Analogue ecological impact.

ic-racer · May 19, 2013

Slixtiesix said:
producing 365 gallons of developer waste

...and that would be more or less harmful to the environment than the 365 gallons of human waste what would be collected should someone be forced to view 100,000 digital images?...

Photo Engineer · May 19, 2013

Since photographic processing solutions are deemed (for the most part) biodegradable or harmless, the processing solutions are rather harmless if dumped. Also, the solutions are not all dumped down the drain at once.

As for the sensors, there was a photo of some children and women in an SEA country take as they worked over a landfill looking for precious metals in the debris. It was shown that runoff from rain ran from the landfill to a stream and to a small town. So, the people were getting their doses of Arsenic and Mercury from two sources. This photo was posted on APUG years ago!!!

That is how long this discussion has been going on.

PE

batwister · May 19, 2013

ic-racer said:
...and that would be more or less harmful to the environment than the 365 gallons of human waste what would be collected should someone be forced to view 100,000 digital images?...

What if they're good images?

"Ouch" he says.

Tom1956 · May 19, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Since photographic processing solutions are deemed (for the most part) biodegradable or harmless, the processing solutions are rather harmless if dumped. Also, the solutions are not all dumped down the drain at once.

As for the sensors, there was a photo of some children and women in an SEA country take as they worked over a landfill looking for precious metals in the debris. It was shown that runoff from rain ran from the landfill to a stream and to a small town. So, the people were getting their doses of Arsenic and Mercury from two sources. This photo was posted on APUG years ago!!!

That is how long this discussion has been going on.

PE

+1

Poisson Du Jour · May 19, 2013

batwister said:
What if they're good images?

"Ouch" he says.

What constitutes "good"?
Extremely unlikely at that quantity. It's waste and mental dislocation on a grand scale. I certainly can't count that many of my own photographs over 36 years!

batwister · May 19, 2013

Poisson Du Jour said:
What constitutes "good"?
Extremely unlikely at that quantity. It's waste and mental dislocation on a grand scale. I certainly can't count that many of my own photographs over 36 years!

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.

falotico · May 19, 2013

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.

eddie · May 19, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
...there was a photo of some children and women in an SEA country take as they worked over a landfill looking for precious metals in the debris. It was shown that runoff from rain ran from the landfill to a stream and to a small town. PE

I recall similar photos (if not the one you describe). There were puddles of water with colors not found in nature. Pretty scary...

removed account4 · May 19, 2013

batwister said:
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.

winogrand had thousands of rolls of film xposed and never processed when he died.
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 ...

deluded ...

andy_k · Jun 9, 2013

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).

blansky · Jun 9, 2013

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.

cliveh · Jun 9, 2013

There are far worse products that damage the environment than those involved in photography. The oil industry for example.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 9, 2013

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.

Wayne · Jun 9, 2013

blansky said:
Apart for the typical analog vs digital flame war, trying to define which process is better environmentally is merely a waste of time

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.

Tom1956 · Jun 9, 2013

This thread is a political hand-grenade.

removed account4 · Jun 9, 2013

Wayne said:
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.

hi wayne

i am totally with you
BUT
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"

Photo Engineer · Jun 9, 2013

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.

PE

blansky · Jun 9, 2013

Wayne said:
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.

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.

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.

removed account4 · Jun 9, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
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.

PE

hi ron

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 ,,,

Photo Engineer · Jun 9, 2013

John, the photographic industry has cleaned up its act years ago!!!!!

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

PE

Gerald C Koch · Jun 10, 2013

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.

Truzi · Jun 10, 2013

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.

Tom1956 · Jun 10, 2013

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.

lxdude · Jun 10, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
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.

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.

bobwysiwyg · Jun 10, 2013

" Analogue ecological impact."

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

Analogue ecological impact.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency