Which do you think is greener?

[BillP]

a. Using a IID to take 36 exposures, develop and print.

b. Using an M8 to take 36 RAW exposures, process and print.

?

I have my own views, but I would like to hear yours.

Regards,

Bill

[Pitxu]

I suppose the digi route would consume more electricity, fossil fuels, pollution etc.

[Matthew Allen]

Although there are more chemicals used and discarded in the film process, I suspect that in the long run it is greener. Consider that the Barnack has an indefinite lifespan with proper servicing whereas the M8 will likely expire within a decade or so and the materials used will probably not be recycled. Every time the M8 is replaced there is a large investment of energy in the manufacturing process, while all the time the IID soldiers on.

That said, the whole equation depends on the amount you shoot and in any case it is my impression (and my experience) that digital shooters print far less than film shooters so it's difficult to make sensible comparisons.

Matthew

[MikeL]

You'll use less materials though with the M8 since the sensor is cropped (slightly less than half).




;)

[Pitxu]

There's a hell of a lot of waste packaging in many new products too.
This is a tiny "pocket" digi cam but the paper and cardboard weighs close to 2 lbs. All wasted.
58340

[Pherdinand]

Green is the "opposite" of magenta in photoshop world.
The answer thus: depends, if you use an IR filter on the m8 or not.





:D

[Al Patterson]

a. Using a IID to take 36 exposures, develop and print.

b. Using an M8 to take 36 RAW exposures, process and print.

?

I have my own views, but I would like to hear yours.

Regards,

Bill

I'd go with A in your scenario as presented. Long term, it woulld depend on how you dispose of your used computers, digital cameras and batteries.

[PlantedTao]

I'd go with A.
I think this could change if you were talking about a new ZI and someone who uses an inefficient darkroom with heavy toxic chemicals, instead of newer safer formulas such as:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/cart/Silvergrain-Chemicals-sp-11.html

the problem with digital, IMHO, is that most of the products are new and the processes and later disposal to make these are toxic and not green friendly...

most darkroom printing and products we use are recycled (enlargers, trays, cameras, lenses, etc)

[shadowfox]

Back when digital was all I know about, I was thrilled to read reports like (paraphrased of course) "toxic level on sewage systems are reduced thanks to digital photography"

Now that I have researched myself how to develop (and soon print) myself, I realize that the toxic level wasn't that great to begin with, and like PlantedTao said above, there are newer formulas that are specifically designed for "green-ness".

On the digital side, I remember reading a relevant article on Nat Geo, here's the online version:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/carroll-text

Y'all decide which one is more "green", I know my answer.

[sanmich]

AFAIK, the process involved in producing semiconductors, chips, memories, CCDs, you name it is using very nasty chemicals (Boron, Phosphin, the craziest acids in the world etc).

So, now we need to compare the industry of the past who was producing cameras that lasted in parallel with lots of film and chemicals with maybe less care to the environment, to the new industry which is producing self destructive, low lifespan apparatus, that are not consuming anything more but are thrown away every five to ten years.
I think this deserves a serious study.
I know what I prefer...

[BillP]

So, now we need to compare the industry of the past who was producing cameras that lasted in parallel with lots of film and chemicals with maybe less care to the environment, to the new industry which is producing self destructive, low lifespan apparatus, that are not consuming anything more but are thrown away every five to ten years.


Well said.

Regards,

Bill

[Jamie Pillers]

The greenest.... camera obscura. :-)

Another option to be weighed would be use of traditional camera + film scanned to CD + prints made in the digital environment.

[tritiated]

I suspect it depends on what is meant by 'green'.

To assess the environmental economics of the situation, you need to define the parameters. eg. Do you include a life cycle analysis of each camera (from cradle to grave) and the corresponding consumables. The whole thing is probably very complicated.

The natural environment is usually undervalued in markets, but I suspect the economy (£) of the choice is still a useful if conservative indicator (which depends on what you hypothetically need to pay for).

Thinking about things more simply, using the everyday rule of thumb; "reduce, re-use, re-cycle", I have my preferred solution!



