Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,050   Posts: 1,561,118   Online: 838
      
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 74
  1. #61
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,131
    I basically agree with what you are saying, but let me take a few quotes partially out of context:
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    One of the resources that darkroom based photographers use a lot of is water. If you think fighting over oil and energy is bad, wait until we have poisoned our ground water to the extent that we can't drink it anymore. I'm not saying that photography is to blame for that, but it will be a more scarce resource in years to come
    ...
    As far as digital photography is concerned, it isn't just the manufacture of cameras that we should worry about. Memory cards, camera batteries need recharging AND replacing, you need a computer to view the pictures and to 'process' them, and backup hard drives to store them. Don't forget the energy spent by servers in cloud based storage (conservatively, 4% of our nation's energy goes to data centers), and the energy spent by those who look at the pictures, and transmit them from one storage point to another to do so. If you want prints you need a printer, with consumables such as ink and paper. All of those items (except the paper) are made from materials that constitute a danger to the environment, (although I'm sure it isn't friendly to make inkjet paper either).
    Electronics in landfills has potential ground-water consequences. It is easy for a government to regulate the actual manufacturing plants (so long as they are based in a country that cares); not as easy to regulate the end-user. By coming up with more "benign" components at point of manufacture (as the film industry did years ago) we take the unreliable consumers (such as ourselves) out of the equation to a degree - so being careless when disposing of certain items becomes a smaller issue. Styrofoam fast-food boxes went through this, and plastic bags (opposed to paper) are going through this now.

    As for Kodak and digital, my opinion is that they were fighting a losing battle by trying to compete with companies that were well established in consumer electronics. They could have been (and may still) be able to be successful in the market if they didn't try to jump in with both feet and do it so quickly.

    On a tangent, and I'm not saying film fits the same roll, but in a way film reminds me of ink-jet printers as far as where the money is for the manufacturer
    Truzi

  2. #62
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,262
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    As you seem to be the face of Kodak on APUG, I just wondered if the PR department of Kodak have any say/influence in your response. Or are all your posts a response from you as an individual? If so, do you think they would want to be involved? I don’t ask this with any negative meaning, as I think almost everything you post is based on sound reasoning.
    Clive;

    I represent Kodak in no way. I am long retired, but worked there for 32 years doing R&D. I lived through and saw many of the things we discuss here. I have handled the first digital camera. It was about the size of a cigarette pack and used an 8mm or 16mm lens and a DIP made in-house for imaging. It had a thick cable that connected it to a computer. And it went on to be top notch sensors (sold off the division), top of the line SLRs (line dropped), high capacity flopticals (big failure in the market), and etc. I have given my views in interviews that many have heard here.

    My comments are not perfect, but merely reflect my observations made from my POV. There are many many other PsOV. Just as an example, Kodak felt that general digital imaging would not become important until 2020. They based many decisions on that belief. I disagreed with this and said so publicly to my supervision, and pointed to the market as proof. They took their own POV to heart and based strategy on that. I did not change things.

    Oh well, as I said, my own POV. No relation to EK.

    PE

  3. #63
    ambaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    550
    And... Sadly... The question becomes, will Kodak still be important in 2020.

    To somewhat remain on topic, if you consider non electronic cameras, then the balance would shift more in favor of the analog camera. No spent batteries in the landfill.

    If the developer is the issue, Caffenol is always an option. Coffee, washing soda, and vitamin C. What's not to love?

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  4. #64
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,262
    Images
    65
    Well, I just replaced the battery in my RZ. It was Silver Oxide.

    PE

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,607
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    John, the photographic industry has cleaned up its act years ago!!!!!

    I was there! BTDT. You miss that salient point.

    PE
    hi ron

    im well aware that kodak was a gigantic polluter and has since cleaned up their act
    ( although their campus is a white elephant because of all the toxins )
    what i was getting at was that since the first photographs made through chemical means
    plenty of people have had health problems ( to say the least ) because of whatever process
    or materials were used at the time ... and while analoggers want to always point the finger
    and say how terrible electronic photography is, how the landfill is filled with
    old cameras and printers and media involved with it, they forget the legacy of chemical photography
    whether it is upfront-user based or back end, materials-based.

    what i was getting at is both sides have a pretty bad record ...

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    155
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post

    Partial quote ...
    What's worse is all of the nano technology involved with making digital equipment. It's one thing to use it to manufacture, along with all the nasty chemicals mentioned by others, but when those items are destroyed, the nano particles are released into the atmosphere, because there are no filters that are able to capture them. We breathe those particles, and our body's protective system cannot filter them, so they go straight into our lungs and into our blood stream. You cannot protect yourself, and the worst part is, nobody knows how it's going to affect the environment; there is no conclusive evidence. But it's called 'progress' and we must continue to feed those who can pay for the next greatest gadget, right? Keep that revenue stream alive and kicking, never mind what happens to the planet.

