Some thoughts on product availability

Photo Engineer said:

Some say NO mercury should be placed into the environment; that it should be a closed loop with no loss at all or should not be used.

Click to expand...

Dumb, devil's advocate question from a Sierra Club member with a sense of irony:
Isn't mercury already "in" the environment? If not, where did it come from?

eddym said:

Dumb, devil's advocate question from a Sierra Club member with a sense of irony:
Isn't mercury already "in" the environment? If not, where did it come from?

Click to expand...

No no no!

Mercury never existed untl it was invented by Wicked Chemical Cartels!

Bloody good question.

Cheers,

R. (Greenpeace supporter since 30 years)

Roger Hicks said:

Mercury never existed untl it was invented by Wicked Chemical Cartels!

Click to expand...

......who must have been the makers of my childhood chemistry set. I remember playing with the stuff as a kid....rolling it around in my palm and watching it separate and puddle together. But that was back when smoking was actually good for you. Then, all of a sudden, that pesky US Surgeon General came along (Dr. Everett Koop, I think?) and said it wasn't and everything went to hell.

Mercury occurs naturally at low level in the environment as mercuric oxide or other mercury salts. It is not found in the air except as dust from natural ore deposits, and never as a free metal. I was referring above to mankinds augmentation of mercury release through TV tubes, electronics and fluorescent bulbs among others. We used to use mercury salts for merthiolate and skin lotions such as calomine.

You are talking to one of the guys who actively worked on removal of mercury and cadmium from paper emulsions. It was an uphill struggle against some in management at EK who didn't want to spend an arm and a leg of corporate profit at a time when this was not a huge environmental issue but only one looming on the distant horizon.

You are talking to the guy who designed the first practical Kodak blix replacing potassium ferricynaide with Ferric EDTA, and who developed a 100% polution free process which never was commercialized by EK. Its effluent was drinkable water.

So, I understand and studied environmental concerns for years as I worked on the emulsions and processing chemistry. We exchanged the heavy metal salts for rather mild organic chemicals or less harmful metal salts at very much lower concentration.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

...and who developed a 100% polution free process which never was commercialized by EK. Its effluent was drinkable water.

Click to expand...

It would sure be nice to see that technology in the public domain if the company that funded the development isn't going to use it.

Nick Zentena said:

There was a clip on one of the news shows about one guy in Bollywood. He has done 14 feature films in 2006. Those weren't bit parts either. He starred in that many. Imagine if Hollywood pumped out films at that rate.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget that India has a population of roughly a billion. And movie pictures are more important there than here. They have mobile cinemas to entertain the people in the rustic areas... We on the other hand are couch potatoes who don't go out to the movies because there are 100 other entertainment options.

Photo Engineer said:

Jack;

There seems to be something to add to your reference that was left out for good or bad.

The mercury emission from a coal fired electrical plant is distributed over the earth in the atmosphere and the mercury emission from the bulb is concentrated at the place where it is disposed of and then this concentrate gets into the soil as a direct contaminant. Assuming recycling, even that is lossy and some mercury would probably get into the environment.

What is worse, 2 mg of mercury in a small stream running out of a waste site or 4 mg of mercury being emitted from the stack of a power plant and dispersed over a whole city? The amount per unit area is actually lower in the scond case, I suspect.

IDK which is worse, but I assume that they are both equally bad in spite of one being neary 2x greater than the other. The problem is, no one really knows for sure and that is part of the whole problem. Some say NO mercury should be placed into the environment; that it should be a closed loop with no loss at all or should not be used.

This is the problem. And, considering the amount of coal used for lighting vs coal used for running other equipment, lighting is only a part of the problem, not all of it. If everyone converted to fluorsecent lights and then lighting use was included in overall power consumption, we might not even be able to detect the difference.

People just jump quickly to a conclusion. 'This is better than that', with a 'statistic' to show, but it has been said that anything can be proven with statistics.

Mercury is bad. We should eliminate its use or escape into the environment. The fluorescent bulb is not all of the answer and may not even be the best one.

PE

Click to expand...

Excellent post.