Very slightly related (about laser printing/indoor environment) if anyone is interested:
http://www.separationsnow.com/coi/cda/detail.cda?id=18331&type=Feature&chId=4&page=1
Abstract:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117891109/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

[Leighgion]

It's too hard to call for me with all the levels and factors involved.

I will add though, that having recently begun doing my own B&W film, I was surprised just how much extra garbage a couple rolls of 135 and just one roll of 120 generated before I even got to chemistry. Steel & plastic in every 135 cart and a staggering amount of paper litter for 120, plus the plastic wrap and box for each and every roll. Then there's the bits of leader and film ends.

A digital camera costs a lot of resources to produce and doesn't last as long, no mistake, but over your shooting life you're also generating a lot of waste for every roll of film.

[Charly]

I think that the morally more clear-headed option is for the anaiogue gear. The wholesale rape of Congo and other mineral rich African states for copper, cobalt and other things required for semiconductor production is too horrific to consider That's why I sit here typing on my laptop, listening to a digital radio, looking at the cheap digicam and cheaper printer on the shelf and talking on my new cell phone. Fact is, these are things that I simply cannot operate without - and even if I could, I wouldn't want to.

The world is a bitch. If I could buy ethically sourced technology - I like to think I would - but given I buy my knickers from primark - I wonder if I could afford to. I can't imagine the factory conditions my pants are made in are too hot when they cost £1.50 a pair.

[georgef]

I suppose the digi route would consume more electricity, fossil fuels, pollution etc.

And thats exactly what I used to consume for hours on end in the drakroom processing BW film :D

We are comparing one type of waste to another; one major disadvantage of the digital route besides the medium, is the massive use of batteries previously not needed as much, even with the more electronic film bodies.

[benlees]

I guess it depends on how much you print. Using a used digital camera and a used printer, while only printing the good ones would be more green in the long run. Just think of the transportation, for starters, involved in shipping film, chemicals, paper, and then there is the consumer side of it. Picking up the film and then the prints, etc. Have to think of the extra steps.

Obviously, this is a general statement, certainly not meant to describe how anyone in particular does it (myself included); just thinking out loud, as it were, about what is involved.

I bet most people here bought used film cameras. Digital cameras can be bought used as well. No reason to think they can't last awhile. Perhaps not as long as film cameras but longer than the time it takes for the next model to come out.

[digitalintrigue]

We are here to use Earth's natural resources. The Earth has been here far longer than we have, and through much more than we could ever inflict on it. I don't buy into all this stuff, because if one takes it far enough, it means we have to leave the planet to save it. Every person creates waste and CO2. It's called life. Enjoy it and don't fret. :)

[BillP]

We are here to use Earth's natural resources. The Earth has been here far longer than we have, and through much more than we could ever inflict on it. I don't buy into all this stuff, because if one takes it far enough, it means we have to leave the planet to save it. Every person creates waste and CO2. It's called life. Enjoy it and don't fret. :)

The concept of sustainability hasn't reached you yet, then? Reducing your carbon footprint requires you to do more than just wipe your feet as you come in.

Regards,

Bill

[Sparrow]

the oldest is the greenest, manufacturing the camera will cost more in resources than all the photos of both, sad isn't it?

[digitalintrigue]

The way to reduce my carbon emissions to the greatest degree, is to die. No thanks.

Has anyone seen the comparison of the enviro-impact of the Toyota Prius vs. a Hummer? Check it out:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220 .html

The concept of sustainability hasn't reached you yet, then? Reducing your carbon footprint requires you to do more than just wipe your feet as you come in.

Regards,

Bill

[Al Patterson]

The concept of sustainability hasn't reached you yet, then? Reducing your carbon footprint requires you to do more than just wipe your feet as you come in.

Regards,

Bill

I'm working to make my Carbon Footprint exactly the same as Al Gore's. For that, I need to INCREASE it...

And, if you think carbon is deadly for Mother Gaia, you should strive to reduce your carbon footprint to zero. Are you game?

