I hate when people assume.

John Austin · Mar 25, 2012

Worker 11811 said:
Film : Awful :: Digital : Lazy

When somebody says film is "awful" or when I hear people reminisce about how they took a photography course in college where they had to D-E-V-E-L-O-P their F-I-L-M it says to me that they don't understand their craft and that they are either too lazy or too stupid to try to understand it.

If you go to the original quote, as you quoted it, it said that the whoever it was that said it said Kodachrome was awful, not film in general, and if he or she did not like Kodachrome that is not reason to burn him or her at the stake of narrow reading

John

Moopheus · Mar 25, 2012

mikendawn said:
I mean, when you have a camera that can take a photo, instantly show the results (much to the demise of Polaroid) and let the "Faux-Tographer" see what DoF they got without having to think about it? yeah... that's just laziness..

So, then do you think someone who uses a Polaroid camera is lazy? Or an instamatic? Or a fully-auto-everything film camera? Or a disposable drug-store camera? Digital didn't make people lazy. Most of the cameras ever sold have been simple push-button boxes, for the simple reason that they were easy to use.

Roger Cole · Mar 25, 2012

jnanian said:
roger

people say+do dopy things on both sides of the street ...
(and you can read it here on apug or anywhere else )
THAT is what i am talking about .

Fine. But I'm specifically referring to your apparent criticism of darkroom workers discarding solutions down the drain. The vast majority of them are perfectly save to dispose of that way.

Worker 11811 · Mar 25, 2012

Digital, instant photos or automatic cameras don't make people lazy but lazy people use them to avoid work.

Sometimes, I'm just hungry and want to eat or I might not have time to cook a meal so I'll take a frozen dinner out of the microwave oven and have my meal in 3:00. That, by itself, does not make me lazy.

It doesn't take much effort to dump some fresh veggies, some chicken, some water and some spices into a pot and make soup. It's not as convenient and it takes longer but you'll have a much tastier and healthier product than if you microwaved a cup of Lipton soup mix.

Furthermore, you get to pick your ingredients, you get to spice the soup the way you want, you can make your soup just the way you like it and you'll have a tasy, wholesome product that the whole family can sit down and enjoy.

Okay... On some days, you're tired, you're grumpy from a long day of work, and the kids are screaming for dinner... You just microwave a frozen pizza and be done with it. No harm, no foul. But, if you're feeding your kids microwave pizza for dinner every night because you don't want to figure out how to read a recipe book, YOU'RE LAZY.

The analogy applies to digital in the same way. Sometimes I just need a picture right now. Sometimes my boss wants me to e-mail my proofs to the printer by 4:30. Sometimes I'm just going to send the picture to somebody on the internet or just post it on Facebook. Sometimes, I don't want to develop a whole roll of film for a one-off. I'll shoot digital and I won't feel guilty but if I'm shooting digital every day just because I don't want to develop film, YES! I'M LAZY.

Cameras are tools and each tool is meant to do a certain job. Screwdrivers are for fastening screws. Hammers are for driving nails. You wouldn't fasten a screw with a hammer any more than you'd cook chicken soup in the microwave or try to take a good photograph with a point-and-shoot digicam.

A good carpenter needs to know how to use his hammers and screwdrivers properly. A good cook needs to know how to use his cookware and his ingredients properly. A good photographer should know how to use his cameras properly but it doesn't matter whether those cameras are digital or film. He still needs to know how to use them properly. Anything else is just laziness.

removed account4 · Mar 25, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Fine. But I'm specifically referring to your apparent criticism of darkroom workers discarding solutions down the drain. The vast majority of them are perfectly save to dispose of that way.

metol, HQ and silver rich fixer, as well as a variety of toners that the average darkroom worker uses are not perfectly safe for discarding that way.
and it doesn't matter whether you are a small or large quantity generator, if you are unsure where you live what the proper thing to do is
contact your local authorities ... in the end, if a film photographer suggests his waste is a drop in a bucket
..... 1000s of people make this claim, and 1000 drops in a bucket is a whole bucket.

this thread isn't about chemical based photographers being responsible with their waste, but about misconceptions and dopy things that
people who use digital or use film say in order to boost their own egos and feel better about whatever type of photography they do.
and most of what film and digital people say about eachother is BS ...

John Austin · Mar 25, 2012

On which thought, how many pix in the classified section were made with film and then scanned?

