Originally Posted by Wayne
i am totally with you
i don't think anyone who has used a digital camera
has died from "the process of using a digital camera"
or gotten sick from it ...
there are countless examples here on this forum of people who have gotten
(contact?) dermatitis or an allergic reaction from the chemistry
or people who were dumb enough to make their own silver nitrate
cause they just "wanted to" ( or had to ) and died in the process
or got sick from mercury fumes ( mad as a hatter no doubt )
from making dags, or cyanide poisoning from wet plates,
or died in the cleveland clinic fire ( or something similar like a MOVIE HOUSE FIRE )
i think the whole which process ( new or old ) is worse for the environment is a no brainer ..
the only people who really need to think their process has to be less-bad are
the people who "need to"
John, you are trowing out a red herring. Many get sick from the manufacture and reclamation of digital products and this is a "sickness at a distance" as opposed to "immediate sickness". Also, the degree is different.
Contact dermatitis is rare and can be recovered from. Mercury, Cadmium Selenium and other poisons are often lifelong problems once acquired.
The problem is, it's not possible. Digital has been with us and grown in scope, usage, and complexity for about 20 years. The number of users multiplies every year. Analog would never have grown to this extent, had digital not come about.
Originally Posted by Wayne
Digital includes the use of computers, which are also used for many many things, so quantifying computer usage and disposal would be too complicated to measure.
A massive population of the third world, in the last 20 years has entered the consumer market and photography. Would this group have moved to analog if digital were not available?
Throwing around opinions whether throw away cameras is more environmentally destructive that chemicals is not an argument that can be won.
The world changed as photography changed, and some people need to get over it. It's been over 20 years.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
i agree with what you said,
but i am sure we could also suggest that it would be easy
for someone to "get sick from a distance" through
the manufacture of materials used in chemical photography past+present.
blansky is right, its probably 6 of 1 half a dozen of another, and whats the point anyways?
to pat oneself on the back and say one or the other being used is "less toxic" ?
i guess the most important thing is to make great images to make it all worthwhile.
too much crap out there, past and present, and i am sure the future won't be much different ,,,
John, the photographic industry has cleaned up its act years ago!!!!!
I was there! BTDT. You miss that salient point.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The marketing concept of digital photography is a failed one since to continue it must feed on itself. There are no consumables on which to make money. Yes, there are printers and paper but very few people actually make prints. In order to make money companies must continually sell people new cameras or phones. Years ago such companies like Gillete gave their razors away because their profit was in selling razor blades. Then the electric razor was invented. The same flawed business model -- no consumables. Electric razors are still made but their sales have fallen off over the years. Once an industry saturates a market the model begins to fail. Companies like GE made money selling incandescent light bulbs which have a short life. Now people are converting to LED bulbs which have a life span of 10 to 20 years. When everyone has converted to the new technology how many companies will still be selling LED bulbs? I would say very few. People may not even buy light bulbs in the future but rather lamps and fixtures which contain a permanent light source. Each technology contains within itself its own demise.
Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 06-09-2013 at 11:16 PM. Click to view previous post history.
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
in my opinion many people who bring up the ecology claim (in any subject) to show why their choice is better are usually of the "newer is better, no questions asked" mindset who cannot debate the subject on any true technical grounds - regardless of whether they are right. They also tend to be more of the "not in my back yard" mentality than the people who are truly concerned with ecology and not proving how good they are.
Reducing ecological impact is easier at the point of manufacture than it is in any program involving the end-user. How many of us actually dispose of compact fluorescent bulbs "correctly?" If we want to debate whether they are safe in the garbage, then I'd ask how many dispose of them in compliance with regulations, regardless of whether we feel the regulations are correct?
Consumer electronics (operant word is consumer) of the "digital" nature (not just photography) have been around more than 20 years, and only recently has there been any real effort to keep the products (and thus "nasty stuff") out of out landfills - via recycling programs. There has been even less effort at the point of manufacture (save for things that concerned consumers can actually see, like certain colored LEDs).
The film manufacturers made positive changes decades ago... after running for decades with little concern. I have a problem with the small efforts in the consumer electronics industry because there is such a long history of various industries becoming more benign that it should take this long.
Also, there are probably more electronic devices per capita today than film use and electronic devices combined prior to 20 years ago, and we know it's not because our economy is producing more durable items than in the past.
Humanity is a species of "mixer uppers". Essentially we make things, or mix them in the truest sense. Some day, the whole world will be mixed up so much it's all one compound. Then they'll sit around and have nothing to do. Then they're probably get bored and kill each other. Or one of these asteroids will hit the target and finish the matter.
But Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc., never made consumables, so I don't see how film cameras were different from the digital of today. It was two things that kept film cameras selling: More/better features and growing the number of users.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
" Analogue ecological impact."
Don't we wish there were enough of us this would even matter?