[pingle]

We are here to use Earth's natural resources. The Earth has been here far longer than we have, and through much more than we could ever inflict on it. I don't buy into all this stuff, because if one takes it far enough, it means we have to leave the planet to save it. Every person creates waste and CO2. It's called life. Enjoy it and don't fret. :)

No offence, but I think there's some middle ground between leaving the planet, and actively trying to wipe out future generations. Clearly we're not likely to destroy the actual planet, but the aspects of it that we enjoy (air, water, food, etc) are undeniably being deteriorated at a phenomenal rate. In fact, looking at any newspaper will make it clear that the "future generations" concern is far too conservative: the present generation is already paying a huge price (cancer rates, food shortages, water shortages, civil wars).

I appreciate the original question (my vote's film, by the way), but I don't think it's going to make much difference either way. At a bare minimum, get rid of your car and any incandescent light bulbs.

[pingle]

The way to reduce my carbon emissions to the greatest degree, is to die. No thanks.

Has anyone seen the comparison of the enviro-impact of the Toyota Prius vs. a Hummer? Check it out:

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Car_News/Prius_Versus_HUMMER_Exploding_the_Myth.S196.A12220 .html


If you look into the methodology, the "study" cited above is ridiculous. One of the assumptions used, for example, is that the more you drive, the better it is for the environment. That's right! Prius drivers drive less than Hummer drivers (obviously, since the former are going to have a higher concern over emissions), and the study counts that AGAINST the Prius' `green' rating. That's just one of the flaws, but I think it's indicative of the quality of the work...

[digitalintrigue]

Conservationism, yes. Enviro-religion, no.

Al Gore sets the example. Follow his hypocritical lead!

[Charly]

Digitalintrigue is right - the planet can survive far more than the human race can throw at it - even if we allow are emissions to spiral. Whilst the planet will survive, it will kill the human race in doing so.

[sjw617]

Following logic from the original question..... ALL material is already manufactured and sitting on your kitchen table.
Using film will leave you the film can and reel left over. You will use energy to keep everything at a constant temperature as you develop. You will have used chemicals left from developing and printing. You will use electricity to power the enlarger lamp.

Using digital you will use your charged batteries. You will use electricity for processing and printing. Maybe some ink cartridge will be empty at the end.

I think the electricity is a wash - will be generated anyway and probably the same amount needed to do both. I guess it comes down to the leftovers. Film will leave you the can, reel (both should be recyclable) and chemicals. Digital will leave you the ink cartridges (which are recyclable or refillable).
So I guess the answer is digital.

Steve

[digitalintrigue]

We just need to go get the energy that is out there waiting for us. It's sitting in the earth, it's there in the atom. There is no energy crisis. It's just a crisis of politics.

And making carbon a pollutant makes life a pollutant. No offense, but 'balderdash' is the appropriate word here. :)

That being said, anyone that wants to go live in a cave without electricity or other modern creature comforts, feel free.

[Gabriel M.A.]

a. Using a IID to take 36 exposures, develop and print.

b. Using an M8 to take 36 RAW exposures, process and print.

?

I have my own views, but I would like to hear yours.

c. The Shroud of Turin.

Seriously: it depends; what starting point for the carbon/"toxic" footprint?

[Ronald M]

The government looks at the minor polution from chemicals and forgets all the toxic waste used in manufacturing thousands of throw away cameras. Like all electronics, they should be salvaged and toxic materials removed. In practice, guess what happens.

[MikeL]

In practice, guess what happens.

In the U.S., a nice voyage by boat across the Pacific to China's landfills?

[PlantedTao]

...

And making carbon a pollutant makes life a pollutant. No offense, but 'balderdash' is the appropriate word here. :)
...

that makes no sense to me...
if you are dying of thirst, drink a glass of oxygen, or better yet two glasses of hydrogen

I believe that A is green friendly answer to the question as posted.
however, both camps (digi and film) can make very "green" choices:
use the technology until it no longer works, dont chase the lastest and greatest.
research the chemicals used in the process from cradle to grave.
try to recycle as much as possible.
pick products that care about environmental impacts (like silvergrain products or washers that conserve water)
etc.

[amateriat]

"Green" can count in the little things that one does, or tries to do.

