Responsibility to the earth and future photographers...
I am bemused by a current APUG discussion about a 100% natural camera. This being said, I think it best to re-use the current over supply of high and low end film equipment. There is more expired film out there than we might imagine also. The "damage" to the planet in the manufacture of these goods has already been done.
Additionally DO NOT OVER WASH your prints and negatives. If becomes something of great importance in 100 years a conservator will re-fix, wash, or re-print as needed.
Nothing worse than archival preserved negative and prints in the landfill 2-weeks after your inevitable dirt nap.
I came upon this philosophy after photographing for a newspaper, the negatives in the archive were under-fixed, and under-washed yet still perfectly fine after 50 years. I find most people are self important archival paranoids in the beginning of their pursuit and realize that only the best final prints need that archival touch.
Well, for my carbon printing process I use used litho film people toss out for my temporary support (and it gets reused many many times) and the final support is old photopaper that is fogged and would otherwise be tossed out. Ninety-five or so percent of my equipment has been bought used.
I wash long -- we have more water than we can use here. We have the infrastructure to support two paper pulp mills and the millions of gallons of water they require. But one mill is torn down and the other not working due to the market, so we (the rate payers) have the expensive and extensive infrastructure to maintain and very little industrial demand for the water.
I often have heavy a petrol-investment in my negatives (used a lot of gas driving to Death Valley this winter!) -- seems silly to waste the use of those resources by under fixing and under-washing the negatives!
PS -- our water comes from wells in the river beds (~30' down into the gravels) and not dams.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
Why do so many people advocate to save water, but nobody talks about switching from inversion to rotation processing to save chemicals? What's worse for the environment, using more water than absolutely required or dumping more chemicals than needed into it?
Originally Posted by vpwphoto
I saw the light of rotary processing a decade ago. I didn't mean to not wash your prints... people just go nuts with it. 2 hour film washes and overnight print washes. It's silly.
Inversion and replenishment uses very significantly less chemistry than one shot rotation & dumping.
Also I tend re-use wash water when processing batches of films in two or three tanks, a bit like cascade washing of prints which is the most efficient use of water.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Overwashing does not make any damage to the environment. The water goes to the sea, evaporates, becomes rain, and it ends up in you tap and the cycles begins again. That on the assumption that "overwashing" water is basically clean. It may certainly damage your wallet.
If there is a water problem in your area, things are different. Also, water can cost a lot in certain areas more than in other areas.
In that case if one wants to reach true archival paranoid washing standard, there are chemistry products available to that end which allow deep washing without much use of water.
For instance the Ornano catalogue states about the product "eliminatore di iposolfito IPONUL A 104": I suoi componenti staccano lo strato monomolecolare di iposolfito complesso adsorbito dall'emulsione che solo un lavaggio assai prolungato (2 - 3 ore) riuscirebbe ad asportare.
Tr. Its components detach the monomolecular layer of complex hyposulphite adsorbed by the emulsion, that only a very prolonged wash [2 - 3 hours] could remove.
The wording suggests that washing for 2 or 3 hours is not so useless as it might appear.
PS I suppose this only applies to paper washing.
Last edited by Diapositivo; 04-30-2011 at 02:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.
You are mis-informed. Water tables are not finite with our pumping over-reaching long term replentishment. You will see this in the news more and more... National Geographic did a story on it a decade ago.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
re-fixing and rewashing prints and films
that may have been damaged because of
poor fixing and poor washing doesn't remedy the problems
that occur because of poor fixing and poor washing.
conservationists ( photographic conservationists that is )
would cringe at that suggestion ... i think a far more detrimental
effect of photography is that since 1839 most people who have practiced photography
have just poured their chemistry ( cyanide, mercury, uranium, silver, selenium &C ) down the drain
or into the creek, or in the gutter &C without a second thought.
i think that fixing and washing film and paper seems to be less of an issue ..
besides using a product like perma wash or fixer remover greatly reduces washing times ( 5 minues for fb paper, 2 mins for films ) ...
Originally Posted by Ian Grant
Please share your numbers for developer, fixer and all others. Or, are you exclusively talking about developer?
I am on Ralph about rotation saving chemicals.
But for print development, washing etc., can you use rotation method mainly? Sorry I thought you use rotation only for large print development. For small print development, reusing the tray is ok? Also, for washing of any print size, you have to use immerse and water flow method and rotation method is not ok?
Bad concept and assumption of mine?