Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,469   Posts: 1,570,896   Online: 984
      
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 74
  1. #11
    ParkerSmithPhoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    883
    Images
    6
    Its my experience that the more someone talks about how "eco-friendly" they are and how everyone else is destroying the environment, the reality is that they are often a giant eco-hog. Witness Leonardo DiCaprio, who preaches this crap to everyone and then flies to South Africa on his private jet to catch a World Cup game.

    Don't even get me started on that insufferable ass Al Gore...
    Parker Smith Photography, Inc.
    Atlanta, GA

    Commercial & Fine Art Photography
    Portrait Photography

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    153
    Images
    8
    Yeah, there's a lot of hypocrisy around the topic of environmental impact. But listing that here w.r.t. photo chemicals is pretty much preaching to the converted. Although I don't think that the semiconductor industry flushes its chemicals down the drain while we photo amateurs around the world usually do with the exception of used fix for some/most(?) of us. Aren't there carcinogens in most developers (Metol Hydroquinone)? Don't we all pour that down the drain. What about toners and bleach? A few years ago, I was forbidden to rinse wine glasses at the main sink at a photo school because I was told that kinds of toxic stuff from alternative processes went through there. I also find it interesting that there's a current thread on wearing gloves in the darkroom. Apparently photo chemicals are not as harmless as some people claim.

    And aren't it always the biggest perpetrators that proclaim that what they do is harmless or doesn't have a significant effect regardless whether it is photo chemicals, e-waste, CO2 emissions etc. But making different choice that has less environmental impact often cost more money, takes a bit more effort or one has to take a small step back in comfort. And unfortunately many are unwilling to do that. So we should all take a hard look at our own habits first.

  3. #13
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,651
    Images
    15
    Oh, come on!
    Your neighbour might want to consider the wanton waste of millions of otherwise perfectly useful DSLRs traded up for the next best thing in "upgrade(s)" "for better pictures". I am profoundly amazed by the hundreds I see being traded in almost on a daily basis to keep the industry cogs going over (at the expense of analogue). Each DSLR uses a huge number of precious metals: gold, nickel, silver, cadmium... plus the industry-intensive business of plastic manufacture and moulding. It is not cheap. Not environmentally sound and there is the problem of a chain of waste that nobody seems willing to tackle, unlike recycling mobile phones that is commonplace. The neighbour is misinformed and obviously "carried away" with the benefits and "environmental soundness" of digital, but he is in a rut for sure if he has to continually buy a new PC (another source of waste — how many PCs can you count have actually been recycled?), especially with 30,000 images. LOL. OMG! What does he do with them? I print and frame virtually every one of my images. What does he do with his? Tell me! I take the view he has intellectual waste on a grand scale. Bide him a good day, and be entertained by his naivity, then go back to enjoy doing what you do so well.
    Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 05-19-2013 at 04:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.


  4. #14
    Slixtiesix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    780
    Images
    21
    One thought: If you shoot 100.000 pictures (whoever may do that) with a DSRL it may be better than producing 365 gallons of developer waste (just do the math: film tank with 500ml capacity, 36 frames. The ration is far worse with 120). It also depends whether you use Xtol or Pyro. Since no film user I know of reaches such high volumes (and the chemistry used in professional labs which easily reach them is recycled), the whole debate is meaningless. The amount of waste that accumulates through normal amateur use is neglectable if disposed properly.

  5. #15
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    It seemed to me that back in the early 90s when digital was first starting out companies like Kodak were touting digital as more environmentally friendly, that's why they were heading that direction. They even changed their name to Kodak Imaging, I think.

    Also companies were having EPA issues and moving plants to Mexico and eastern bloc countries where environmental rules were lax.

    So for a fact the chemicals were a problem.

    But obviously with digital, built in obsolescence, and the chemical issues with digital components, I doubt a move over to digital helped the ecology much.

    All chemical manufacturing corporations can be ecological if they choose to, but most will just move their pollution to places where they aren't monitored.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  6. #16
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,370
    Images
    65
    Well Slixtisix, one DSLR sensor or one ram drive with pictures contains more toxins than that 365 gallons of developer. If you expose the developer to air and sunlight it oxidizes and becomes neutral in pH, thus becoming nearly harmless. The bacteria in sewage treatment do the rest. The sensor OTOH, has non-biodegradable toxins that leach into the ground water where it is dumped.

    That ones sensor contains arsenic and selenium, which are toxic forever. They do not biodegrade.

    PE

  7. #17
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,370
    Images
    65
    Blansky, AFAIK, Kodak was neutral on the subject at that time. They were working on the problem. And, as the upgrade problem became apparent, I believe that some opinions changed regarding digital.

    PE

  8. #18
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Blansky, AFAIK, Kodak was neutral on the subject at that time. They were working on the problem. And, as the upgrade problem became apparent, I believe that some opinions changed regarding digital.

    PE
    Entirely possible.

    The "ecological friendly" assertion could have just been marketing as well. I'd just changed cities and worked in a camera store for a year, to decide if we were staying before reopening my studio and the reps were all touting digital as the newest, best, ecological friendly etc etc and I'd been analog at that time (obviously) for 15 years and wondered what all the excitement was about.

    I think the EPA was tightening rules, globalization was starting, tech was finding it's way, and a whole lot of factors were happening help spread the digital revolution. I may have the dates off a bit but it seemed like a lot of factors fell into place for digital to grab a place in the market. I remember one of the reps saying, yeah, the EPA is killing these companies that's why they're getting away from chemicals.

    But I do remember I was surprised, and saw the writing on the wall when Kodak went from whatever it was, to now, Kodak Imaging. I thought, wow, for a giant like Kodak to change its name, this digital thing must be real.
    Last edited by blansky; 05-19-2013 at 12:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    920
    Quote Originally Posted by Slixtiesix View Post
    One thought: If you shoot 100.000 pictures (whoever may do that) with a DSRL it may be better than producing 365 gallons of developer waste (just do the math: film tank with 500ml capacity, 36 frames. The ration is far worse with 120).
    But a serious amateur might shoot 100k frames within a couple of years on a DSLR, then dispose, and upgrade. At my current shooting rate, with 120, 100,000 frames would take 10 years.
    'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde

  10. #20
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,370
    Images
    65
    Guys;

    One thing we have not discussed here is the ecological impact of CDs and DVDs. Thee are the equivalent of film in some ways and contain a lot of chemistry that follows them through their lives to the garbage heap.

    PE

Page 2 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