I agree that film slows me down, allows me to think and compose better. But there's a lot of post shooting work as with digital. You can spend enormous amounts of time in the darkroom or scanning and editing at the computer if that's your thing. I don;t have a darkroom, but i'm sure many people find that just a laborious as sitting by a computer. Also, computer editing can be just as creative as darkroom work. Scanning, editing, and presenting photos on the web or part of a slide show presented on a 75" UHDTV are just as creative.
Also, using film can be an ego thing. Being different than what everyone else is doing has a certain attraction. It sets us apart.
I would like JUST ONE TIME for those who object to the "environmental impacts" of film to reach into their pocket and pull out their phone and acknowledge THE ENTIRE impact on the environment that device has and will have over time.
Somehow, that always gets a pass...
I live in Maine and I see a lot of tourists in the Summer. Almost every time I go to a popular spot at LEAST one person has a 35mm camera. They do skew younger I suppose though I don't think I'm that old (35). Rarely do I see anyone but pros shooting portrait sessions using a DSLR. Everyone else, smart phones.
It was a mistake to think photography is a zero sum game in which the easiest route to the sharpest image wins. The craft now belongs to a class of activities in which the 'journey' so to speak is a big part of it. Horseback riding, sailing, listening to vinyl records, making bread from scratch, it's all the same feeling. Sitting with your laptop or desktop computer editing photos is not a fun or engaging experience, IMO. I'm glad more people are coming into the fold!
Some of these camera companies might want to do some production runs of film backs or film bodies.
I'd like more evidence than is presented in such videos as this one.
pentaxuser
.....
I'd like more evidence than is presented in such videos as this one.
.....
maybe? IDK im not a scientist and don't claim to have all the information. i would imagine seeing Eastman Kodak was the largest polluter on the planet for decades using all sorts of nasty chemicals to produce film and papers, and the arsenic and cyanide ( or whatever it is ) used to extract and refine silver to be used for film and paper and that's just EK.
maybe cellphones have surpassed that. or like you said it might not be close. they're both pretty bad.
There is a long write up which might be better to read there, as it'd be very large to copy here24. Color chemicals are more toxic than B&W chemicals, and are
vastly more toxic than digital imaging.
Fact: Yes and No.
Now digital. First, the manufacture of sensors requires doping with arsenic and
selenium among other chemicals. The manufacture of computer chips and memory chips are the
same and the video monitors use lead. The phosphors on the screens are toxic heavy metal
compounds in some cases. The inks used in color printing are azo dyes and are somewhat
toxic.
Now film making – color and B&W. These are mature industries that have worked for
40 years to eliminate all heavy metals and toxic effluent. There is no longer cadmium and
mercury used in making film, nor is formaldehyde used. Methylene chloride is used in
making the support, and a lot of the coupler synthesis is about as toxic as making the
Ilfochrome azo dyes or the digital azo dyes, so film making is not an extreme
environmental hazard.
My wife taught school in NYC. Her school was near an old cleaners plant that closed years earlier. Unfortunately, the chemicals leached into the ground and migrated under her school. The EPA and NYC DEC had to do tests, construct barriers in the ground, add air filtration in the building, etc. Supposedly it was all OK when they finished. Even with that, I told her to stay out the basement.People just hear 'chemicals' and think 'bad!'. The 'all natural' movement has made enough crazies out there to fill a mega church or two dozen. Analog photography, popular though it may be, is still so niche that the negative impacts are quite small in my estimation. I would say the medium sized city's collective dry cleaning industry is more harmful than what Eastman Kodak is doing.
As far as I know Kodak did do a bunch of work lowering the toxicity of their chemistry. The current Flexicolor LORR, XTol, and I think bleach are low toxicity. And I'm presupposing people are properly handling their fixer and filtering the silver out, which I do.
For the better part of the 20th century, the everyday atmosphere here in Rochester NY was spiced by the sharp odor of methylene chloride vapors that were almost continuously discharged from the tall stacks of Eastman Kodak.
I joined APUG as a teenager who found film an alternative to digital because the fixed costs were covered and I didn't want to shell the 3 figures of an entry DSLR. Then 35mm film was as good as it is and delivered excellent results, so I stayed with film.
Agree with you here. Besides as long as lithium and other components are still cheaper to extract than to recycle (*), we will not see any mass recycling here. ((*) Uneducated guess here)Thanks Kino. That’s one of the questions I have about electric cars- what is the TOTAL environmental impact, cradle to grave, of these products? They are not as clean as they first appear.
Hello everyone, this is Carlos P Beltran, the journalist who directed the video. Thank you for sharing and for making very valid points through the thread. It was a massive endeavor attempting to touch on every aspect of such a vast industry in mere 10 minutes, but I’m glad we tried. I believe there is much more room for a second and perhaps third part down the line. Again, thanks for watching, sharing and opening discussions around the state of the film industry and its community in the year 2020
Carlos
Hello everyone, this is Carlos P Beltran, the journalist who directed the video. Thank you for sharing and for making very valid points through the thread. It was a massive endeavor attempting to touch on every aspect of such a vast industry in mere 10 minutes, but I’m glad we tried. I believe there is much more room for a second and perhaps third part down the line. Again, thanks for watching, sharing and opening discussions around the state of the film industry and its community in the year 2020
Carlos
I agree. Meanwhile, right now, I am sitting in front of a computer instead of going out and catching the sunrise.I was merely trying to argue that for many an escape from their screen is a value proposition in and of itself. I do not believe that one is more 'pure' or 'artistic' or simply better than the other. I shoot a lot of digital for work, and spend a lot of time behind a screen editing that work. It may be interesting or even necessary for some, but it's not my personal favorite way to produce work.
I think the problem is too many people. If it wasn't film or cell phones, then it would be something else. People devour resources. Unless we plan to go back to nature, it will continue as such. Many things are naturally recycled. With the rest, we can take reasonable care that the environment is protected and move on from there. The Earth will survive.Exactly.
That is why I have made several comments with additional information concerning environmental impacts in the comment section of the video.
For several years I worked in environmental research projects at University and doing Life Cycle Assessments was also the major part of the longest project I worked for.
Digital Imaging has a much much bigger (more worse) impact on the environment than film photography. Period.
Best regards,
Henning
Carlos, That was a very good film. I'm not an editor. But I think you did a great job summing up a lot of the industry today and the excitement with film. Regarding some of the people in the movie who blog on the internet, I watch all three from time to time. I think it's great that such young people are doing this. They're film entrepreneurs.Hello everyone, this is Carlos P Beltran, the journalist who directed the video. Thank you for sharing and for making very valid points through the thread. It was a massive endeavor attempting to touch on every aspect of such a vast industry in mere 10 minutes, but I’m glad we tried. I believe there is much more room for a second and perhaps third part down the line. Again, thanks for watching, sharing and opening discussions around the state of the film industry and its community in the year 2020
Carlos
What if they came out with a film smartphone? Now wouldn't that be something?I would like to point out that digital cameras are losing more users to smartphones than film cameras are at the moment.
hey leeThe perception that high-tech things like electric cars and smartphones are more 'green' than old-tech like photo-chemicals is often evidence of a NIMBY mentality. The electric power has to be generated someplace and the lithium, exotic metals and rare earth elements have to be mined somewhere. Are those far-away operations pollution free?
For the better part of the 20th century, the everyday atmosphere here in Rochester NY was spiced by the sharp odor of methylene chloride vapors that were almost continuously discharged from the tall stacks of Eastman Kodak. In recent years that distinctive smell has been absent because EK no longer manufactures their own film base and has outsourced the air pollution to some other locale. There used to be much controversy about suspected 'cancer clusters' in the residential neighborhoods around Kodak Park, but no more. The stacks are gone.
hey carlos,Hello everyone, this is Carlos P Beltran, the journalist who directed the video.
Carlos
Still using film? The guy looks too young to start out with film and if he started out with digital then he is not still using film.
Chan,
I am a 'somewhat semi-retired "pro" and have ben castigated numerous times by digital camera users about the pollution of he sewer system the by dumping my used fixer down the drain..
I have taken to fighting back since i no longer dispose of used fixer in that manner.. I 'reclaim' the silver by pouring it onto a brown glass carboy and adding Uused but not 'dead' developer, shaking he mix and letting it 'stand'.. shaking it again
syphoning off the clear 'liquid' adding more used developer and firther aliquots of used fixer... repeat and repeat.
Eventually you will have a precipitate that you can 'wash' with clean hot water and letting it 'settle down' to the bottom of the 'container after 'repeating' a number of times.
Filter the precipitate out... It is now the 'purest form of silver you can get. Take it to a jewelery 'repair outlet and have it melted down in one of their 'furnaces' for a percentage of the proceeds.
A bit more 'work and effort' than disposing of the used fixer down the drain into the sewage system but 'in the end"
both a 'money saver' and leading to a 'cleaner environment' for society.
There will be a percentage of those who take the time to read this... and declare "rubbish'.however I can but hope a high percentage of you readers will actually make the effort at least 'try it' and perhaps include it into your darkroom management policy.
Ken.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?