Some of them look like digipix to me - For that heresy I shall now. . .

derwent · Mar 26, 2012

I never bother with film for a classifieds/eBay/etc shot because it just doesn't matter that much and archival issues are not a factor.
I suspect most people are the same.
That kinda thing or shots for email are the main thing I use my pocket digi for but one thing I love about it and use it for a LOT is EXIF data.
Each location that I shoot on film I take a roughly framed digi shot so weeks later when I'm cataloging that film I can look up the date and rough time of that location and session. So much easier than remembering a notebook every time....

John Austin · Mar 26, 2012

derwent said:
I never bother with film for a classifieds/eBay/etc shot because it just doesn't matter that much and archival issues are not a factor.
I suspect most people are the same.
That kinda thing or shots for email are the main thing I use my pocket digi for but one thing I love about it and use it for a LOT is EXIF data.
Each location that I shoot on film I take a roughly framed digi shot so weeks later when I'm cataloging that film I can look up the date and rough time of that location and session. So much easier than remembering a notebook every time....

Like the classified thing was a joke, meaning not to be taken seriously!!!!

However, I do like your idea of using the EXIF data in addition to written notes - If anyone can teach me how to add voice to a digisnap I will put in N+- processing factors and direction as well as a voice over, that would be very useful, and a digicamera no bigger than a Ixus 70 that will also record UTM location ID

Roger Cole · Mar 26, 2012

Some toners (mainly selenium) yes. I don't dump my selenium. I let it evaporate in a pan that becomes plated with selenium. Eventually I'll turn it in to a hazmat reclamation center. At this rate that will take decades. Metol, HQ and "silver rich fixer" - poppycock, and quantity does indeed matter. "Silver rich fixer" is only any concern at all because it's rich with silver ion - metallic silver is not a problem. And in practice, silver ion is not toxic in typical quantities in the typical waste water treatment system because it doesn't stay ion very long. There's plenty of reactive material and it quickly becomes metallic silver. Now if you're dumping a few gallons directly into a trout stream, I'll agree that's dangerous and irresponsible. Dumping it down the drain with sewage, nah.

If anything, this is a misconception on the part of digital folks, that film is so polluting.

I agree it's not the point of the thread, but I didn't bring it up.

Roger Cole · Mar 26, 2012

Grumpy Old Man said:
On which thought, how many pix in the classified section were made with film and then scanned?

Some of them look like digipix to me - For that heresy I shall now. . .

Probably none. Why would you do this? It's a lot of trouble where it doesn't really return you anything.

I, as I suspect most people here, do shoot some digital. I have a 10 year old Nikon Coolpix 995 that I use for snapshots and quick records, especially if I need more quality than my iPhone can provide. I use it for photos of anything for sale. I toy with the idea of getting a decent DSLR, for two purposes: one, for family events and such, where film is not much if any better and I just get a huge backlog of negatives. I don't have time to print that much. I have stuff I shot of my fiance's family over a year ago and I just haven't had time to print them yet. Secondly, for very low light shooting. This is the one area where digital beats film handily. I do enjoy shooting TMZ and Delta 3200 in dim light, but when it gets really dim I could get better quality more quickly and easily with a DSLR.

Horses for courses and all that.

removed account4 · Mar 26, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Some toners (mainly selenium) yes. I don't dump my selenium. I let it evaporate in a pan that becomes plated with selenium. Eventually I'll turn it in to a hazmat reclamation center. At this rate that will take decades. Metol, HQ and "silver rich fixer" - poppycock, and quantity does indeed matter. "Silver rich fixer" is only any concern at all because it's rich with silver ion - metallic silver is not a problem. And in practice, silver ion is not toxic in typical quantities in the typical waste water treatment system because it doesn't stay ion very long. There's plenty of reactive material and it quickly becomes metallic silver. Now if you're dumping a few gallons directly into a trout stream, I'll agree that's dangerous and irresponsible. Dumping it down the drain with sewage, nah.

if you say so roger ...
maybe you should look at your LOCAL regulations, before you start making broad statements.
where i live discharge levels are 0, where i lived it was 0, where i lived before that was 0 ... and even 10 years before that ... 0
(2 different states, 4 different towns/cities )

if you look at the packaging that the photographer's formulary puts their kits in, they say something to the effect of -- dispose of properly or please return this photochemistry to us.

If anything, this is a misconception on the part of digital folks, that film is so polluting.

that is what i said to begin with

another misconception is that film shooters claim most photochemistry is benign and that it is at all OK to just dump it down the drain...
maybe in some places this is OK/true, but in a lot of places this is not OK/true at all ... and as i have said often it is best to find out from your local authorities what is OK and not OK to pour down the drain ...

