From: Joe (jtait@texas.net)
Date: 10/30/02-10:00:17 PM Z
All excellent points Greg.
I realize fully that computer use and its production is polluting, and I
never claimed digital is "environmentally friendly". I alluded that
traditional is undisputedly unfriendly.
Everything has a cost in terms of environmental impact, it's a matter of
incremental change to cleaner methods. Digital equip manufacturing does
produce pollution....and so does traditional equip. Inescapable and
won't ever change. _Both_ methods rely on power consumption (Yes, our
sun is a nice exception, but most people end up using UV tube units or
an enlarger). At least there both can use cleaner sources (wind, solar,
etc.), which I happen to take advantage of.
Where I think digital makes some progress is I only have to expose
myself and dispose of chemistry in the negative stage (or not) and can
avoid altogether print chemistry if I wish. Doing larger prints uses a
shitload of chemistry, and I don't really want to be around it, and
don't want the hassle/expense of proper disposal, and that realization
is solidified by looking at a trashcan full of reject prints. This isn't
even considering the inumerable processes you can use to
enlarge/reverse/dupe a negative and the chemistry that uses to even get
to the printing stage.
Frankly, I am more concerned with my own health and potential
consequences of long-term exposure to chemistry than anything else.
Nevertheless, if you compared the environmental impact of a lifetime of
using either digital or traditional, digital would come out on top. It
also seems reasonable to assume that headway will be made in digital
equipment manufacturing that will make it cleaner. Traditional could
make similiar process. There are no easy solutions to this aspect of
photography.
I respect the criticisms of digital from both a technical (a little
overblown and some ignorance here) & environmental standpoint. It's ripe
for abuse and can masquerade as good photography & at its best no equal
to the mastery of traditional photography.
I still utilize it everyday in my photography : )
-Joe
Greg Schmitz wrote:
>I've brought this about before - but where do you get the idea that
>digital photography is environmentally "friendly?" The semiconductor
>industry has traditionally been (and still is) one of dirtiest around.
>Just reading the list of compounds that gets pumped into the air,
>water, and ground when manufacturing "digital" chips is damn near
>enough to give you cancer. Jeez - the "average" desktop machine
>contains 6-8 lbs of lead - many municipalities now charge to pick-up
>computers and other semi-conductor based machines because of the
>increased cost of disposal. And what about the negative environmental
>effects of power generation - do you think the electricity your
>machine uses just comes out of the wall by itself? Even the computer
>industry has dropped their "environmentally friendly" marketing
>nonsense.
>
>-greg schmitz <gws1@columbia.edu>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>
>"Society is composed of persons who cannot design, build, repair, or
>even operate most of the devices upon which their lives depend. In
>this sense, specialists of various stripes are left to trade on each
>other's ignorance.
> -Langdon Winner
> AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGY (MIT 1977)
>----------
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:27 PM Z CST