replied. "change batteries" she advised me. Right now she's got a toy (but fully operating) digital camera. I can't wait untill she's old enough to use the real thing.

  3. #93
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    It was a joke!!!!, as I typed already - I find literal reading of such a thought as silly as the proposition
    Yeah, well, I didn't read down thread and connect the dots.

    There's an awfully lot of people in this thread not saying what they mean, and assuming that other people mean other than what they said too. Which, when you think about it, sort of illustrates a point in keeping with the title.

  4. #94
    mikendawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    57
    No no no... Nothing of the sort! And Instamatics were NOT the same as a Polaroid. Instamatic is 126 film, remember? You still had to process it.

    regardless, I'm just hashing words.. I was referring to the fact that you didn't have to figure out the DoF, or with some cameras, even if you took a great photo, because you can easily just crop it in post, or tell the camera to MAKE IT GREAT.

    I know a lot of the cameras that were sold were simple box-cameras (Kodak Brownie)... but Digital HAS made some photographers lazy. I mean, there's not FIGURING out the DOF scale.. take the shot.. Nope, no good, adjust, shoot again.. Ah, there we go!

    Film = 1 shot.... If it's not right, you don't get a do-over.
    --------------------------------

    APS, 35mm, 120, 4x5 and a Deardorff & Sons 4x5 Special under restoration.

    I don't care the format, as long as it's film!

    Flickr Pages - Here

    Blogs - Here and Here

  5. #95
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,586
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkroom317 View Post
    But you don't see people who use acrylic bash people who use oils.
    I'm sure there's an artists' forum somewhere where this happens!


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  6. #96
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,586
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven L View Post
    And the chemicals we all (well not all, but a lot) use to clean the toilet, use to color our hair, nail remover etcetera doesn't effect the inviroment?

    Many developers are closely related to chemicals used as drain cleaners.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Fine. But I'm specifically referring to your apparent criticism of darkroom workers discarding solutions down the drain. The vast majority of them are perfectly save to dispose of that way.
    Correct. Some chemicals are not safe to pour down the drain, the Cibachrome stuff and some toners come to mind. It depends on the amount as well. Anyone talking about film chemistry as a source of pollution should look into where the chemicals put on a golf course (or just their front lawn) go.... and what happens to all those obsolete digicams, not to mention the computers and printers needed to utilise them?
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 03-26-2012 at 10:28 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #98
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by mikendawn View Post
    Film = 1 shot.... If it's not right, you don't get a do-over.
    Well you CAN, the difference is immediacy of feedback. You can shoot several film shots, bracket exposure, various depth of field etc, and I sometimes do some of that (but mostly when the situation is tricky - I find it a sort of shotgun approach for people who are unsure most of the time, and it gets expensive in large format.) The difference is you won't know if you need to do anything different until it's too late.

    That's not entirely bad, and I think digital would have value as a learning medium for film, if you shoot it the same way. Someone should make a digital camera that's all manual (no automatic mode to "cheat" with and use.) Probably wouldn't sell, but it would be a great learning tool for newcomers.

  9. #99
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven L View Post
    Do they really think that a little bit of chemical waste that a selective group of people (us APUG-ers) dispose in the sewer will distroy the world? And the chemicals we all (well not all, but a lot) use to clean the toilet, use to color our hair, nail remover etcetera doesn't effect the inviroment?
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    Many developers are closely related to chemicals used as drain cleaners.
    People use so many chemicals every day, without thinking, it's not even funny. One turn of the ignition key as you get into your car, going to work in the morning, spews more toxic waste than most people can conceive. It is my understanding that it takes one acre of grass and forest to absorb the pollution expelled by the average automobile driving one mile. Then, as Steve says; drain cleaners, window cleaners, kitchen cleaners, bathroom cleaners, etc., etc., etc. We sure dirty up the environment an awful lot in the name of getting clean!

    It is my understanding that, in the moderate quantities that the average home photographer disposes of, a well operated municipal sewer treatment plant will destroy most of the stuff we flush down the drain. The exceptions being silver-saturated fixer, selenium and other exotics. From that, I understand that the CORRECT thing to do is to flush your "standard" developing chemicals down the drain with plenty of water. Again, the key is MODERATE QUANTITIES. If you're flushing five gallons of developer per day, that's not moderate. If you're developing a couple of rolls per week, that's a different story.

    I also believe, if memory serves, except for fixer, it is Kodak's recommendation to flush moderate quantities of developing chemicals down the sewer, using plenty of water to dilute.
    It is also my understanding that Kodak recommends anybody disposing more than moderate quantities of chemistry that would be generated by the average home developer to contact their local authorities and seek advice or proper permits.

    So, yes, this does go right along with the theme of assumption. Most people assume that photo chemistry is the same as nuclear waste but we all know it is nothing of the sort. While nobody would say that photo chemistry is harmless, if handled properly, used properly and disposed of properly, it's nowhere near as harmful as the masses often assume.

    With proper respect, due caution and careful treatment, photo chems are, as Douglas Adams might say, are "Mostly Harmless."
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  10. #100
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,823
    They are right that it's illegal to do in some places. I never disputed that. I just happen to agree with Kodak that it's not generally HARMFUL, and far less harmful than many routinely used household chemicals.

    The biggest concern with fixer is that some aquatic life is particularly sensitive to silver ion (thus my quip about not putting it into a trout stream.) But it's also true that it won't stay ion very long. I brought this up in another thread once with an interesting reply from someone who actually studied it for an environmental impact statement for his situation. I'll see if I can find that.

    EDIT: Here it is. The crappy search in vBulletin meant I couldn't turn this up using the search here but Google did:

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/9...y-101-a-2.html

    http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1241308

    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    Roger Cole is right. In moderate quantities (pounds, not tons) silver tetrathionate and similar compounds which characterise used fixer don't harm sewerage treatment systems. The silver very quickly gets converted to silver sulphide in the presence of the free sulphide ion. Silver sulphide is geologically stable and inert and has one of the lowest solubility products known in chemistry. The stability and inertness of silver sulphide is the key to the remarkable archival properties of sepia toned photographs.

    Before my darkroom was approved by my local council I had to calculate the silver concentration in my total household effluent. I'm pretty busy and use a few thousand sheets of film and paper per year but the result came to about 5 parts per billion. By the time this mixes with the output of the other 20 000 households that don't process photographic materials the silver concentration is below any conceivable detection limit down at the sewerage treatment plant.
    Last edited by Roger Cole; 03-26-2012 at 10:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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