From: Joe (jtait@texas.net)
Date: 11/01/02-01:37:30 AM Z
Not to drive this OT to the ground, but....
Greg Schmitz wrote:
>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.
>
Good equipment lasts a long time and has intrinsic value. I love that
fact, I use 80+ barrel lenses & my favorite 6x7 rangefiner is 30+ years
old, but I can't help but notice all those ads and such selling NEW
camera outfits; maybe people are still buying this stuff, I don't know....
> 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).
>
Agreed, but you should also consider the maturity of the computer
industry as it stands now. The equipment is far outstripping the
requirements to run the software at this point. Any conscientous digital
photographer doesn't have to buy into the marketing hype and continue to
buy more equipment. I know an audiophile that only uses Amiga machines
from the 80's for his work. Kind of goes against the theory here....
I have found, and others would perhaps agree, that traditional
photography can be an endless buying spree in & of itself. I guess it
has more to do with the individual, and his/her requirements in
equipment, digital or otherwise.
>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.
>
I have only heard of this condition and I am sure it is more serious
than it sounds. I try to limit my exposure because of allergies and
persistent respiratory problems. It seems that the chemistry would be a
contributing factor in the development of even more serious problems,
who knows?
>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.
>
The both of us are using these products that you view with such dismay &
I just don't understand what the end conclusion here is supposed to be.
Capitalism at work. East Asia doesn't have to cater to our insatiable
consumption; they could create an eco-socialist utopia, more power to
them (I sincerely mean that)! Yet they engage in this world economic
system, flawed as it is, willingly.
Everyday we create environmental degredation in our own country in our
pursuit of "things". Industrial pollution is real here to! I live an
hour and a half away from pasadena, TX. You should go there sometime,
drive away with the cheap gasoline in your tank and go look at the array
of plastic products inhabiting your home. There is no turning back and
no turning away from our modern world. It's here to stay. I for one will
try to seek out the things I can do to mitigate the damage I do, and
will screw up half the time : )
>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.
>
Depends on what you're doing I guess, as well as how your electricity is
generated. I could take an outdoor pinhole shot in 8x10, contact print
it in the sun in cyanotype and develop in water. I could shoot a studio
shot in 4x5, spend 2 hours lighting the scene in tungsten, and spend the
next two weeks making 15 16x20 silver prints in the darkroom with all
the associated chemistry and electrical use. I could pull out a coolpix
5000, snap a shot of my girlfriend, walk over to my computer and press
print. Making broad generalization is just silly.
>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.
>
I wouldn't doubt it. You could go through endless scenarios and
contradictions that could make using anything sound absurd. I suppose
that same handheld could compute the equation to solve this whole dilemma!
I do know that this whole internet thing has just been one big
electricity-sucking vampire; and with no payoff.....
>
>In the end, there may be some advantages to digital photography, but I
>don't believe that environmental concerns are among them.
>
>Best -greg
>
Time will tell. Digital has just begun. Traditional photography moved
from some noxious, truly foul chemical beginnings and has offered up
some more resonable ones in its development. Perhaps digital could do
the same.
-Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:27 PM Z CST