What has also been neglected is that proper disposal of CFL requires tens of millions of individuals to follow the correct protocol in disposing of the bulbs. A failure of a large % of this community to follow these protocols would more than eradicate the reduction in Hg by the electric power generating industry.

So, CFL affords opportunities to reduce Hg exposure but does not guarantee them.

Roger Hicks said:

but as I recall, US interior doors are crap too.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

Hey, my house resembles that remark.

Petzi said:

Let's not forget that India has a population of roughly a billion. And movie pictures are more important there than here. They have mobile cinemas to entertain the people in the rustic areas... We on the other hand are couch potatoes who don't go out to the movies because there are 100 other entertainment options.

Click to expand...

Or worse, because some small art-movie houses I know run some artsy movies with DVDs with their video projectors and charge as much. Yeah, they have excellent tastes for what they show to their audiences, but I can rent their "tastes" at a local retal video place I go to also...

Seriously, ten years ago, video projection was only an alternative method for the indie(not Indian, but indie)-filmmakers and film students with no budget and/or no method of showing their work otherwise, but not anymore, I guess.

By the way, does the Indian cinema still rely on the film today?

Or my question is, has there been any excellent non-film-based (I mean "digital" only) B&W movie made yet? I haven't watched many in the recent years, so I don't know the real trend. But if some people have already started proving it's just as good as the film-based type, we will probably lose the film soon or later.

Photo Engineer said:

Jack;

Mercury is bad. We should eliminate its use or escape into the environment. The fluorescent bulb is not all of the answer and may not even be the best one.

PE

Click to expand...

I don't now how many mercury thermostats were thrown in the dumpster over the preceding years before digital stats came along. The amounts of mercury contained in each thermostat were in the grams. At that time in the past I don't know if they used a containment system at the landfills.

firecracker said:

By the way, does the Indian cinema still rely on the film today?

Click to expand...

YES

Ok, so I realize as analog photographers we are dependent on these companies to make our materials. What can we do to ensure that this industry lasts? I have been entirely devoted to Ilford papers since Simon is kind enough tocome on here from time to time and speak to us all. However, I still use Tri-X sheet film. There is no possible way that in the remotely near future that digital technology that matches large format film in resolution will become inexpensive enough. So Photo Engineer, how do we keep this stuff going?

If I had a solution, I guess I would be eligible for being called a prophet, but I have no solution and I'm not able to see the future. I'm not a prophet.

PE

The only films that are currently being mass produced ... All other films are such low volume runners...

**** The meaning of “low volume” to Kodak and ilford or EFKE is veeeery different.
------------------------

... Companies that do not produce color or motion picture films rely solely on production of their B&W film and paper. Market fluctuations or declines must be directly reflected in production schedules and prices.

**** I do not get what is a problem here
---------------------------

Environmentalists are after all chemical industries...

**** Polution from photography compare to car industry (emissions, oil change, …). We can rum for thousands of years still not reach one day pollution from cars and planes, garbage, plastic bags,…. And to you as chemical guy, can you imagine some chemicals mix after use to neutralize bad side of chemicals or to minimize the same.
---------------------------

Fewer and fewer young people are going into chemistry ...

**** This era is time of fashion, and will fade away for sure. Quick come, quick go. You probably target digital for younge people. Man, I use digital stuff too but not as photography, but can you imagine that photography, digital imaging, drawings, and painting, … are very different things. Today photography manufacturers are hited by “advance” of digital imaging. However painters are also in even worst condition. But it is just for one single reason: consumerism, fashion. Digital imaging is a new medium and is looking for the space on account of other mediums (normal).
---------------------------

So, I believe that it is a race between how long film will be used ...

**** A photographer that many believed in, started to advertise digital medium so all his customers gone to digital guy for he did not have such service. This is what happened to Kodak and is happening to stupid Leica too.
---------------------------

… to create an all digital actor for a film, …

**** This can works in time as now is, time where people do not care is something good or bad, true or lie,… time of no difference, time of consumerism and carelessness, time of fashion. Can you imagine Caravaggio (painter) going to see digital Gable (remember his dager). But it was different time. I will never ever pay or loose time to see movie of fictious thinks, things that I know in advance all is just someones dream. Do you think that people never more, in future, will be able to use their own brain?