John Austin · Mar 26, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Probably none. Why would you do this? It's a lot of trouble where it doesn't really return you anything.

I, as I suspect most people here, do shoot some digital.

Horses for courses and all that.

It was a joke!!!!, as I typed already - I find literal reading of such a thought as silly as the proposition

Moopheus · Mar 26, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Metol, HQ and "silver rich fixer" - poppycock, and quantity does indeed matter. "Silver rich fixer" is only any concern at all because it's rich with silver ion - metallic silver is not a problem. And in practice, silver ion is not toxic in typical quantities in the typical waste water treatment system because it doesn't stay ion very long.

At least here in Mass., the amount of fixer that can be legally put into a sewer system is exactly zero.

Roger Cole · Mar 26, 2012

I didn't sat it was necessarily legal; I said it wasn't very harmful. Those are two very different things.

removed account4 · Mar 26, 2012

Darkroom317 · Mar 26, 2012

Most art pollutes. I'm in a painting class right now where we are using oil paint. Not only do we have the paint but also the medium we mix it with and the solvent to clean brushes. Every paper that touches any of the things must go in a hazmat container. On the lid of the two containers, it says to change every week I believe. A lot of the paints we use contain cadmium. But you don't see people who use acrylic bash people who use oils.

Steven L · Mar 26, 2012

Just a bit about pollution and than back to topic: Do they really think that a little bit of chemical waste that a selective group of people (us APUG-ers) dispose in the sewer will distroy the world? And the chemicals we all (well not all, but a lot) use to clean the toilet, use to color our hair, nail remover etcetera doesn't effect the inviroment?
Back on topic: I only had good responces when using an analogue camera. As a beginner I use a digital compact camera for composition and to get the general idea of what I'm going to do. After that I use the analogue camera. Sometimes someone asks why I use the "obsolete" analogue camera. That's when I show them two pictures. One made with a fairly good digital SLR, printed on good quality paper with a decent printer. Second picture made with the analogue SLR, printed at the local 35mm print shop. That's when they know why.
However, in the modern world with computers, internet and digital cameras, many people want at some point to share their pictures online. So the pictures have to be digitalised at one point. Why not start from the origin and use a digital camera?
It's all about what you want. Do you want instant satisfaction to share with the world or do you want to create and use light as a paintbrush?

To end with a funny anecdote: our 2 1/2 year old daughter finds camera's intreguing, ever since she was one. When I take a picture with a digital camera, she always wants to see the result. Sometimes she wants another picture taken when she feels the previous picture isn't what she likes. A couple of months ago I used an analogue SLR. She wanted to see the result, but ofcourse there was nothing to see. "hmm, broken." she replied. "change batteries" she advised me. Right now she's got a toy (but fully operating) digital camera. I can't wait untill she's old enough to use the real thing.

Roger Cole · Mar 26, 2012

Grumpy Old Man said:
It was a joke!!!!, as I typed already - I find literal reading of such a thought as silly as the proposition

Yeah, well, I didn't read down thread and connect the dots.

There's an awfully lot of people in this thread not saying what they mean, and assuming that other people mean other than what they said too. Which, when you think about it, sort of illustrates a point in keeping with the title.

mikendawn · Mar 26, 2012

No no no... Nothing of the sort! And Instamatics were NOT the same as a Polaroid. Instamatic is 126 film, remember? You still had to process it.

regardless, I'm just hashing words.. I was referring to the fact that you didn't have to figure out the DoF, or with some cameras, even if you took a great photo, because you can easily just crop it in post, or tell the camera to MAKE IT GREAT.

I know a lot of the cameras that were sold were simple box-cameras (Kodak Brownie)... but Digital HAS made some photographers lazy. I mean, there's not FIGURING out the DOF scale.. take the shot.. Nope, no good, adjust, shoot again.. Ah, there we go!

Film = 1 shot.... If it's not right, you don't get a do-over.

Steve Smith · Mar 26, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
But you don't see people who use acrylic bash people who use oils.

I'm sure there's an artists' forum somewhere where this happens!

Steve.

Steve Smith · Mar 26, 2012

Steven L said:
And the chemicals we all (well not all, but a lot) use to clean the toilet, use to color our hair, nail remover etcetera doesn't effect the inviroment?

Many developers are closely related to chemicals used as drain cleaners.

Steve.

E. von Hoegh · Mar 26, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Fine. But I'm specifically referring to your apparent criticism of darkroom workers discarding solutions down the drain. The vast majority of them are perfectly save to dispose of that way.

