Which process >> 'touches the earth most lightly' ?

Hiya,

was wondering taking all things into consideration - production/embodied energy - related process materials/chems - waste - inefficiency - water use etc... (and any more suggestions or thoughts)

... which is the photographic process that leaves the earth mostly how it was beforehand ? > the most sustainable process <

I tried making flower petal emulsion the other day, but after 3 days of contact printing flattened flowers (a photogram) under high sun there has been no change ..

fizz

BOY! Ain't that a question and a half!

Of course painting on parchment with vegetable dyes would be about as "earth friendly" as you can get.

The manufacturers of chemicals aren't about to tell us how the various products are produced but it would seem logical that the closer a chemical is to it's elemental state, the less energy and product goes into producing it (assuming of course we are talking about naturally occuring elements and not those with high numbers on the Periodic Table).

It'll be interesting to see what replies you get and how carefully and thoroughly the answers have been though out!

You kill plants to make photographs? ::shock, gasp::

Kidding aside, I see where you're coming from. This guy makes nice prints on leaves, but I doubt they're very archival, even the ones he casts in resin.

http://www.svam.org/Exhibits/Remembrance/Artists/Main_dir/BD_main.html

Of the more chemically oriented processes, cyanotype has a lot going for it. It doesn't use precious metals, so the mining impact should be small, and the chemicals are non-toxic. You do need energy-consuming cotton rag paper and a lot of water.

ya, I was thinking cyanotype may well be a contender there - but yes, the papers leave a lot to be desired -

I'm currently enrolled in a couple of papers related to sustainability issues in architecture and engineering - its interesting stuff, there is a lot more to it than simply what goes in the bin at the end ...

I thought I'd try and relate the issue to photography - my immediate thought was that digital would be more earth friendly but on pondering I thought pretty much all digital cams become obsolete within max 2 or so years and/or are engineering to 'die' about 3 months after the warranty expires... whereas here we are using 100 year old film cameras as if we hadn't blinked and eye (or shutter I should say) ...

do you think this thread may well be better off here or in the philosophy or lounge sections ?

nick mulder said:

I thought pretty much all digital cams become obsolete within max 2 or so years and/or are engineering to 'die' about 3 months after the warranty expires

Click to expand...

Wrong and wrong. They do not become obsolete ("No longer in use") because they can still be used--there are still Nikon D1s in service which were first sold in 1999.

The big environmental drain from digital is the creation of the sensors--I believe there was a big discussion about this recently on the LF forum

Shadow-graphs on your tummy with the sunburn process. This may actually benefit the planet.

Jeremy Moore said:

Wrong and wrong. They do not become obsolete ("No longer in use") because they can still be used--there are still Nikon D1s in service which were first sold in 1999.

The big environmental drain from digital is the creation of the sensors--I believe there was a big discussion about this recently on the LF forum

Click to expand...

there are also the back systems that find homes on the likes of RB67's that make it more interesting also - 'old' system meets new

I was referring more to the mass market APS digi cams - I meant 'obsolete' in the brain-dead mass consumer mindset - and yup I agree with you there will be always be much more robust pro version for 5~20 times the price that will last. However what will be the equivalent of a 'bellows refurbishment' of a D1 in 100 years, or even 20 ?

Sorry I'm not familiar with the model, or digital cameras in general so I'm not the best to talk here, its a bit off topic anyhoo .

cheers for the heads-up

Carbon is pretty light. Ther is only one nasty chemical and you use very little of it (Pot. Dichromate). Other than that its mainly gelatin, pigment, sugar and glycerin. And you process in plain hot water. Gum would also be about the same.

actually good old silver gelatin can be the most environmentally friendly. The silver just put steel wool in the fix bath before you are ready to dump it, and it will collect on that wool. The rest of the chems mix together and it is the best lawn fertilzer you can get. Help make the earth greener, print silver!

magic823 said:

Carbon is pretty light. Ther is only one nasty chemical and you use very little of it (Pot. Dichromate). Other than that its mainly gelatin, pigment, sugar and glycerin. And you process in plain hot water. Gum would also be about the same.