Example: several years ago, after stopping in at Adorama to buy a few rolls of Ilford XP2, and being handed a 3-pack of 35mm film packed in "120-style" wrappers instead of plastic canisters, I wrote Ilford about changing most, if not all, of its 35mm film this way. I was thinking eco-friendly first of all, but also easier in terms of carrying and shipping (less bulk and weight, also a "green" issue, methinks). Since then, the 50-roll boxes of Ilford film seem to be coming individually wrapped 120-style. Wish I could take credit for it, but I'll just say I tried to do my part. :)

As far as the digital vs. film matter, environmentally-speaking, it's a tad complex, but one undeniable fact of our digital lives is that we live in an age of more disposable, non-repairable products than we did two decades ago. When your $200, two-year-old digital p/s camera packs it in, and you gamely take it into a service center, you know what you're going to be told, don't you? Same deal with your "bargain" $65 DVD player, compact table-top stereo, and multi-function inkjet printer/scanner/copier/fax machine. All the above items are, in effect, "long-term disposables", to be used for few years, then tossed. There are electronics-recycling programs near where I live, and I dutifully cart our household's broken-and-non-fixable electronics their way, but I know that's not where most of this stuff winds up.

Some people, of course, have long believed "environmental protection" means outfitting their house with central air...:(


- Barrett

[tritiated]

Digitalintrigue - I am fascinated by your fatalist view!
Firstly, I think you are missing the point, carbon is not a pollutant - carbon dioxide is the emission and also not a pollutant unless emitted in excessive amounts (which unfortunately is seen to be the case, and rising).

The reason carbon has become a buzzword is because of the idea of attempting to create a market price for its part in fuels, as part of the environment and its part in emissions (and therefore mediate the negative externality and excessive consumption / emission). Carbon accounting giving a carbon economy if you like.

This reminds me of a recent BBC breakfast TV interview with Josh Hartnett (wearing his environment warrior hat for the day, he was discussing his recent work in the area) where he exclaimed; "we have to destroy the carbon!!” Which of course is ridiculous (see the laws of entropy), but he is just the poster boy - who has been charged with trying to increase the public awareness of environmental matters.

Similarly with Al Gore, you may or may not like it or him, but he has jumped on the story that scientists have been trying to tell for many years, and tried to tell it much louder.

The point is he is upping the awareness of the general public (and previously ignorant decision makers), and taking the emphasis away from the "eco warrior loonies" who have been easily ignorable in the past (IMO).

You may see him as a hypocrite but that isn't the point - he has got people talking, by re-presenting a problem in grand style that needs addressing (whether you like him or not) in layperson's terms.

You are right - we are not going to literally "destroy our planet", but we are consuming too much and degrading the delicate environmental and ecological equilibria this planet hosts which we rely on to survive.

With the predicted degradation as a conservative estimate of climate change, the things we need to worry about (in an anthropocentric way) are that certain parts of the world are likely to become difficult to inhabit, and for one example, agriculture may be impossible. This will have a knock-on effect to you. Add to this the displacement and misery of millions of people and the chances are that there will be increased and wider political tensions and potentially wars, wider terrorism etc. We can't know for sure the socio-economic future, but take a look at the IPCC website, and specifically this report regarding potential regional impacts of climate change:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/region-en.pdf

By trying to mediate our combined consumption and live on this planet in dynamic equilibrium, in a sustainable way, we run the risk as a race of inhabiting it comfortably for many thousands of years yet. But I expect having a defeatist attitude or taking the fatalist viewpoint "we are here to use the Earth's natural resources", we can't expect to continue living in the same way at all, with unknown but most likely disastrous consequences.

[digitalintrigue]

tritiated --- I'm quite optimistic. What scares me, are charlatan politicians and bureaucrats.

Global warming is a hoax.

The Chicken Little fatalism is the one purveyed by the Gores of the world. :)

If carbon isn't the enemy, why is the buzzword 'carbon footprint?' I won't even begin to get into that concept...clearly, buying carbon 'credits' does absolutely nothing but line the pockets of people like Gore.