    Bottom line: If you use the internet for anything, you are as guilty as anybody else. Most people in the modern world are severe polluters without even knowing it, because of the distance thing that PE is mentioning. It isn't easy to NOT have a big negative impact on the environment today.
    Indeed we are all guilty, I was reminded of an photo essay of the dumping ground for European electronic waste ///http://blog.leica-camera.com/leica-n...-award-winner/
    Quite sobering!
    Regards
    Charles

  7. #67
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,415
    Images
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Truzi View Post
    I basically agree with what you are saying, but let me take a few quotes partially out of context:

    Electronics in landfills has potential ground-water consequences. It is easy for a government to regulate the actual manufacturing plants (so long as they are based in a country that cares); not as easy to regulate the end-user. By coming up with more "benign" components at point of manufacture (as the film industry did years ago) we take the unreliable consumers (such as ourselves) out of the equation to a degree - so being careless when disposing of certain items becomes a smaller issue. Styrofoam fast-food boxes went through this, and plastic bags (opposed to paper) are going through this now.

    As for Kodak and digital, my opinion is that they were fighting a losing battle by trying to compete with companies that were well established in consumer electronics. They could have been (and may still) be able to be successful in the market if they didn't try to jump in with both feet and do it so quickly.
    On a tangent, and I'm not saying film fits the same roll, but in a way film reminds me of ink-jet printers as far as where the money is for the manufacturer
    I agree that electronics are a ground water hazard, I just didn't want to pin it all on photography, as I'm sure you understand.

    My point is, though, that even though the film photography industry has cleaned up a lot of its act, we still use a tremendous amount of resources to do our work, and I said so to bring some balance to the discussion. ALL photographers bear responsibility to think about the environmental impact their practice has.

    Part two was about bringing forth some aspects of digital photography that is not often discussed - the power required to operate the camera and the computer is just one portion of the big picture. Servers in data centers consume enormous amounts of energy, and what happens to that hardware after it wears out? The waste problem is gigantic. The largest man made structure on Earth is the waste dump at Killdevil Hills in New York State. The Western worls (most of it) exports trash to other countries in Africa. These are problems of gigantic proportions. Once the toxic substances leak into the soil and the ground water, it will be near impossible to clean. Imagine what that will do for ALL life on Earth that depends on it! It is a time bomb waiting to go off.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #68
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,262
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    hi ron

    im well aware that kodak was a gigantic polluter and has since cleaned up their act
    ( although their campus is a white elephant because of all the toxins )
    what i was getting at was that since the first photographs made through chemical means
    plenty of people have had health problems ( to say the least ) because of whatever process
    or materials were used at the time ... and while analoggers want to always point the finger
    and say how terrible electronic photography is, how the landfill is filled with
    old cameras and printers and media involved with it, they forget the legacy of chemical photography
    whether it is upfront-user based or back end, materials-based.

    what i was getting at is both sides have a pretty bad record ...

    John;

    Kodak kept very precises figures on the health of its workers and they kept statistics on us as well. I had blood tests every 6 months while doing chemical work in the lab. The results showed that there was no statistical difference between EK workers and those anywhere else. No bumps in cancers or in skin rashes! Yes, I have seen rashes in photographic circles, but I saw poinson ivy with boy scouts!

    As for ecological impact, take a look at what can be done with a landfill with a little effort!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=UJrSUHK9Luw

    PE

  9. #69
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    When I was growing up "the dump" was nothing more than an area that was out of town a mile and EVERYTHING went in there. In fact in a few years it was leveled and subdivisions were built over top of it.

    Now landfills are carefully managed and have layers of covering put over the soil, then the waste, depending on the type is put in there. Hazard type materials are place in separate places and managed as well. In fact I believe that some are used to generate heat to run generators.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  10. #70
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,415
    Images
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    When I was growing up "the dump" was nothing more than an area that was out of town a mile and EVERYTHING went in there. In fact in a few years it was leveled and subdivisions were built over top of it.

    Now landfills are carefully managed and have layers of covering put over the soil, then the waste, depending on the type is put in there. Hazard type materials are place in separate places and managed as well. In fact I believe that some are used to generate heat to run generators.
    Here in the US those things are pretty heavily regulated, yes. The troubles are in the countries we export trash to. More than half of the trash we generate as a people end up in landfills in other countries, and they are not protected by the same laws.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Page 7 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