From: Greg Schmitz (gws1@columbia.edu)
Date: 10/27/02-02:14:02 AM Z
Joe:
I enjoyed your thoughtful reply. I'm sorry if I came on like
"gangbusters" with my first post.
You pointed out that over the course of a lifetime the environmental
damaged caused by conventional photographic methods would exceed that
of digital. I think you're wrong. I print with an enlarger that is
almost 40 years old, my vacuum frame was manufactured in the mid 60's,
my Hasselblad is early 1970's vintage and my Rollie dates to the early
1950's, some of the equipment I use is 100+ years old. But I'm
writing this on my 6th or 7th computer which is connected to my 4th
printer. Most of the people I know are on their 3rd or 4th computer
(I started early). I believe it would be fair to say that someone
born in the mid 1950's, who is using computers now, will probably go
through at least 5 or 6 machines over the course of their lifetime;
for those who are just reaching maturity now I wouldn't even venture a
guess. Each of the computers is generating a fair amount of toxic
waste both "coming" and "going."
I understand your desire to distance yourself from traditional
photographic chemicals. I, like many, develop contact dermatitus if I
come in contact with some of them. I have eliminated many health
problems by following standard laboratory procedures when I work.
It's my opinion that the chemicals used in digital photography are far
more dangerous than those used in conventional photography. The most
obvious difference between the two processes, with regard to chemical
exposure, is that for those of us lucky enough to live in the more
affluent "developed" countries direct contact with the by products of
digital manufacturing is the concern of folks in other places
(Singapore, Taiwan, China, The Philippines). If we are affected
directly by the semiconductor industry my guess would be that food
would be the primary route of exposure; and perhaps seawater if we
happen to live near an ocean. Don't forget that there are also the
chemicals used to manufacture and coat the paper stocks and to make
the inks and dyes.
You pointed out that both digital and conventional photography require
electricity. True enough, but if the energy consumption of the
processes are compared I think you would quickly find that digital,
computer based imaging uses far more electricity than traditional
photographic processes. One of the faculty members here, an expert in
energy use and policies, computed the real power consumption for one
of those handheld computers. After factoring in the power used for
packet switching, wireless connection, etal. he found that the palmtop
used as much electricity as an "industrial refrigerator." I could
probably find the original reference if you're interested.
In the end, there may be some advantages to digital photography, but I
don't believe that environmental concerns are among them.
Best -greg
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Joe wrote:
> 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