Correct. Some chemicals are not safe to pour down the drain, the Cibachrome stuff and some toners come to mind. It depends on the amount as well. Anyone talking about film chemistry as a source of pollution should look into where the chemicals put on a golf course (or just their front lawn) go.... and what happens to all those obsolete digicams, not to mention the computers and printers needed to utilise them?

Roger Cole · Mar 26, 2012

mikendawn said:
Film = 1 shot.... If it's not right, you don't get a do-over.

Well you CAN, the difference is immediacy of feedback. You can shoot several film shots, bracket exposure, various depth of field etc, and I sometimes do some of that (but mostly when the situation is tricky - I find it a sort of shotgun approach for people who are unsure most of the time, and it gets expensive in large format.) The difference is you won't know if you need to do anything different until it's too late.

That's not entirely bad, and I think digital would have value as a learning medium for film, if you shoot it the same way. Someone should make a digital camera that's all manual (no automatic mode to "cheat" with and use.) Probably wouldn't sell, but it would be a great learning tool for newcomers.

Worker 11811 · Mar 26, 2012

Steven L said:
Do they really think that a little bit of chemical waste that a selective group of people (us APUG-ers) dispose in the sewer will distroy the world? And the chemicals we all (well not all, but a lot) use to clean the toilet, use to color our hair, nail remover etcetera doesn't effect the inviroment?

Steve Smith said:
Many developers are closely related to chemicals used as drain cleaners.

People use so many chemicals every day, without thinking, it's not even funny. One turn of the ignition key as you get into your car, going to work in the morning, spews more toxic waste than most people can conceive. It is my understanding that it takes one acre of grass and forest to absorb the pollution expelled by the average automobile driving one mile. Then, as Steve says; drain cleaners, window cleaners, kitchen cleaners, bathroom cleaners, etc., etc., etc. We sure dirty up the environment an awful lot in the name of getting clean!

It is my understanding that, in the moderate quantities that the average home photographer disposes of, a well operated municipal sewer treatment plant will destroy most of the stuff we flush down the drain. The exceptions being silver-saturated fixer, selenium and other exotics. From that, I understand that the CORRECT thing to do is to flush your "standard" developing chemicals down the drain with plenty of water. Again, the key is MODERATE QUANTITIES. If you're flushing five gallons of developer per day, that's not moderate. If you're developing a couple of rolls per week, that's a different story.

I also believe, if memory serves, except for fixer, it is Kodak's recommendation to flush moderate quantities of developing chemicals down the sewer, using plenty of water to dilute.
It is also my understanding that Kodak recommends anybody disposing more than moderate quantities of chemistry that would be generated by the average home developer to contact their local authorities and seek advice or proper permits.

So, yes, this does go right along with the theme of assumption. Most people assume that photo chemistry is the same as nuclear waste but we all know it is nothing of the sort. While nobody would say that photo chemistry is harmless, if handled properly, used properly and disposed of properly, it's nowhere near as harmful as the masses often assume.

With proper respect, due caution and careful treatment, photo chems are, as Douglas Adams might say, are "Mostly Harmless."

Roger Cole · Mar 26, 2012

They are right that it's illegal to do in some places. I never disputed that. I just happen to agree with Kodak that it's not generally HARMFUL, and far less harmful than many routinely used household chemicals.

The biggest concern with fixer is that some aquatic life is particularly sensitive to silver ion (thus my quip about not putting it into a trout stream.) But it's also true that it won't stay ion very long. I brought this up in another thread once with an interesting reply from someone who actually studied it for an environmental impact statement for his situation. I'll see if I can find that.

EDIT: Here it is. The crappy search in vBulletin meant I couldn't turn this up using the search here but Google did:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Maris said:
Roger Cole is right. In moderate quantities (pounds, not tons) silver tetrathionate and similar compounds which characterise used fixer don't harm sewerage treatment systems. The silver very quickly gets converted to silver sulphide in the presence of the free sulphide ion. Silver sulphide is geologically stable and inert and has one of the lowest solubility products known in chemistry. The stability and inertness of silver sulphide is the key to the remarkable archival properties of sepia toned photographs.

Before my darkroom was approved by my local council I had to calculate the silver concentration in my total household effluent. I'm pretty busy and use a few thousand sheets of film and paper per year but the result came to about 5 parts per billion. By the time this mixes with the output of the other 20 000 households that don't process photographic materials the silver concentration is below any conceivable detection limit down at the sewerage treatment plant.

I hate when people assume.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency