Ethics of buying Russian & Chinese film & paper

[eumenius]

Hi Jim!

Shostka cheese is widely available in Moscow, and it's quite tasty - just like almost all Ukrainian cheeses

The Forte abundance in Kiev can be explained simply: the Polish film dealers got hold on some liquidation sales, bought everything for a very very low prices, and flooded Ukraine with it

I have a strong feeling that Svema itself makes film, but it's definitely strange - I've got a pack of Svema FN-64 in 9x12. A nice film, yet it's poured on a very thin base (like for 135 film), and it's blue tinted - and, of course, like all USSR film, it doesn't have any antihalation layer as well as the index punch on side.

Cheers,
Zhenya

Hi Zhenya!

Svema is like Shostka cheese - the Northern Neighbor gets everything from Sumy Oblast because they can raise the prices when it crosses the border.

I did see some of the 64-speed in 35mm early this summer here in Kyiv, but I'm not sure how old it was. I was too excited by the fact that Ilford had discovered Ukraine and I can buy SFX-200 in 2 places within walking distance. Ahhh, civilization! After 5 years in an infrared desert.

I haven't seen anything from Svema in 120 for a long time. My understanding was that some movie film was still being produced for 'selected' art students and directors - the guy who won the short film award at Cannes last year was complaining about it, IIRC, and he had to buy film on the open market instead.

Actually, you have me wondering, because there is suddenly A LOT of Forte film, paper and chemistry here. I wonder where the film was really produced?

Cheers,
Jim

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Sounds like they're re-purposing film made for use in medical imaging - most likely x-ray film. The thin base is puzzling though- Foma makes their 35mm photographic film on the same base stock that they use for x-ray film, which is why the base is blue-ish. But their LF film is not on thin stock- it is easily as thick as Ilfords.

 

[eumenius]

I think that they simply coat whatever base they have - and this one looks like 35mm base, not the more rigid x-ray. The emulsion contains a generous amount of dust, but nothing serious

Sounds like they're re-purposing film made for use in medical imaging - most likely x-ray film. The thin base is puzzling though- Foma makes their 35mm photographic film on the same base stock that they use for x-ray film, which is why the base is blue-ish. But their LF film is not on thin stock- it is easily as thick as Ilfords.

 

[srs5694]

First, I've got a PDF of an article (dated January 2007) originally published in a magazine called Smallformat that describes the recent history of Svema. Unfortunately, the URL where I first found it seems to no longer be valid. To sum up, though, the article claims that the Svema film manufacturing facilities are now completely idle, having been closed down in 2000. Film operations since that time have been restricted to liquidation procedures. Any Svema film still on store shelves is very old and/or is repackaged product from other manufacturers.

Second, concerning the validity of the initial point of this thread: Of course the environmental (and social, political, etc.) impact of our purchases are important. A few specific sub-points:

• An earlier poster mentioned per-capita pollution in the US vs. in China. This may be important from a global political perspective (in negotiating climate-change treaties, say), but the relevant metric for individuals purchasing film or paper (or any other product) would be the per-product pollution -- whether more pollution is created by the production a Chinese vs. American (or whatever) roll of film, box of paper, or whatever.
• Dragging in pollution in the computer industry or other fields is, again, irrelevant. The question was about film and paper, and so answers to the question must be about film and paper. If there are excesses in other fields (as there most certainly are), then that is of course cause for concern; but in deciding what film or paper to purchase, a photographer needn't take pollution in the computer industry into account. That's not to say that such pollution shouldn't be reduced, but it's not relevant to this discussion any more than hunting regulations or homeless shelters are relevant to this discussion.
• I personally don't know of any studies of the environmental impact of film and paper production in different countries or by different companies. The closest I've seen to this, in this thread or in others, are PE's comments about Kodak's efforts to clean up their production over the last few decades. If somebody's got some relevant data to contribute, I'd love to see it.

 

[jbj]

unless you attempt to buy everything from local stores and not support chain retailers of any sort this is very ironic.

 

[haris]

Oh...
This is question which underdevelop countries ask, and with very good point: "You developed countries polluted this planet from beginning of industrial revolution (from 19. century). For that time we were mostly agriculturan countries and mostly colonized by you. So now you are developed and rich countries which have money to invest in enviromental friendly industries. We just recently stared to develop our industry (after finally get rid of yours collonization) and we still don't have money for enviromental friendly industry, because it is expencive. So thoes that means that we can't develop our industry, and we must put ourselves again in another form of colonization, this time industrial/economical?

