From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 07/21/01-11:34:44 PM Z
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Joe Portale wrote:
> ... place the film in a tray of water for a couple of minutes,
> then fill the tube with water at developing temp, slid the film in, attach
> lid, dump the water, add more pre-soak water and rotate on the base.
> Someone off list accused me of being water wasteful and essentially raping
> and pillaging the environment with this technique. I live in a desert and
> water is precious. But the cost benefit analysis begs, is a little
> conservation worth your negative? You can save more water by turning off
> the shower while soaping up than you will use in this technique.
There are certainly better ways to save water than having a conniption
about one developing tube full (what is it, a liter, 2 liters?) , for
instance...
1. don't shower at all. The additional privacy you'll gain will more than
compensate for any personal discomfort.
2. go digital. Then you don't use any water in developing film and the
harm to the environment occurs in the 3rd world countries where the
equipment is made.
3. One toilet flush uses more water than a day in the darkroom. The mantra
(published in local newspaper) during a desperately acute water shortage
in NYC some 10 years ago, was, "if it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's
brown flush it down."
4. I got in the habit then of using photo water at least twice:
collected in pails from archival print or neg washer... used to flush
toilet (with added benefit of muscle development hauling it), for first
rinse after fixer, scrubbing floor (well that's theoretical -- doesn't
happen a lot), watering plants, washing brushes, etc.
5. Any reason presoak water can't be re-used for another presoak?
> Must go now and start the grill, we are having Pygmy Owl for dinner. (Sorry,
> inside joke)
6. You can also pre-wash your owl in that presoak water and control the
flame with it in turkey baster...
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 08/02/01-11:56:47 AM Z CST