Well, I hope my posts didn't seem negative. I was just being facetious. I love analog, and digital, and digi-log. 
When is Analog photography not Analog???
-
- Thread starter 23mjm
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: Pentax LX for parts, or.
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Voigtlander Helomar 240mm f/3.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Kodak TMax 400, expired, 150 ft rolls
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale FS: TTH Cooke Series V 12x10 Lens Eq. Focus 16.3 inch
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,189
- Format
- Multi Format
For doping silicon the most common dopants are group III and group V elements, usually boron or arsenic if I am not mistaken. This would be for the common garden variety chips. I don't know if optical sensors use special dopants, but I kind of doubt it.
It's probably worth pointing out that unlike a consumable product like film, a chip, being non-consumable, only adds to the pollution load of the world one time, regardless of how many photos are taken by the camera. (I am making an assumption here that the question behind your question relates to pollution burden.)
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,189
- Format
- Multi Format
Oops, PE I was replying off from an old screen and hadn't reloaded to get the more up to date version of the thread. Looking back, I see that your question seems to have already been answered. Sorry for the redundant post, and this one too, which kind of adds to the redundancy.
Indeed, the argument that analogue is more enviro-friendly than digital is definitely not one I would care to make. The petrochemical industry has not been kind to the environment. Let's not go there 
Nevertheless I do think that enviro concerns related to modern, 'improved' technologies are too often swept under the rug. My favourite example being the use of mercury in fluorescents, which are supposedly more enviro-friendly than normal bulbs. The lame counterargument used by the morons who foist these bulbs on us (and even legislate them in Europe, n.b., without any requirement that companies take them back for re-processing once the bulbs are used or broken) is that the energy savings means we'll be consuming less energy and thus burning less coal and thus dumping less mercury into the environment. As if we have to burn low-grade coal with a high mercury content!!! Anyway... :rolleyes:
Bottom line, I think, is that the organic forms of these materials are far and away the nastiest, so the processing side is where the environmental concern should be, not at the consumption side. E.g. mercury in pure form as a dopant is more environmentally inert than the mineral forms found in nature (e.g. cinnabar); but methyl mercury and dimethyl mercury, now that is about as nasty as nasty gets...
Nevertheless I do think that enviro concerns related to modern, 'improved' technologies are too often swept under the rug. My favourite example being the use of mercury in fluorescents, which are supposedly more enviro-friendly than normal bulbs. The lame counterargument used by the morons who foist these bulbs on us (and even legislate them in Europe, n.b., without any requirement that companies take them back for re-processing once the bulbs are used or broken) is that the energy savings means we'll be consuming less energy and thus burning less coal and thus dumping less mercury into the environment. As if we have to burn low-grade coal with a high mercury content!!! Anyway... :rolleyes:
Bottom line, I think, is that the organic forms of these materials are far and away the nastiest, so the processing side is where the environmental concern should be, not at the consumption side. E.g. mercury in pure form as a dopant is more environmentally inert than the mineral forms found in nature (e.g. cinnabar); but methyl mercury and dimethyl mercury, now that is about as nasty as nasty gets...
Methyl Mercuric Iodide was indeed an early film dopant, and as you say Keith, was nasty. It is now gone in film.
But, arsenic is used in many chips as are gallium and other metals, and the level is high enough in some parts that they can give off toxic gas when burned. My reference to a garlic odor when I shorted out a board was not a joke. When it smoked, the room smelled like garlic. The amount of arsenic and other compounds is not trivial in TTL or other more modern chips.
As for lead and mercury, they are used in both the manufacture of digital and the digital equipment itself and we have read how dumps of obsolete or unusable digital equipment in China is polluting the environment there, particularly the runoff from dumps.
The organics used in photo processing are rather benign compared to mercury or arsenic. HQ for example, has a high BOD and COD, but once consumed by oxygen and sunlight leaves behind little that can harm the environment. In fact, if you argue that the quinones are harmful, then consider that fallen autumn leaves contain far more toxic anthroquinones in higher concentration in some cases than the average darkroom runoff for an evening.
No, I think that digital byproducts are far longer lasting and toxic than analog products, having studied both for a while. This is more and more true as digital equipment production ramps up.
And, printer ink... Well, don't get me started on that. They are not one of the most friendly of chemicals either. Don't let a baby chew on a digital print!
PE
But, arsenic is used in many chips as are gallium and other metals, and the level is high enough in some parts that they can give off toxic gas when burned. My reference to a garlic odor when I shorted out a board was not a joke. When it smoked, the room smelled like garlic. The amount of arsenic and other compounds is not trivial in TTL or other more modern chips.
As for lead and mercury, they are used in both the manufacture of digital and the digital equipment itself and we have read how dumps of obsolete or unusable digital equipment in China is polluting the environment there, particularly the runoff from dumps.
The organics used in photo processing are rather benign compared to mercury or arsenic. HQ for example, has a high BOD and COD, but once consumed by oxygen and sunlight leaves behind little that can harm the environment. In fact, if you argue that the quinones are harmful, then consider that fallen autumn leaves contain far more toxic anthroquinones in higher concentration in some cases than the average darkroom runoff for an evening.