Let me ask you/us another question: Do you /we wear, for example, sport shoes. I think majority of us do, more or less. Do you ever look at "Made in..." label on those shoes box? Mostly they are made in Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan etc... Do you know those shoes are manufactured by 13, 14 years old children, mostly girls (because of hands/fingers sizes). And usuall sallary for them is around 0,5 USD per DAY for 12, 14 hours or so working day. Forget union/syndicate, health insurance, retirement/pension insurance, overtime payment, night shifts payments, labour laws... that doesn't exsists there.

And let us rememeber they work for European and US companies like Adidas, Nike, etc...

Do you think it is ethical to buy those shoes or not?

Same as for Chinese/USSR films.

Regards

 

[Roger Hicks]

Let me ask you/us another question: Do you /we wear, for example, sport shoes...

Never, for the exact reasons you quote.

Your other points are well taken. I'd add, though, that a lot of pollution was done as much from ignorance and laziness as from greed, and was cheaply avoidable. The fact that a Soviet-era factory was filthy doesn't mean that the same factory is as dirty today, let alone one that is more recently built.

 

[dslater]

Oh...
This is question which underdevelop countries ask, and with very good point: "You developed countries polluted this planet from beginning of industrial revolution (from 19. century). For that time we were mostly agriculturan countries and mostly colonized by you. So now you are developed and rich countries which have money to invest in enviromental friendly industries. We just recently stared to develop our industry (after finally get rid of yours collonization) and we still don't have money for enviromental friendly industry, because it is expencive. So thoes that means that we can't develop our industry, and we must put ourselves again in another form of colonization, this time industrial/economical?

The more developed countries should be willing to subsidize clean industrial development for the developing world. It is in our own interest to see that the environment is cleaned up. If the rest of the developing world develops along the same lines we followed, we will choke our planet to death with pollution. A different route must be followed if we are to survive.

Let me ask you/us another question: Do you /we wear, for example, sport shoes. I think majority of us do, more or less. Do you ever look at "Made in..." label on those shoes box? Mostly they are made in Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan etc... Do you know those shoes are manufactured by 13, 14 years old children, mostly girls (because of hands/fingers sizes). And usuall sallary for them is around 0,5 USD per DAY for 12, 14 hours or so working day. Forget union/syndicate, health insurance, retirement/pension insurance, overtime payment, night shifts payments, labour laws... that doesn't exsists there.

And let us rememeber they work for European and US companies like Adidas, Nike, etc...

Do you think it is ethical to buy those shoes or not?

Same as for Chinese/USSR films.

Regards

You know, I don't think this is a cut and dried as people think. If enough people were to refuse to buy these products and the companies stopped using child labor in these countries, what will happen to these children? Do you think they will suddenly have a better life than they have now? I think it is far more likely that they may simply sink further into poverty and starve to death. I wonder what those children would say if you asked them "Do you want to lose your job?"
I'm not saying that I think you're wrong here or that child labor is right - I just think it isn't as simple an issue as we are lead to believe. These jobs as hellish and cruel as they are may represent the only way these children can survive. At the very least, trying to eliminate these jobs should probably be combined with an effort to get more aid to these people.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You know, I don't think this is a cut and dried as people think. At the very least, trying to eliminate these jobs should probably be combined with an effort to get more aid to these people.

You're dead right -- but the fight begins a LOT nearer home, with consumers who don't want to pay a fair price, mindless brand-following, and obscene mark-ups between the factory and the shop. This is not only a Third World question: a lot of 'designer label' stuff made in Italian sweatshops, for example, has ridiculous price multiples.

 

[haris]

The more developed countries should be willing to subsidize clean industrial development for the developing world. It is in our own interest to see that the environment is cleaned up. If the rest of the developing world develops along the same lines we followed, we will choke our planet to death with pollution. A different route must be followed if we are to survive.



You know, I don't think this is a cut and dried as people think. If enough people were to refuse to buy these products and the companies stopped using child labor in these countries, what will happen to these children? Do you think they will suddenly have a better life than they have now? I think it is far more likely that they may simply sink further into poverty and starve to death. I wonder what those children would say if you asked them "Do you want to lose your job?"
I'm not saying that I think you're wrong here or that child labor is right - I just think it isn't as simple an issue as we are lead to believe. These jobs as hellish and cruel as they are may represent the only way these children can survive. At the very least, trying to eliminate these jobs should probably be combined with an effort to get more aid to these people.

Agree with first paragraph, that is developed world should GIVE FOR FREE OR VERY CHEAP solutions for enviromental friendly industry to developing world.

Second paragraph:

Do you know how much money can be earned with drugs, human trafficing, human organ trafficing, etc... Let's legaize it and manufacture it like cigarettes or food or...

I want to say it is wrong dillema. Solution is not to usie children and to pay workers honest sallary, not having excuses like "Atleast we give them job, so it is nothing wrong to treat them like slaves"

If that is good business, then let's us have same thing in our countries...

 

[copake_ham]

The question posed by the OP raises a number of interesting dilemmas for a modern consumer.

Presumably the OP is otherwise convinced that Russian or Chinese sourced film and papers is of equal quality to such goods from Western-based producers. If not, why would he be faced with a quandary?

Whether it is film, shoes or cars, it is fairly evident that in most, but not all instances, factory production methods in China and Russia are generally not as advanced as in the West. This goes both to worker safety, pollution controls etc. Yet, at the same time, these factories are providing jobs and leading to increased prosperity in those societies.

Interestingly, it has regularly been demonstrated that as societies economically advance, and begin to create a middle class, they move to cleaner technologies. Rising middle classes do not want to breathe dirty air or drink poisoned water etc.

So, if you buy from these sources, you are providing income that could eventually lead to cleaner forms of production. But to buy now, does mean you are contributing to "dirty" production at present.

As a couple of asides, to show that not all things are immediately as they seem:

1) It has been noted that China now has over 200 million tons of waste coal mounds. These mounds are often on fire and produce carbon emissions equal to all of the vehicles in the USA.

2) The Chinese producer of many of the Mattel toys that were re-called for lead-based paint actually ran a very modern factory and paid his workers above-average wages. But he was "done-in" by a supplier with lesser scruples. He chose to hang himself from the disgrace. His supplier hasn't.

Finally, anyone who would equate environmental protections in the US as being no better than those of China or Russia is fashioning an ideological polemic that is grounded in neither fact nor reason.

 

[dslater]

Agree with first paragraph, that is developed world should GIVE FOR FREE OR VERY CHEAP solutions for enviromental friendly industry to developing world.

Second paragraph:

Do you know how much money can be earned with drugs, human trafficing, human organ trafficing, etc... Let's legaize it and manufacture it like cigarettes or food or...

I want to say it is wrong dillema. Solution is not to usie children and to pay workers honest sallary, not having excuses like "Atleast we give them job, so it is nothing wrong to treat them like slaves"

If that is good business, then let's us have same thing in our countries...

I never said there was nothing wrong with it or that it is O.K. to buy this stuff - just that it is not a simple issue and it doesn't have a simple solution. Sure it would be great to pay them "fair" wages, but what is the likely hood of that actually happening? The fact is we don't have control over these people's economy or system of government and the government they have is not interested in providing them a decent standard of living. So the question remains, if you simply take away their source of income, have you really helped them?

 

[firecracker]

Do you know those shoes are manufactured by 13, 14 years old children, mostly girls (because of hands/fingers sizes). And usuall sallary for them is around 0,5 USD per DAY for 12, 14 hours or so working day. Forget union/syndicate, health insurance, retirement/pension insurance, overtime payment, night shifts payments, labour laws... that doesn't exsists there.

I have mentioned before, in Japan, we have some illegal child labor operation going on as well. There was a news report recently saying that in one case, some kids from the undocumented immigrant population start working in factories at the age of 12 or 13 when they become school dropouts. And these kids work long hours in horrible conditions but get paid next to nothing.

I'm assuming this is not that different from the sweatshop scene in Chinatown in NYC or some other places, where normally people in general don't really know what's going on in their own neighborhoods so they think it's someone's business. And the local authorities don't even bother to crack down or bust the criminals...

 

[haris]

I never said there was nothing wrong with it or that it is O.K. to buy this stuff - just that it is not a simple issue and it doesn't have a simple solution. Sure it would be great to pay them "fair" wages, but what is the likely hood of that actually happening? The fact is we don't have control over these people's economy or system of government and the government they have is not interested in providing them a decent standard of living. So the question remains, if you simply take away their source of income, have you really helped them?

WRONG: Western companies have arrangements with governments in those countries. SO, when workers of those companies start strike or other ways of fight for getting better working conditions, goverments send police and army to kill those workers. And governments doing that under influence (are payed/corrupted by) those western companies.

Companies are doing that only for one reason: to manufacture cheap and sell for high price. They are not doing that to be helpfull and provide jobs to those Asian or African people, and to support those countries economies.

 

[dslater]

And governments doing that under influence (are payed/corrupted by) those western companies.

WRONG: The governments are already corrupt - removing the influence of western companies will not change that. These so called arrangements are imposed by the corrupt governments as the price of doing business in their country. Removing western companies from these countries won't change anything - they will remain corrupt and oppressive.

