Having a big mouth is rewarding!

Some weeks ago, I picked up an issue of Photo Sélection, a local photo mag (published in Québec City, see Dead Link Removed if curious), and was irated by the editorial which claimed that digiphoto was more eco-friendly than film because it did not use consumables, etc, etc. I felt like sending an outraged reader letter, and sent a summary of the position that although digi can be made with little consumables, the environmental hazzard is in the camera, its production and disposal.

Well, now they are willing to pay me to publish my opinion piece! Bitchin'! I'd never suspected my big mouth would bring me better than slaps on the fingers or eternal flaming.

So they're looking for a picture that could accompany the writing, and I am a bit at a loss here. I'm not such a great photographer that I can pull a perfectly produced analog photo on any topic, so I'm not sure what I could get them from my prints. I suppose I could take one of my urban-crap pictures as an illustration of garbage, perhaps. Or if there is a way to get cheap access to some reporter photograph, one that could show a computer recycling yard in China, for e.g.

I also thought that maybe some APUG member with a relevant picture would like to have it published in a small circulation mag just for the fun of it? Plus if it's an analog photo, it would add some weight to the issue. No idea if money would be involved in that case, but I have just asked them about their copyright/royalties policy.

mhv said:

Well, now they are willing to pay me to publish my opinion piece! Bitchin'! I'd never suspected my big mouth would bring me better than slaps on the fingers or eternal flaming..

Click to expand...

Damn skippy! (but don't quit your day job )

The illustration photo is easy. Find a patch of dead grass, and carefully half-bury a digital camera there. Add a dead squirrel (on its back, feet in the air), and you're home free.

I got in the mail today a stack of copies with my picture and my one page article in it. It's the first time I see myself in high gloss! My mom is very proud...

Dead Link Removed (it's in French, of course)

rbarker said:

The illustration photo is easy. Find a patch of dead grass, and carefully half-bury a digital camera there. Add a dead squirrel (on its back, feet in the air), and you're home free.

Click to expand...

LOL Ralph LOL...

mhv said:

I got in the mail today a stack of copies with my picture and my one page article in it. It's the first time I see myself in high gloss! My mom is very proud...

Dead Link Removed (it's in French, of course)

Click to expand...

Nice very nice! Will you be signing copies?

laz said:

Nice very nice! Will you be signing copies?

Click to expand...

Yes, but they will be a limited edition because afterwards I will destroy myself.

Thanks for defending analog photography. How about a translated copy of your article for your fellow English speaking APUGers!

Changeling1 said:

Thanks for defending analog photography. How about a translated copy of your article for your fellow English speaking APUGers!

Click to expand...

Rich idea: I was just reading some book on Renaissance theory of imitation and translation, so I hope my English elocutio will match my inventio...

I won't translate the original editorial, but the gist of it was that digital is more eco-friendly because we don't have to use film, chemicals and papers. Here's what I had to say about it:


Environmental Impact of Digital Photography

In reply to your editorial published in the Photo Sélection of September 2005, I would like to remind you that digital photography is far from being a green industry, even though that is the color it uses for its circuit boards.

You stress the idea that digital "is not an immediate danger to environment when its practice implies minimal printing and equipment change." Indeed, let's look at what happens if someone buys a digicam and intends to keep it until it ceases to function.

No pollution whatsoever? What do you make first of the circuit boards, that require an acid etching process? What do you make of the heavy metals involved in the fabrication of eletronic chips? What do you make of the chemicals spilled in the environment by the manufacturing of these dear little gadgets' cases? What do you make also of the fact that digital products have an average life inferior to ten years? Once the camera is done for, we may not have spent reams of papers, but we have a nice big useless piece of garbage in our hands.

The thrifty consumer could indeed avoid producing garbage by using digital. But how much garbage have we produced just to allow him to take his first picture? Lack of durability and recurring equipment upgrades make of the computer/electronics industry one of the most environmentally hazardous industries.

Let us not talk about its recycling industry: it is the most cynical joke of globalisation. Computer trash is sent to China (or third world countries) to workers who take it apart by hand and intoxicate themselves with the pollutants against which they do not wear sufficient protection. I would like to refer you to The Trash Folder in the January 2005 Harper's.

We can debate forever on the putative savings of digital, we can debate on its visual quality in relationship to film, but it is irresponsible and dishonest to consider digital to be a green industry in opposition to that of film simply because the user can avoid producing waste. To judge so, we must look at the whole production chain behind the production of these tools, in addition to the average patterns of use, and the reuse potential of out of date equipment.

My cameras are 70, 50 and 30 years old, and they all take wonderful pictures on film. Let's see if in 20 years it's still possible to use a Nikon D70 that was bought today.

* * *

Moderators, if I am starting by mistake yet another flaming D vs A debate, please effect all appropriate measures!!

Michel,

that's a very good written collumn. It goes straight to the point without getting into digi-bashing.
The accompaning picture adds very well to the pollution problems.

Keep on writing and, off course, photographing.

G

I suspect one of the largest ecological impacts of digital photography is the batteries, both in terms of energy use and responsible manufacture and disposal. Wafer fabs tend to be clean places, and have tight control over their nasties, battery plants less so.

That was a well-written and well-reasoned article. I agree with Struan that batteries are a big (and somewhat "hidden") issue - particularly if one is using disposable rather than rechargeable. My experience has been that digicams burn through these at an incredible rate, and simply throwing them into the garbage can result in some rather nasty stuff being leaked into the environment. Of course, many film cameras are known to use batteries as well, though not at quite the same pace.

Take a look at what the tantalum industry has done to eastern africa. green friendly my *ss.
Basically it has moved the pollution to the other side of the world.