No, I think that digital byproducts are far longer lasting and toxic than analog products, having studied both for a while. This is more and more true as digital equipment production ramps up.
And, printer ink... Well, don't get me started on that. They are not one of the most friendly of chemicals either. Don't let a baby chew on a digital print!
PE
I agree that arsenic in particular is a major concern related to the electronics industry. It is an unfortunate fact that arsenic in computers (and, yes, cameras) finds its way into the trash on a routine basis. Whether it is then able to get into the environment, I don't know. I do know that the organomercury compounds can leach through just about anything and it'd not surprise me to learn that other organometals do similar things.
At the moment there is (as far as I know) not requirement that electronics companies reprocess the materials they put out on the market. Just about the only materials that I know are being harvested and reprocessed from discarded circuit boards are copper and gold.
IIRC we don't yet even have arsenic standards for public U.S. water....
At the moment there is (as far as I know) not requirement that electronics companies reprocess the materials they put out on the market. Just about the only materials that I know are being harvested and reprocessed from discarded circuit boards are copper and gold.
IIRC we don't yet even have arsenic standards for public U.S. water....
I just remembered that selenium is another bad actor in electronics which Kodak bypassed in the 80s.
Kodak had found that Selenium was far better than Sulfur at sensitizing emulsions and was working with Selenium sensitizers that formed Silver Selenides. They abandoned it for toxicity reasons. Fuji now uses Tellurium sensitizers in their products. IDK how bad that is.
Our UV spectrophotometer shorted out once and blew the selenium rectifiers with a very odiferous result. Again, much like garlic. Not good. We had to vacate the lab for a few hours to allow the vents to clear the air.
PE
Kodak had found that Selenium was far better than Sulfur at sensitizing emulsions and was working with Selenium sensitizers that formed Silver Selenides. They abandoned it for toxicity reasons. Fuji now uses Tellurium sensitizers in their products. IDK how bad that is.
Our UV spectrophotometer shorted out once and blew the selenium rectifiers with a very odiferous result. Again, much like garlic. Not good. We had to vacate the lab for a few hours to allow the vents to clear the air.
PE
Selenium rectifiers...those were the days. Very commonly the only thing wrong with old stereo equipment is the selenium rectifiers in the power supply.
Well, the electrolytic (wet) capacitors often went dry and caused problems as well.
PE
PE
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,189
- Format
- Multi Format
Just a quick comment on trace element toxicity.
First, let me say that I am not a world expert on the topic. However, not too long ago I wrote coauthored a chapter on trace element testing in a medical context, and while writing the chapter I had to study a little about toxicity. The most striking thing about what is known about the toxicity of most elements is how little is known.
There are good reasons for this inadequate state of knowledge. Most importantly, it is almost impossible to find volunteers for toxicity studies. In fact, there are strong ethical objections against doing those sort of clinical trials.
First, let me say that I am not a world expert on the topic. However, not too long ago I wrote coauthored a chapter on trace element testing in a medical context, and while writing the chapter I had to study a little about toxicity. The most striking thing about what is known about the toxicity of most elements is how little is known.
There are good reasons for this inadequate state of knowledge. Most importantly, it is almost impossible to find volunteers for toxicity studies. In fact, there are strong ethical objections against doing those sort of clinical trials.
You are quite right Alan. Kodak does run a battery of animal tests, but these are non-revealing in many cases.
I had a friend that was a Quaker and who refused combat on religious grounds. He volunteered to test nerve and blister gases for the military. He has the scars to prove it!
PE
I had a friend that was a Quaker and who refused combat on religious grounds. He volunteered to test nerve and blister gases for the military. He has the scars to prove it!
PE
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 248
- Format
- Medium Format
It's not analog as soon as a codec is involved.
Codecs are actually really cool in concept - it's just a simple resistor ladder. So an incoming electrical signal gets chopped into pieces as it goes all the way down the pipe. Then the little pieces of electricity from the different rungs of the ladder get fed into the different addresses of a microprocessor, so the microprocessor knows which piece your talking about.
Codecs are actually really cool in concept - it's just a simple resistor ladder. So an incoming electrical signal gets chopped into pieces as it goes all the way down the pipe. Then the little pieces of electricity from the different rungs of the ladder get fed into the different addresses of a microprocessor, so the microprocessor knows which piece your talking about.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2
- Format
- Pinhole
I am a new-ish member to apug. I am an artist from a varied background and have recently begun to incorporate photography into my art practice. While I currently work within the stricter definitions put forward here as "analogue" (handmade pinhole cameras, contact printed in wet darkroom) I would hate to restrict what tools I use to create because definitions. Most truly innovative art transcends categorization and opens up new ways of seeing, feeling and understanding.
APUG has been a wonderful resource for me as I am learning how to print and I am grateful for the technical expertise that is shared here. Having read all nine pages of this thread, I am disheartened.
You cannot open your heart to beauty with a closed fist.
APUG has been a wonderful resource for me as I am learning how to print and I am grateful for the technical expertise that is shared here. Having read all nine pages of this thread, I am disheartened.