Yes, I see Gore as a hypocrite. How can anyone describe him otherwise? He's buying 'credits' from his own companies, while actually increasing his real consumption.

The 'global warming' temp increase from the last 100 years was wiped out last year. (This was reported by four different institutions: The UK's Hadley Climate Research Unit, NASA, Univ. of Alabama/Hunstville, and Remote Sensing Systems.) This was 'unexpected' which simply means that the models are wrong. We know far too little about the weather to jump to these kinds of conclusions.

To think we can predict what will happen years from now, when we can't even predict what the weather will do next week. And none of the so-called 'experts' foresaw this drop in temperature last year! So much for experts.

Climate change is normal, and has always been a part of the Earth; any change is not man-made.

The IPCC is essentially the UN, and it's got a political, not scientific, agenda to equalize the world's economies (i.e., bring down the USA.)

See it for what it is...namely, not science.

[shadowfox]

I think the flaw in the thinking here is that cameras have been high tech trash (when disposed of) since the 70's. The Canon AE-1 and its popularity ushered in that era. Digital cameras have sensors that automated film cameras don't, but that T-90 or F4s, or EOS1 or F6 is just as full of electronics as the typical digital camera. Neither are particularly "green." That many digital shooters don't ever print an image has got to have some positive effect for the environment.

People already have the computers that are being used to view and email those images. So that is not a factor.

First, how many times have these Canon AE-1 buyers upgraded their *film* cameras over 25 years? Compare that to the "upgrade cycle" of today's typical digital cameras (DSLR or P&S). Not to mention camera equipped cellphones. Which one do you think fills the landfills faster?

Secondly, printing on paper doesn't have as much adverse effect on the environment as you think it does. My eyes were opened when a paper mill company from Europe came over to the place I work -- these are high quality commercial printing industry in which even small printing plant could consume a ton of paper in an hour.

On the side, they explained that the green-fanatics can't touch them because they re-plant the trees they use to make papers. And they did a better job maintaining the ecological balance of their forests than any of greenies could ever muster, why? because they can afford the resource and the technology from the profit of selling... printing paper.

Thirdly, of course it's bad enough that we use computers. Maintaining servers is part of my job, I know how bad it is. But do not think for a second that those obsolete digital cameras and cellphones are not filling up the landfills at a slower rate.

Now that would be a flaw in thinking.

[georgef]

We just need to go get the energy that is out there waiting for us. It's sitting in the earth, it's there in the atom. There is no energy crisis. It's just a crisis of politics.

And making carbon a pollutant makes life a pollutant. No offense, but 'balderdash' is the appropriate word here. :)

That being said, anyone that wants to go live in a cave without electricity or other modern creature comforts, feel free.

DENIAL is the first symptom my friend :rolleyes:

[tritiated]

As I said, it doesn't matter if al gore is a hypocrite. I'm not defending him - but I am defending the cause he has taken for his own.

In actual fact, its entirely based on science. I'm really not sure where you got your figures from but as far as I understand: "2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average", and that is despite of La Nina; the cold phase of ENSO which started early 2007, which is only starting to show her face at the beginning of this year. ref: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability.html


Anyhow, an unexpected result in one year would not render climate models "wrong", just that they model and predict trends on a longer timescale (decades/centuries) - variability is to be expected (expressed in uncertainty values) and extreme variability is likely to be be seen more often, as a result of climate change. The overall trend has been and will be towards a gradually increasing average temperature. This is backed up by a vast amount of research.

I think you could benefit from reading more information, particularly on the science - don't dismiss it out of hand. Please look past what celebrities and politicians say, as can be seen they often invoke irrational and emotive responses.

[digitalintrigue]

If you want to call me a global warming denier, so be it. :) I was a Y2K denier, too, bucking the popular trend, and we all know how that turned out.

I have spent many, many hundreds hours on this subject, from both scientific and political viewpoints. I'm not just dismissing it out of hand. (My education background is scientific, in fact.)

Regarding science vs. politics, just look at who created and runs the IPCC, and who attends its meetings. It's government officials, not scientists. Google it, the information is there.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Global warming is a hoax.
<snip>

See it for what it is...namely, not science.