------------
This pretty much summarizes all information that I've been able to gather ….

**** Photography is not is crisis by any means. You panic around huge profit, not about photography. The same is, even much more pronounced, in say automobile industry, shoes industry where no one any more buys leather shoes for $400 but rather $10-80.

**** Honestly I have no intention to stock my supply, and expect to see Nikon F7 (might be a little later, when dust come down).
Will be Kodak and Leica in business? Not something to loose time about, because I do not like stupid people. Will their demise (if happen) influence photography? Not at ALL. With time anyone gets what he deserves.

And finally:
If Kodak and Leica see competitions in digital imaging what they did to advertise their products, at least as digital manufacturers does with their products. How you see connection between cell phone, downloading, and photography.
If photographers see danger to their profession in digital imaging what they did to advertise their work and advantages. Not close as digital manufacturers. They sleep and dream about of future of their profession and just panic around for no reason. Photography, with its uniqueness, will itself resist all that sh*** around. But many will pay on the way. Some more some less.

For all other: I am B&W photographer, the same as from my first connection with photography was, and these days I am more busy with "film" photography that ever before, and all of my customers have digital cameras, some of them $10000 value.

www.Leica-R.com

What needs to happen is that the manufacturers need to understand the artistic integrity in film. All the great Black and White art photographers still use film. The ones I have spoken to know there is no substitute for a large format negative. These are people who many of you may have heard of and are truly legends of photography. Museums and art dealers need to help our cause as they also know there is no viable substitute for the longevity of silver based photography. I can't not even begin to tell you how ridiculous I find it that Kodak is striving to become all digital. There is room for both means of photography and the companies that pioneered such traditional methods need to understand the importance of not abandoning traditon all together. If they wish to stop coming up with new emulsions, that is fine as long as they keep the time tested winners available.

Daniel;

I think that you miss the point that if the consumer analog market fluctuates wildly (as it is wont to do right at the present time), then Kodak will suffer less than Ilford and EFKE to use your example. So, a dip in low volume at Kodak may still mean some volume, but at these other two companies it might mean no volume for a period of time!

As for chemistry as a profession, since environmental concerns seem to be attaching a stigma to being a chemist, then recovery of the profession may be a long time in coming. It is not a periodic fluctuation or faddish change, but a real stigma being imposed.

So, FWIW, I feel that your comments are somewhat wide of or miss the points that I tried to make.

PE

PE
you talk about income. Do you know which complex of buildings kodak (or photographers) supports, it is "average" village: electricity, security, cleaning, property tax, repear, heating in cold area, ... It is ratio expences/income in question. Head office building alone is God take me for photography span.
If I am shortly out of work who care. I do not pay rent for the studio, and do my painting in the break. But I do not advertise my painting, I advertise my photography. That is a difference to be "big". Anyway good luck Kodak, if it will help.

www.Leica-R.com

Daniel_OB said:

... Companies that do not produce color or motion picture films rely solely on production of their B&W film and paper. Market fluctuations or declines must be directly reflected in production schedules and prices.

**** I do not get what is a problem here
---------------------------

Click to expand...

The problem in a nutshell is this. All coating machinery is designed to work at a certain volume of coating. All of this machinery is custom designed and built. There is no "off the shelf" machinery. If a company cannot sell enough product to justify running the coating machinery then they cannot offer it for sale. If a coating machine requires a 10,000 ft. roll of 42 inch wide film base on which to coat, and you cannot sell the resultant finished film within its expiry deadline then you cannot make it.

Already some film products that used to be coated every day, are now only coated once a year, one time a year...think about it. How much further down in production can one go? That is the issue and problem with keeping marginal products on the market.

Jordke said:

What needs to happen is that the manufacturers need to understand the artistic integrity in film. All the great Black and White art photographers still use film. The ones I have spoken to know there is no substitute for a large format negative. These are people who many of you may have heard of and are truly legends of photography. Museums and art dealers need to help our cause as they also know there is no viable substitute for the longevity of silver based photography. I can't not even begin to tell you how ridiculous I find it that Kodak is striving to become all digital. There is room for both means of photography and the companies that pioneered such traditional methods need to understand the importance of not abandoning traditon all together. If they wish to stop coming up with new emulsions, that is fine as long as they keep the time tested winners available.

