For a street or reportage photographer however, this many pictures may well be the norm - or close to it - over a modest period of time. But I think environmental, just like ethical conscience in these genres will always be a controversial topic. But there are worse risks to humanity and our planet than photography.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
Last edited by batwister; 05-19-2013 at 08:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.
'Cows are very fond of being photographed, and, unlike architecture, don't move.' - Oscar Wilde
Clearly some of the low cost available in digital imaging is because the environmental harm of the technologies has been ignored. In the old days when silver mines washed down whole mountainsides and forced miners into sweltering and deadly tunnels to gather the ore, the price of silver was low. We have not properly regulated the rare earths used in light-sensitive circuits and no doubt, eventually, the price of digital images will rise.
Remember also that many of these digital devices are being manufactured in China where the workers get 35 cents an hour and have no unions. The factories have nets strung above the ground to catch workers who try to commit suicide by jumping off the top of the buildings. The low cost comes at a price.
I recall similar photos (if not the one you describe). There were puddles of water with colors not found in nature. Pretty scary...
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
winogrand had thousands of rolls of film xposed and never processed when he died.
Originally Posted by batwister
i find it comical that "traditional" photographers claim "chemical based" photography doesn't harm the earth
for x amount of years fumes of mercury was used to develop photographs
then cyanide base fixers
then paper mills for commercially made papers ...
and silver pit minding where arsenic and other crap is used to extract the metals from ore ...
its a game of what process is nastier ...
they BOTH are ...
everything about them is bad ... except the final images and even then
how many crappy images are made or printed before a good one ...
its like a married person trying to convince him/herself it is OK to commit adultery ...
pal, the electricity we use to run these computers we're communicating over may be more harmful than the amount of silver we go through in a lifetime.
antique processes and early experimental process photos were produced in the hundreds, thousands at most, not the uncountable millions of the earliest industrial photographic processes.
it's not about what things are made of, necessarily, it's a matter of scale and how the materials are employed. for chemical analogue photography, the entire idea of the processing end of things was that it would be both aqueous and presumably really big in scale, and thus must be considered for health and safety to the greatest extent (by chemists and industrial process engineers and government etc). this means adequate means for responsible waste handling. with electronics, the same obviously is not the case: because cameras are 'not supposed' to be crushed up and left to leach in a landfill, electronics don't need to be made with the same kinds of safety considerations for the parts which are thought disposable. not to say that recycling "can't" be done (it definitely puts a hurt on the cost competitiveness with film, if we're thinking about photography), just that it isn't done sufficiently well (as is the case with plastic, and probably other things as well).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Apart for the typical analog vs digital flame war, trying to define which process is better environmentally is merely a waste of time and for some, mental energy.
Bottom line is we need to be proactive in promoting recycling and need to be diligent in calling out corporations and countries who damage the environment.
The continual circle-jerk is just divisive and provides nothing but self satisfied people a forum to air their photographic fundamentalism.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
There are far worse products that damage the environment than those involved in photography. The oil industry for example.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
The "avid photographer" seems to be looking for a justification as to why he uses digital. Psychologists have a term for this it is called social validation. Some people after making a decision have second thoughts and seek approval from others to justify their decision.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I disagree, it's just not being done here in this thread. I would really like to see someone tackle the question and research it exhaustively and objectively. It would probably take a year or more. I want to believe analog is less harmful, and I'm naturally suspicious of any belief I want to believe. I wish I really knew I was right, but I think the question is a lot more complex and difficult to answer than this thread is acknowledging.
Originally Posted by blansky
This thread is a political hand-grenade.