Click to expand...

I've just about to order a gum bichromate kit (minus paints, unless you are referring to another process?) from B&S - I'll find out about the paints also

Aggie: thanks for the tip re. the steel wool - I'm sure i've heard that elsewhere - I'll get onto it now that I've got a new bulb for the enlarger - hmmm, that does make me think tho, any enlargement process does need an enlarger >> power, bulbs, plastics, manufacturing etc... depends on how well it is utilised tho - a good, well used piece of gear can outweigh the negatives in some sense..

I think the steel wool is unnecessary. To begin with, the silver ions are not biologically available when bound to thiosulfate in the fixer. Secondly, if you pour the fixer into the sewer it quickly meets enough sulfides to precipitate all silver as silver sulifde, which is not biologically available and never will be. It's just inert sludge. Silver sulfide is BTW the ore that silver is mined from, so there's plenty of it naturally. Only if you put out industrial quantities of fixer would the silver content be a problem.

nick mulder said:

Hiya,

was wondering taking all things into consideration - production/embodied energy - related process materials/chems - waste - inefficiency - water use etc... (and any more suggestions or thoughts)

... which is the photographic process that leaves the earth mostly how it was beforehand ? > the most sustainable process <

I tried making flower petal emulsion the other day, but after 3 days of contact printing flattened flowers (a photogram) under high sun there has been no change ..

fizz

Click to expand...

In my opinion there should not be a lot of debate about this. Gum bichromate and carbon are without question the least offensive processes to the environment of all those commonly used. With either you can use earth pigments if you like, and the amount of dichromate required, which degrades quickly on return to the environment, is very, very small. And that is really all you need.

One might differentiate further on sensitivity issues in that carbon is gelatin based (animal by-product) whereas gum is a natural colloid produced by trees.

I used to live near a paper mill and it was pretty nasty. The s* that came out of the stacks and the number of tree that went through that mill were amazing.

Printing in asphalt with oil of lavender is probably pretty safe.

Sandy's right. The dichromate processes are probably greenest, followed by cyanotype. They're cheap too...just like me.

Well, if you consider overall "greenness" you also have to consider the impacts of manufacturing the components.

We're all going to print on paper, and there's not that much difference between COT320 or Arches Platine and copier paper to make quick proofs in an ink jet, in terms of effluents from the process. So, we can pretty much leave the paper out of the equation, unless you know someone who makes his own from post-consumer recycled cotton/linen rags.

That said, potassium dichromate requires mining and smelting chromium ores, as well as purifying some potassium compound (likely potassium hydroxide). Chromium is nasty, nasty stuff, but we're using tiny quantities of it -- and Richard Sullivan was recently talking about an alternate, organic sensitizer for his precoated carbon tissues, that might or might not be superior to dichromate either in use or in manufacture.

For cyanotype, we have ferric ammonium citrate, created from food by-products and iron (microscopic amounts of iron relative to industrial steel production), and potassium ferricyanide, drawing on organics, iron (again) and potassium as above. No terribly toxic metals, no carcinogens. Trace amounts of potassium dichromate are used to add contrast where needed, but if negatives are created specifically for cyanotype dichromate isn't likely to be needed, and for photogrammetry you'll generally accept the contrast you find.

So, for my money, gum, carbon, and similar dichromate/colloid processes are just about in a toss-up with cyanotype. Given I can make dextrin, a form of gum, at home by cooking starch, and will need a small amount of potassium dichromate for any of these, I'm inclined to suggest that for my use gum bichromate is the greenest -- less transportation cost/fuel consumption, a minimum of dedicated chemical production, and even the pigments can be very green -- with cyanotype a close second; carbon is third only because, though I can get gelatin in the supermarket that will work, it's known as a "cranky" process that will tend to produce a lot of waste.

All, of course, should be exposed with sunlight, not artificial UV...

thanks Donald - good info