Click to expand...

Ah, but the "thing" is..that all the "great Black and White" photographers all put together cannot support the output from even one film manufacturer, because film manufacturing facilities were designed on a grand scale in a time when everyone used film, and there was enormous production capacity designed in. These same facilities often cannot be run at greatly reduced output..all the equipment is designed for enormous, huge outputs of product. Witness the demise of Forte. Good products, good sales, but too big a facility for the current markets. Perhaps Foma and Efke can survive because they are much smaller companies to start with?

I seriously don't know why if they made them in the past, they can't build new smaller, more efficient coating machines now for less output???????? I understand that it's not "that easy", however there must be ways to do this.

Photo Engineer said:

Mercury occurs naturally at low level in the environment as mercuric oxide or other mercury salts. It is not found in the air except as dust from natural ore deposits, and never as a free metal. I was referring above to mankinds augmentation of mercury release through TV tubes, electronics and fluorescent bulbs among others. We used to use mercury salts for merthiolate and skin lotions such as calomine

PE

Click to expand...

Fascinating and educational, as are all your posts, Ron. I enjoy them very much. Thank you!

Guys;

We are talking about the literal collapse of a HUGE infrastructure due to the conversion to digital. Regardless of our personal feelings it goes on apace, as I type. The gradual buidling of this infrastructure took nearly 100 years to evolve to where it is today. It is falling a part over a period of about 10 years. About 10x faster than it was built, and it has nothing to do with Kodak's policies.

You cannot imagine how hard it is to reduce production abruptly. I feel this is a futile argument, but I'll try again. Imagine accelerating your car smoothly to 60 mph and then applying the brakes. It works. Now imagine the same thing but ending by running into a brick wall! It HURTS. It damages the car (read infrastructure here) and it may be impossible for some to recover from the accident.

Oh well. Some people are so fixated on B&W and color analog, that they cannot see what is going on beyond their immediate local store. Sorry all, but this situation is dire and there is no escaping it. I'm doing my best to cope with it and to supply alternatives. I would guess at 1 or 2 departures from the field of analog film and paper production within 1 - 5 years. Just an OTOMH guess though.

PE

Jordke said:

I seriously don't know why if they made them in the past, they can't build new smaller, more efficient coating machines now for less output???????? I understand that it's not "that easy", however there must be ways to do this.

Click to expand...

Many reasons:

a) Rapid onset of the decline has destroyed the capital that could have been appropriated for this purpose
b) Inability to show ROI prevents the capital being sought from alternate sources. Pretty much every place that manufactures film is beset with rising labor and raw material costs at the moment and film sales are still declining.
c) In many cases, the greatest ROI opportunity for existing plant and property is cessation of production activities and selling off the land.
d) The intellectual capital is dying off.

I'm not sure if it's escaped people's attention but "c" is proving to be a real problem as much of Central Europe and the Developing World is undergoing an appreciation in real estate that is simply staggering - eclipsing even what the USA experienced in the late 19th century when the railroads were completed. We already know of two companies - Sterling in India and Forte in Hungary - where this played a signficant factor in the closure of operations. And this is even a concern for Ilford long-term.

Let me put "c" in perspective. Tata Motors in India recently spent $100 million on a stamping plant on the plateau near Bangalore. This region is adding IT jobs at such a ridiculous pace, that they were able to turn the land for nearly twice that amount to a group that was planning to build roads and a large-scale commercial complex to support two new residential communities that had sprang up in the past couple years.

As a result, that stamping plant is being raized to the ground just a couple months before it was supposed to BEGIN operations.

Not only do these manufacturers have to make money - they have to make SICK money.

Photo Engineer said:

Mercury occurs naturally at low level in the environment as mercuric oxide or other mercury salts. It is not found in the air except as dust from natural ore deposits, and never as a free metal.

Click to expand...

Admittedly tangential, but are you certain?