Will film be banned?

[Pieter12]

Film its effectively banned from air travel.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why? I've never had a problem getting a hand-inspection if I didn't want my film X-rayed. But there are other threads dedicated to that conundrum. And there are obviously a lot bigger issues with international flights right now anyway,

 

[DREW WILEY]

If a particular car model gets recalled for a faulty battery, does that mean all automobiles will cease to exist? Just fix the problem and move on. In the above case with Fuji, they have a reasonably close replacement choice anyway.

 

[gone]

Isn't the main ingredient for film photography gelatin? So w/o an emulsion, no film. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of dead cows, horses, squirrels, etc, so the emulsion aspect looks safe.

Something tells me that the amount of toxic exposure from film photography is small change compared to the toxic manufacturing processes used to make digital camera sensors, along w/ the chips to power the electronics in digital cameras, computers, monitors, etc.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

At the risk of crossing a line....we swing from one extreme to another politically. Why can't a reasonable middle ground be found?

 

[Chan Tran]

Film will be banned if there is enough demand and manufacturers make a lot of film like in the 90's. Film will not be banned because they think too little film around to ban it.

 

[lecarp]

Cell phones are reeking far more havoc on the environment, everyone constantly needing to upgrade. Then we have the massive server banks that handle all that data, think of the damage just from the sheer mass of cell phone snapshots and Instagram feeds.
Then there is the constant stream of plastic must have crap being made, sold and dumped in our oceans.
Real photography can't even begin to compete with what's happening for the sake of consumer gluttony and corporate greed.

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s also a lack of system thinking. The full equation of considerations seems seldom considered.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Everyone is for EPA regulations and the cleaner environment until it hits them personally.

 

[Cholentpot]

Everyone is for EPA regulations and the cleaner environment until it hits them personally.

Issue is that the EPA cherry picks and can be arbitrary. Avgas is still leaded.

 

[removed account4]

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

That was the HABS Department at the Library of Congress. It is the department that catalogs and creates a running archive of historic structures, landscapes streetscapes &c
of things and places of historic significance in the states. Typically, the photographs are illustrations / plates for a technical research paper on the thing to be photographed, and until recently
( at least at the federal level ) it required 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 sheet film contact printed on AZO paper submitted with the report, a map and detailed descriptions of every view taken...
The HABS project was started about 1933 around the time when the National Register of Historic Places was begun ( which provides protection from urban renewal ).
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/
https://phogotraphy.com/2015/12/10/...nsel-adams-job-was-film-killed-off-too-early/
http://trailmob.com/article/the-national-park-service-is-hiring-for-the-ansel-adams-dream-job
In a normal world this job would have attracted maybe 100-200 applicants but because of the internet hype machine it attracted like 15,000 people.
I can't remember who won it, I remember there was some sort of video of him documenting Ellis Island(?) and he was a Veteran(?).

These days, I'm not sure what HABS wants, I think they still want film, and photographic prints I think are OK, but they also were accepting pigment prints.
At the state level ( the states have their own program in the SHPO ) most states just want digital files, no film, sometimes pigment prints...

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.

that only really works if there is no silver in it, silver is a bactericide and depending on the concentration can sometimes wipe out the beneficial bacteria in someone's septic or municipal sewer system and life in the wetlands near where one dumps it. the chemicals that are typically found in developer ( metal and hq ) aren't good for aquatic life. pretty irresponsible to pour any of this on one's lawn. all types I guess ( unfortunately ). there used to be a woman who posted a lot here years ago who claimed she was a chemist, and also claimed selenium toner was harmless, because selenium was found in sea water and multi vitamins .. I think she missed the classes on concentration..

 

[BrianShaw]

Non-organic fertilizer isn’t that good for the environment either.

 

[Chan Tran]

They would ban something not so much because it's harmful but because it's not in vogue. They would ban smoking but would allow marijuana. Either can be considered bad but one is not in style and the other is.

 

[Cholentpot]

They would ban something not so much because it's harmful but because it's not in vogue. They would ban smoking but would allow marijuana. Either can be considered bad but one is not in style and the other is.

Shhhh.

We don't talk about people inhaling cannabis. Is verboten.

 

[faberryman]

They would ban something not so much because it's harmful but because it's not in vogue. They would ban smoking but would allow marijuana. Either can be considered bad but one is not in style and the other is.

Maybe asbestos shingles will come back in style one day.

 

[BrianShaw]

That was the HABS Department at the Library of Congress.

This is probably what was being referred to:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3...park-service-looking-for-the-next-ansel-adams

I recall looking at the USAJobs description, which is lno longer available, but was fully employed at the time and GS-11 was beneath my dignity.

 

[removed account4]

They would ban something not so much because it's harmful but because it's not in vogue. They would ban smoking but would allow marijuana. Either can be considered bad but one is not in style and the other is.

the prohibition on some photo chemistries over the years had nothing to do with what is or isn't in vogue. It has / had to do with the clean water act. They also say its illegal to pour glow in the dark machine shop solvents down the curbside runoff drains in some cities (I only know about where I have lived) and would put big signs on the storm drains that have images of dead fish, and say DO NOT DUMP GOES TO BAY. yet I used to see people dump 5gallon buckets of this stuff into the storm drains because they were too lazy to get a waste disposal plan or claimed the laws that claimed that stuff was toxic &c were dumb ( sounds like photographers but different ). From what I understand, hemp was made illegal because first the paper lobby and then the oil lobby, it had nothing to do with health and well being, or poisons in the environment. Probably if it remained legal and paper and cloth and rope were continuously made from its fibers, the planet might be a little less hot.

