Analogue ecological impact.

[Gerald C Koch]

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.

Granted, but the market was driven by the use of consumables. Without this consumables market there would be no demand for these cameras. It's like the old saying that "A chicken is an egg's way of creating another egg."

 

[blansky]

" Analogue ecological impact."

Don't we wish there were enough of us this would even matter?

Exactly.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.
It's also a fact that I use a lot of energy to heat the water that I use in the process. Safelight, enlarger light, dehumidifier for the darkroom in the summer, fan for ventilation, sometimes a heater to keep the temperature above freezing...

Another thing not mentioned here is all the waste. Each roll of film we shoot has a byproduct, a cassette full of plastic and metal, or backing paper and a plastic reel. We also cut off a bunch of film that doesn't get exposed, and the packaging the film rolls come in - where does it go?
What about all the photo paper that goes in the trash can? In my darkroom there's far more paper in the trash can than in my pile of finished prints.

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).

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.

 

[blansky]

Granted, but the market was driven by the use of consumables. Without this consumables market there would be no demand for these cameras. It's like the old saying that "A chicken is an egg's way of creating another egg."

Yes but business models change. Analog was a very mature business and like you say the consumables were probably where most of the profit lay. But camera companies obviously made money with new advances and new customer bases. I went to dozens of trade shows through the years where camera companies were selling new "stuff" and there were thousands of people milling about buying cool new products.

Digital was a complete new technology with a built in ready made market which rarely happens. And digital didn't come in ready to fly. They had, and still have a ways to go technologically as new advances are made which fits their business model perfectly.

Millions converted and the ease of use made millions more jump on the wagon. And you're right, that it will hit a saturation point just like analog did. When that happens, you change your business model but certainly not now.

So I'm missing what your point is.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

My point is that digital photography is based on a business model which provides only a single source of profit. That is the endless sale of digital cameras with their negative impact on the environment. The impact is from their manufacture and the discarding of obsolete models.

The model for analog photography was based on a consumables market. Before digital cameras the main source of profit was from consumables film, papers and chemicals not from the sale of cameras. For the average person a single camera was used for years without any need to upgrade. The cash cow was the consumables which were bought routinely for these cameras not the cameras themselves. Modern films and papers contribute very little to harm the environment in terms of heavy metals and other pollutants. The same cannot be said concerning the manufacture of digital cameras.

 

[blansky]

My point is that digital photography is based on a business model which provides only a single source of profit. That is the endless sale of digital cameras with their negative impact on the environment. The impact is from their manufacture and the discarding of obsolete models.

The model for analog photography was based on a consumables market. Before digital cameras the main source of profit was from consumables film, papers and chemicals not from the sale of cameras. For the average person a single camera was used for years without any need to upgrade. The cash cow was the consumables which were bought routinely for these cameras not the cameras themselves. Modern films and papers contribute very little to harm the environment in terms of heavy metals and other pollutants. The same cannot be said concerning the manufacture of digital cameras.

Yes but there was no business model for analog photography. Each part of the equation had their own business model and every company had their own goals.

Camera manufacturers made cameras (just like today).

Consumables like chemical companies made chemicals then and today I guess you'd say ink manufacturers make ink.

Consumables like paper companies made paper then and paper companies make paper today.

I grant you that due to innovation, the digital camera progressed so fast that they quickly became obsolete, but Nikon and Canon were churning out new and improved cameras every year back in the analog days.

Back in the seventies when autofocus and automatic cameras came out millions of older cameras got left behind when a lot of people switched to the new auto everything cameras. So throw away is not altogether new.

But I get what you mean. My Hasselblads worked flawlessly for 30 years and would still be working if I hadn't switched to digital.

But to use words like "photographic business model" is too all encompassing, as if there were a vast conspiracy by photographic companies to create obsolescence. It just sort of evolved and it will probably begin to slow down considerably since for instance my Canon digital camera is now 4 years old and the new improvements are not substantial enough to upgrade.

Comparing digital and analog is sort of apples and oranges business-wise because in analog it was a sort of self contained industry. With digital it is spread out to include all things computers, computer programs and even telecommunications. And as there are improvements in different areas it bumps up the change in another.

But as for the throw away mentality, I don't really care as long as stuff is recycled and reused. Don't forget back in analog days, nobody recycled anything, they just hit landfills. Even back in the 70s people would pour crap into holes not even knowing or caring it came out in the groundwater.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Jerry, you are absolutely correct in your analysis of the two business models.

The failure of Kodak at present is due to the fact that they based their model on digital printers and digital printing which just did not take off.

PE

 

[blansky]

Jerry, you are absolutely correct in your analysis of the two business models.

The failure of Kodak at present is due to the fact that they based their model on digital printers and digital printing which just did not take off.

PE

Kodak had a lot more failures than that.

And Canon is doing pretty well with their printers.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak was a non-entity in digital when they tried to break into digital and they did it the wrong way, failing to see such things as facebook taking away from their adamantine model that Perez insisted would work. Trying to force the issue didn't work in the face of bad software and support.

Yes, they made other mistakes as well. I hope someone here remembers the comments I made in an interview on Inside Analog Photography.

PE

 

[cliveh]

Kodak was a non-entity in digital when they tried to break into digital and they did it the wrong way, failing to see such things as facebook taking away from their adamantine model that Perez insisted would work. Trying to force the issue didn't work in the face of bad software and support.

Yes, they made other mistakes as well. I hope someone here remembers the comments I made in an interview on Inside Analog Photography.

PE

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.

 

[Truzi]

I basically agree with what you are saying, but let me take a few quotes partially out of context:

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

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[ambaker]

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

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, I just replaced the battery in my RZ. It was Silver Oxide.

PE

 

[removed account4]

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 ...

 

[Bateleur]

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-news/kai-loffelbein-unicef-photograph-of-the-year-award-winner/
Quite sobering!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[blansky]

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.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

 

[Photo Engineer]

When I was about 10, I used to go to the dump to shoot rats with a .22 rifle.

PE

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Waste disposal companies hate electronic gear. Locally I am allowed 10 pieces per year or I must pay a considerable fee.

 

[pbromaghin]

When I was about 10, I used to go to the dump to shoot rats with a .22 rifle.

PE

We used to do that to. Once, somebody left a real nice '67 Impala just sitting there. It was unmolested for about a week, but within a couple weeks it was one big bullet hole. One night, one of my hoodlum friends propped a molotov cocktail up on the seat back and shot it from a safe distance. I quickly got the hell out of there. It was spectacular.

 

[Truzi]

I'm sending that youtube link to my classical guitar prof.