 

[sjperry]

Have to toally agree with dslater. The ChiCom government has been brutal and repressive from the getgo (1949). Like all communist governments, no dissent is allowed. Western companies didn't do any business with China to speak of, until 10-15 years ago. The plants being built there (mostly with Western capital), are usually jointly owned with a Chinese "company", with that company having a 51% interest. The Chinese "company" is usually in turn 51% owned by the ChiCom governemnt! They therefore have complete control of whatever goes on in those plants. They would anyway since its a dictatorship. Maybe eventually the Western influence will do some good by bringing a little democracy to that dictatorship. However, I try my best not to buy any more than necessary from there. That includes film. A lot of Kodak's 35mm color film is from there, but their 120 film sold here is made in the US. I usually buy Ferrania 25mm color film (Kroger).

 

[haris]

WRONG: The governments are already corrupt - removing the influence of western companies will not change that. These so called arrangements are imposed by the corrupt governments as the price of doing business in their country. Removing western companies from these countries won't change anything - they will remain corrupt and oppressive.

Western companies have choice:

1. to introduce wetern standards regarding working conditions

2. to accept corruption in those countries and to become corrupted too

It seems they choosed the latter...

 

[dslater]

Western companies have choice:

1. to introduce wetern standards regarding working conditions

2. to accept corruption in those countries and to become corrupted too

It seems they choosed the latter...

Western companies do not have the choice to introduce western standards in other countries. In most cases, these factories are owned and run by locals.
Changing the policies of an oppressive foreign government is not the job of a business - their job is to make money. Political change is the job of governments and international organizations like the UN.

Western companies have 2 choices:

1. to accept corruption in those countries
2. not to do business in these countries.

I am not arguing that option 2 is not the correct option, just that simply exiting these countries is not going to make the peoples lives any better. Much more needs to be done on the political front to improve these peoples lives.

 

[Ole]

Western companies do not have the choice to introduce western standards in other countries. ...

Oh yes, they do. A contract with a foreign investor is worth a lot to any business anywhere; if introducing "western standards" is a prerequisite for getting the work, then it will be done.

Of course this might be a little more expensive to the western company than accepting "substandard standards", but it will still be profiable to both parties.

 

[haris]

This discussion can go forever. I won't continue it. After all, this is photography forum

Regards

 

[haris]

Changing the policies of an oppressive foreign government is not the job of a business - their job is to make money. Political change is the job of governments and international organizations like the UN.
QUOTE]

I lied, I must answer this.

Hungary (after change from communist to "democratic" country) wanted, to preserve their culture and like, wanted to pass a law stating: minimum 51 percent of all TV, cinema programmes must be European origine, and minimum 21 percent must be Hungarian origine.

USA association of producers I belive (MPAA) called World Bank. Then World bank said Hungarian government if government pass that law, World bank will not grant some loans and some contracts between bank and Hungary.

Just one example how (big) business use politics for earning money.

So, yes, business do use politics for their benefit, so business can use beside their money, also political influence for doing something good for people on this planet. They simply don't want to do that.

Regards

 

[haris]

Now I am done

 

[Akki14]

On one hand there's the environment, on the other the Chinese government allegedly subsidizes Lucky film (at least) in China which (to me) is probably the best support of film photography possible. It's a global market and a global economy and the airmiles in shipping Lucky to me is almost as bad as shipping Tri-X from the US (or wherever they want to produce it now) so that's not very good for the environment either but Lucky is cheap and cheerful for my medium format needs so I'm still just going to "do wrong" and buy what I like.

 

[Roger Hicks]

WRONG: Western companies have arrangements with governments in those countries. SO, when workers of those companies start strike or other ways of fight for getting better working conditions, goverments send police and army to kill those workers. And governments doing that under influence (are payed/corrupted by) those western companies.

Companies are doing that only for one reason: to manufacture cheap and sell for high price. They are not doing that to be helpfull and provide jobs to those Asian or African people, and to support those countries economies.

Dear Haris,

Perhaps a slight overstatement, but basically, no one can argue with you.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[copake_ham]

If I follow the gist of this thread - Western companies are bad if they invest or partner with local enterprises in Asia or Africa.

So then, how would not investing/partnering in these places benefit the people living in them?

And how can anyone in this day and age actually claim that ALL Western companies do the same exact thing, for the same exact reasons etc.? Is there some kind of Western Company Rulebook?

This whole argument sounds like an irrelevant socialist rant from the mid-20th Century.

The hundreds of millions of Chinese who attained a middle class lifestyle over the last twenty or so years have no desire to go back to what was before. Ditto in India, Southeast Asia, etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living with blinders on.

Now, out of this thread, as it rants on and on. Besides, I have to go check on the recent performance of my China Region mutual fund!