This is probably what was being referred to:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3...park-service-looking-for-the-next-ansel-adams

I recall looking at the USAJobs description, which is lno longer available, but was fully employed at the time and GS-11 was beneath my dignity.

exactly. that is the same job the other 2 links I posted had to do with..

 

[removed account4]

They would ban something not so much because it's harmful but because it's not in vogue

hard to believe anyone would believe this. I got a call several years ago from my state environmental department
because I am registered as a low volume waste generator. this call was made to me when chemical photography was nearly dead ( very much out of vogue ) to tell me that
spent fixer was not considered a "hazardous" waste, and down-graded to just "waste". so I think it is very far from the truth what you are suggesting..

 

[Chan Tran]

hard to believe anyone would believe this. I got a call several years ago from my state environmental department
because I am registered as a low volume waste generator. this call was made to me when chemical photography was nearly dead ( very much out of vogue ) to tell me that
spent fixer was not considered a "hazardous" waste, and down-graded to just "waste". so I think it is very far from the truth what you are suggesting..

But I don't think they would ban us (using film) because there are so few of us. They don't want us to exist but they don't see us every day so they don't care.

 

[KenS]

hard to believe anyone would believe this. I got a call several years ago from my state environmental department
because I am registered as a low volume waste generator. this call was made to me when chemical photography was nearly dead ( very much out of vogue ) to tell me that
spent fixer was not considered a "hazardous" waste, and down-graded to just "waste". so I think it is very far from the truth what you are suggesting..

hard to believe anyone would believe this. I got a call several years ago from my state environmental department
because I am registered as a low volume waste generator. this call was made to me when chemical photography was nearly dead ( very much out of vogue ) to tell me that
spent fixer was not considered a "hazardous" waste, and down-graded to just "waste". so I think it is very far from the truth what you are suggesting..

hard to believe anyone would believe this. I got a call several years ago from my state environmental department
because I am registered as a low volume waste generator. this call was made to me when chemical photography was nearly dead ( very much out of vogue ) to tell me that
spent fixer was not considered a "hazardous" waste, and down-graded to just "waste". so I think it is very far from the truth what you are suggesting..

Jantz,
I'm somewhat surprised that you seem to be taking this 'attitude'... MORE so after I posted on this forum the means by which I recover the silver from 'my' used fixer by adding some 'used but not dead' developer to recover "black silver" from my fixer to 'reduce' the amount of silver being lost to the sewer.
The late Dr.Mowery (aka "Chemical engineer on this forum ) indicated it IS the easiest and LEAST EXPENSIVE MEANS of recovering the purest form of silver from used fixer (albeit NOT the fastest). You 'bitched' about it (more or less indicating I was 'FULL OF S**T.. because you sell silver recovery units as a 'sideline' as a photographer and anyone interested i doing it 'my way' might cut into your annual business income.

Ken

 

[faberryman]

Jantz,
I'm somewhat surprised that you seem to be taking this 'attitude'... MORE so after I posted on this forum the means by which I recover the silver from 'my' used fixer by adding some 'used but not dead' developer to recover "black silver" from my fixer to 'reduce' the amount of silver being lost to the sewer.
The late Dr.Mowery (aka "Chemical engineer on this forum ) indicated it IS the easiest and LEAST EXPENSIVE MEANS of recovering the purest form of silver from used fixer (albeit NOT the fastest). You 'bitched' about it (more or less indicating I was 'FULL OF S**T.. because you sell silver recovery units as a 'sideline' as a photographer and anyone interested i doing it 'my way' might cut into your annual business income.

Do you feel better now that you have gotten that off your chest?

 

[pentaxuser]

But I don't think they would ban us (using film) because there are so few of us. They don't want us to exist but they don't see us every day so they don't care.

Who is "they" in your statement who do not want us to exist? Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Chan Tran]

Who is "they" in your statement who do not want us to exist? Thanks

pentaxuser

The people who think film shoot be dead. And there are many of them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

"They" do not care any longer because they are busy chimpin' and posting.

 

[removed account4]

But I don't think they would ban us (using film) because there are so few of us. They don't want us to exist but they don't see us every day so they don't care.

you just said they would ban it if it wasn't in vogue, its not in vogue and now there aren't enough people using it to ban ? im not sure if I follow what you are saying. I have never heard of any person who shoots other things than "film" suggesting they don't want "film users to exist". most of the world shoots with a digital camera or one sort or another, just who are you talking about? on the other hand I often read rowboats full of bad words tossed towards people who don't use film or don't use it as someone else prescribes. ... people insulted, called names even called "fauxtographers" and other lame expressions because of whatever insecurities people who shoot film ( maybe them? maybe the kindhearted people they post for as their surrogate? ) might have. the way I see it is photo emulsion is easy enough to make, it takes 20 minutes ( yes I make it myself, its not hard ) so even if film and paper's prices were jacked up 20x what they cost now, it would not cost much in time and effort and raw materials to make oneself.