You cannot open your heart to beauty with a closed fist.
...and all three are less-than-ideal...with the first two being nothing more than salvage operations.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 624
- Format
- Medium Format
There is no reason to be disheartened. I am also a non-commerical art photographer. The analog ways are dying out, but over the past few years, the bleed has been slowed immensely. The point is not what it created, or how, it is how it is portrayed. In art galleries, it sickens me to see people selling thousand plus dollar pieces which they call giclee. The reason this bothers me is that "giclee" is a 6 colored sprayed ink printing process. In other words, it is an inkjet print. Another photographer who lists a piece and states what it is, will receive less.
The reason I bring this up is because the lines of what is digital and computer based imagery and what is traditional process have become too blurred. Think of APUG not as elitist or attempting to put things in a box, but as a group of people striving to preserve a historic process. I think the fact that hybrid photo exists shows that the leadership is not ignoring or denigrating Digital or Hybrid process, but believes, as many of us do, that it should be considered separate from traditional techniques.
The point is, it is great that you are using pinhole cameras and contact printing, that goes further than some of us who consider ourselves strictly analogue photographers do. However, it would be unfair to those historic processes and to the art buying public for those images to be processed through a computer, their form changed, then shown or marketed as traditional photography.
With that said, I for one would like to welcome you to APUG and hope you stick around.
The reason I bring this up is because the lines of what is digital and computer based imagery and what is traditional process have become too blurred. Think of APUG not as elitist or attempting to put things in a box, but as a group of people striving to preserve a historic process. I think the fact that hybrid photo exists shows that the leadership is not ignoring or denigrating Digital or Hybrid process, but believes, as many of us do, that it should be considered separate from traditional techniques.
The point is, it is great that you are using pinhole cameras and contact printing, that goes further than some of us who consider ourselves strictly analogue photographers do. However, it would be unfair to those historic processes and to the art buying public for those images to be processed through a computer, their form changed, then shown or marketed as traditional photography.
With that said, I for one would like to welcome you to APUG and hope you stick around.
I will soon be a hybrid bast*rd and am proud to admit it. I will wear my hybrid bast*rdness banner with honor. However, I will always love, honor, cherish and respect APUG.
My heart is open to beauty; I am waiting for digital to catch up to the quality that film has in ever so many areas. Without getting into to an us versus them, the list is still too long for me to think about digital. When the time comes I will get a digital back for my Hasselblad and stimulated the economy with the costs of the back, computer, hard drives for backup, software, printers, ink, ...
Steve
The usefulness of APUG is a direct result of its strict charter. The charter does not restrict how you go about creating, but rather what is discussed here in the forums. APUG exists to further the tradition and knowledge base of traditional photography and printing, and provide a forum for enthusiasts to discuss the subject unfettered by the analog-negative environments found elsewhere. There is a community and information base here that cannot be found anywhere else, and it is fully a result of holding the line on the charter. APUG has grown by leaps and bounds, and the mission statement has served it well. Persons shouldn't misinterpret the clear focus of this forum as anything but just that, a clear focus on analog photography. There isn't really anything to discuss about scanning and inkjet printing that can't be found in volumes with a quick google, and as such there is no reason to dilute our environment here with the unending and rotationally obsolescent pedestrian nuts and bolts of digi how-to, when it is so readily available elsewhere. APUG isn't elitist nor Luddite, although it's easy to understand why that may appear to be the case for someone just getting familiar with the site, but odds are that person came to the site looking for discourse on something not readily found on the myriad of other photo forums. APUG is a distillation, and a fine spirit it is.
Sean has made it clear that the charter and mission statement will not change, and APUG will continue to be exactly what it is that has enabled it to be an active and vibrant community of photographers sharing some common but not commonplace ground among countless working methods.
Last edited by a moderator:
Many members here just don't admit to being partially non-analog.
Not me! I don't touch the stuff! [non-analog]
The problem lies in some users can't believe that some of us have little or no use for it. Some what like an addict thinking that the rest of the world is on the same drug of choice.
Steve
I didn't implicate you, Steve. But you know as well as anyone else there are tons of hybrid folks on APUG and many just stay hush about it. In fact, I'm willing to bet good money that many have posted examples of their work not admitting it's hybrid.
But you know as well as anyone else there are tons of hybrid folks on APUG and many just stay hush about it. In fact, I'm willing to bet good money that many have posted examples of their work not admitting it's hybrid.Where and why would they "admit" to it?
That's part of the illusion/delusion that participation in APUG demands some sort of sacrosanct personal philosophy in regard to photography. Cripes I own and use five different digi cameras on a regular basis, and I'm a moderator here. I just don't talk about it here, because this isn't the place. That would be like talking about my Blansky fetish in church. Wrong place. It's like talking up a Ford on a Chevy forum or wearing a meat jacket at a vegetarian gathering.
^^^ LOL... okay, you're right.
I disagree. I recently started a thread with a poll to figure this out, and a surprisingly large percentage of APUG members are admittedly "hybrid".
See the thread here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Why can't we just love analogue and love digital or hybrid as well?
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |