Will film be banned?

[BrianShaw]

I believe the digitization is to promote access to materials. I really like that. But I’ve heard that film still being used for archival purposes... ironically, even for archival storage of digital imagery.

 

[Cholentpot]

Didn't the Forest Service have a classified out for a LF photographer a few years back?

 

[Louis Nargi]

When the battery in these digital cameras have to be replace, what do we do with them just like in the electric cars PROBLEM

 

[Pieter12]

When the battery in these digital cameras have to be replace, what do we do with them just like in the electric cars PROBLEM

Just like the batteries in film cameras. And, AFIK electric car batteries are replaceable with some that are past their prime are being used as storage for home solar systems.

 

[Kino]

I believe the digitization is to promote access to materials. I really like that. But I’ve heard that film still being used for archival purposes... ironically, even for archival storage of digital imagery.

That's true, but definitely in the minority; Most now just digitize and pray because they can't afford to do anything else.

We still are trying to make photo-chemical masters of "select" 35mm films, but that has slipped a lot since COVID hit and our lab is dormant for the moment (?).

The World Data Archive uses upgraded 4K cine digital printers that have been repurposed to write digital information (QR codes of all things) on 35mm B&W film stock and then stores it above the Arctic Circle in an underground bunker.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/4/15159148/norway-data-vault-svalberd-mine-storage

 

[runswithsizzers]

I'll put that on my list of things to worry about. There is still a little room left, way down here at the bottom.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You can only take lunacy as far. Still.
As long as science and its connected methods has any sway, you won’t get the last say if you are dumber than dirt, but aggressive.

I just want to point out that this video is full of crap with an obvious agenda. There's a reason journalists are taught to get contradicting opinions when writing articles and this video only interviews one scientist. I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a brain and here are a few things this video gets wrong; I list them below. I am sure if they interviewed another scientist in the field they would have raised these issues as well, but then it wouldn't be such a good video to make pseudo-intellectuals feel good about owning the libs by eating meat.

I took a look at the main PNAS paper they cite and it is very controversial for failing to consider what happens to land that grows feedstock if there are no animals to feed (they assume humans will eat the corn), and I think this problem continues throughout the video. There is a false equivalence made when the guy says 90% of things cows eat are not fit for human consumption, but that's because we grow feed corn for cows to eat!

Another problem is this video only looks at the US where livestock is 3% of emissions instead of the world where livestock is 15% and I don't quite understand the argument at 13:55 on why we shouldn't care about global numbers. He just says "you shouldn't care and they don't matter" but doesn't say why! Surely reducing consumption in the US can affect production around the world. And no one is suggesting that only Americans should eat a more plant based diet, greenhouse gas affects us all.

Also I think there are several straw men in this video, the worst is when they compare beef production to almond production -- this is the classic straw man fallacy -- no one suggested an almond based diet! Also it's not right to compare cows to coal power plants because they do different things. Of course burning coal is worse than almost anything else, but agriculture is also bad.

I think the argument he makes at 17:45 makes a mistake when he says methane fully converts to CO2 quickly, it has a half life of 9 years, and the wikipedia article on methane in atmosphere says amortizing over 100 years it is still 28x global warming potential of CO2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane)

I do think he is mostly right about grassfed cows on grazing land, and how it is very good land for grazing animals and isn't great for other purposes. And yes he is also right we should worry a lot about coal power plants and burning gasoline. Luckily, worrying about powerplants is not mutually exclusive from what food I eat. If I can be a bit to be better to the environment by eating less beef, and grass fed when I have the opportunity I don't think that's a bad thing...

 

[StepheKoontz]

I can promise you, no politician has film on their radar. The vast majority of people don't even know you can still buy film.

 

[jvo]

Let’s worry about things like single-use bottled water plastics first.

+1

 

[beemermark]

In a word........Hollywood. I'm well aware many use digital but others.........big names in fact prefer film. Still don't believe it will come to that. There are many other far more wasteful and destructive things in widespread use so film is way down the list.

Since Hollywood seems to be the main source of information for the politicians it seems unlikely they allow the banning of film. On a more serious note, do you really think film production and processing is worse on the environment that battery powered digital cameras?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What if the government decides that film is too wasteful? All those chemicals and everything polluting the environment. Would you support the cancellation of film like fossil fuels will be stopped in automobiles? What should we do to protect our hobby?

then we'll work with so-called alternative processes.

 

[Helge]

I just want to point out that this video is full of crap with an obvious agenda. There's a reason journalists are taught to get contradicting opinions when writing articles and this video only interviews one scientist. I'm not a climate scientist but I do have a brain and here are a few things this video gets wrong; I list them below. I am sure if they interviewed another scientist in the field they would have raised these issues as well, but then it wouldn't be such a good video to make pseudo-intellectuals feel good about owning the libs by eating meat.

I took a look at the main PNAS paper they cite and it is very controversial for failing to consider what happens to land that grows feedstock if there are no animals to feed (they assume humans will eat the corn), and I think this problem continues throughout the video. There is a false equivalence made when the guy says 90% of things cows eat are not fit for human consumption, but that's because we grow feed corn for cows to eat!

Another problem is this video only looks at the US where livestock is 3% of emissions instead of the world where livestock is 15% and I don't quite understand the argument at 13:55 on why we shouldn't care about global numbers. He just says "you shouldn't care and they don't matter" but doesn't say why! Surely reducing consumption in the US can affect production around the world. And no one is suggesting that only Americans should eat a more plant based diet, greenhouse gas affects us all.

Also I think there are several straw men in this video, the worst is when they compare beef production to almond production -- this is the classic straw man fallacy -- no one suggested an almond based diet! Also it's not right to compare cows to coal power plants because they do different things. Of course burning coal is worse than almost anything else, but agriculture is also bad.

I think the argument he makes at 17:45 makes a mistake when he says methane fully converts to CO2 quickly, it has a half life of 9 years, and the wikipedia article on methane in atmosphere says amortizing over 100 years it is still 28x global warming potential of CO2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane)

I do think he is mostly right about grassfed cows on grazing land, and how it is very good land for grazing animals and isn't great for other purposes. And yes he is also right we should worry a lot about coal power plants and burning gasoline. Luckily, worrying about powerplants is not mutually exclusive from what food I eat. If I can be a bit to be better to the environment by eating less beef, and grass fed when I have the opportunity I don't think that's a bad thing...

The Haber–Bosch process is a major environmental problem in many ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects
It’s the other half of fertilizer used in the world.
So eating plant based is not unproblematic at all.

I seem to remember that he addressed all the problems or aber dabeis you mention.

Of course he is interested in pushing his ideas, anyone is.

Veganism and the whole Small Planet movement since the sixties just smacks of pseudo science, virtue signaling and being a social movement for people seeking easy and cheap identity, significance and purpose.

Much like people once in a while poo-pooing film.

The contribution of meat eating and filament lightbulbs and many other opportunity’s for goodness masturbation, has little to no impact on the environment overall. Only working as a proxy and smoke screen for politicians to signal that “we are doing something” and people to show “that they care”.

What would really, really count is much larger and seemingly harder things to do something about.
Like mega shipping, using sludge as fuel. The industry being forced to change production and machinery And trucks going to a new source of fuel.
But that is far harder politically than herding sheep.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

So much discussion on meat. If I had a choice, I'd give up film before meat.

 

[guangong]

Much depends upon possible actions by slip-and-fall lawyers. There is a reason that I can’t buy chemicals from supply shops that I could easily obtain 70+ years ago when I was 12 yrs old. Also the demise of real chemistry sets and erector sets. And, as pointed out already, the possibility of a sleazy politician making the end of photography his cause for saving the planet. Alan and I live in NJ. Politicians from Illinois come to Trenton, NJ for post graduate tutoring. Nothing is safe.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

..........................On a more serious note, do you really think film production and processing is worse on the environment that battery powered digital cameras?

No. Neither on the front end or end life. It's a numbers game. There's too many of us............nature is trying to correct that.

 

[George Mann]

So much discussion on meat. If I had a choice, I'd give up film before meat.

I was a vegetarian for years. They make some good meat substitutes these days.

 

[MattKing]

Much depends upon possible actions by slip-and-fall lawyers. There is a reason that I can’t buy chemicals from supply shops that I could easily obtain 70+ years ago when I was 12 yrs old.

It might have something to do with all the dead and maimed people that sometimes resulted. Not to mention Timothy McVeigh and his like.
While I was in junior high, a chemistry teacher in the school down the road lost their job after a poorly supervised student lost their hand as a result of an explosion in chemistry class.
I expect there is a better middle ground, but the societal forces that push toward safety and sustainability have their place as well.
As far as the disappearance of chemistry sets, I expect that is as much to do with rotten egg and other objectionable odours as anything else. All the more reason to get your kids/grandkids involved with darkroom printing and toning!

 

[4season]

I have a hunch that 50 years hence, people will still be able to buy new phonograph records, film, and gasoline. The first two are already niche and probably won't attract nearly as much attention from regulators than they would if they were produced on a scale similar to their peak years. Gasoline will likewise become more of a specialty item, and as is the case today, driving classic automobiles will be mostly a leisure time activity for days with mild weather and dry roads.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If that ever happened in my lifetime...doubtful... I would just go back to woodblock printing... or take photos with my phone/dslr, and alt print... or make cyanotype rayographs.

 

[jscott]

One professional photographer I know got the local authorities to back off when he showed that the chemicals he was using were chemically identical to common fertilizer. Rather than putting it down the drain, he stored it and spread it on his lawn.

 

[Cholentpot]

Don't bring to attention that avgas is still leaded.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I seem to remember that he addressed all the problems or aber dabeis you mention.

Please read my post, I list things he gets wrong, not things that he omits. He claims to address several of my complaints but does not. For example, watch 13:55-15:44 of his video about why we shouldn't care about global numbers. Can you articulate what his argument is there? I think he talks for two minutes without saying anything convincing. I do not understand why he makes the assumption that anyone who suggests eating less meat is only talking to Americans.

 

[Helge]

So much discussion on meat. If I had a choice, I'd give up film before meat.

You forget that meat production and film is interlinked.

 

[Helge]

Please read my post, I list things he gets wrong, not things that he omits. He claims to address several of my complaints but does not. For example, watch 13:55-15:44 of his video about why we shouldn't care about global numbers. Can you articulate what his argument is there? I think he talks for two minutes without saying anything convincing. I do not understand why he makes the assumption that anyone who suggests eating less meat is only talking to Americans.

Look I’m not going to go through the video point by point, or even give it a second watch-through, just to not convince you.
This is a far larger discussion than is plausible and comfortable on a forum like this and inappropriate in this thread.
Not a single person in the usual persnickety and anal YouTube commenters has been able to contest him successfully though.

Regarding your single example, he is saying that it’s developing countries, that generally has much less efficient agriculture, that has the problem (if there is any at all).
Places that can’t or won’t listen or care about environmental issues anyway.
In the US, EU and East Asia meat production is generally not a problem at all. And bovine meat even less so because of their efficient stomachs.
Ruminant digestion was probably the reason why our ancestors attempted to domesticate these large horny creatures in the first place.

 

[Pieter12]

Manufacturers will stop making film long before anyone attempts to ban it.