Pay no attention to the melting ice caps. It's all an illusion :rolleyes:

The real answers are found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

[ferider]

If you want to call me a global warming denier, so be it. :) I was a Y2K denier, too, bucking the popular trend, and we all know how that turned out.

I have spent many, many hundreds hours on this subject, from both scientific and political viewpoints. I'm not just dismissing it out of hand. (My education background is scientific, in fact.).

I'm with you. The only thing that bothers me is that I do not drive a Hybrid and still like Starbucks :)

Reg the original question, the other side is always greener :)

[digitalintrigue]

Actually when I saw the title of the thread, I thought it was going to be something along the lines of Provia vs. Velvia. :)

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm with you. The only thing that bothers me is that I do not drive a Hybrid and still like Starbucks :)

Reg the original question, the other side is always greener :)

Green is a hoax, a conspiracy between blue and yellow. Green does not exist, only our perception of it.

Now, where's that bong? :angel:

[georgef]

If you want to call me a global warming denier, so be it. :) I was a Y2K denier, too, bucking the popular trend, and we all know how that turned out.

I have spent many, many hundreds hours on this subject, from both scientific and political viewpoints. I'm not just dismissing it out of hand. (My education background is scientific, in fact.).

acceptance is the second symptom :D

[georgef]

Green is a hoax, a conspiracy between blue and yellow. Green does not exist, only our perception of it.

Now, where's that bong? :angel:

think B&W he he

[digitalintrigue]

acceptance is the second symptom :D

Know of any 12 step programs for those afflicted?

Rehab?

Or, indeed, how about that bong. :)

[georgef]

yes the bong.....speaking of which...excuse me ...

[Pherdinand]

i'm using diafine to develop my film.
I mixed up 2 litres and a half from both solutions more than a year ago.
I am just starting to use the second bottle (i.e. i only produced half a litre developer waste so far).
I am also reusing my fixer at least 10 times.
I don't wash the film under constant running water.

And i ride a bike everyday - don't even have a car.

Yes, i do fly occasionally, actually quite often,lately, for my work...

[Pherdinand]

now think about how much waste we all produced while reading and answering this thread, LOL.

[Al Patterson]

If you want to call me a global warming denier, so be it. :) I was a Y2K denier, too, bucking the popular trend, and we all know how that turned out.

I have spent many, many hundreds hours on this subject, from both scientific and political viewpoints. I'm not just dismissing it out of hand. (My education background is scientific, in fact.)

Regarding science vs. politics, just look at who created and runs the IPCC, and who attends its meetings. It's government officials, not scientists. Google it, the information is there.

Here is an interesting book I ordered from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0980076315?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwviolentkicom&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0980076315

I think the day will come where Al Gore and his followers will be considered as the intellectual equals to the Flat Earth Society.

[Pitxu]

It must be true if you found it on the internet.:)

[Pherdinand]

It's NOT "Gore's theory".
It's much more serious than that.
He is just a well known political figure who made it more popular through his movie.
And earned some $ by that.
A very good politician, thus.

But the theory (neither the idea nor the details) is NOT coming from him.

[digitalintrigue]

And the key word here is 'theory.'

There's no science that can guarantee and prove that what any of the global warming scaremongers claim is happening because of man.

[Matthew Allen]

And the key word here is 'theory.'

There's no science that can guarantee and prove that what any of the global warming scaremongers claim is happening because of man.

Science never 'proves' anything but rather provides the best possible explanation based on the testing of hypotheses. Hypotheses which are borne out by experimentation and which stand up to scrutiny may then reach the status of 'scientific theories'.

Do you think those involved in climate research want (rapid man-made) global warming to be a reality? We're all in the same boat with this one.

Matthew

[Mike R]

The theory is a recent theory not embraced by all scientists at all. It is mostly political. Is it true? Maybe, but not backed by most of the scientists at the university I work in. The earth has been warming since the ice age. Just be glad that we aren't going that direction. What is undeniable is that we can do better by intelligently using the resources we have and that those pushing global warming have been doing a very good job of marketing their beliefs and theories. It is almost a religion to them at this point.

As for the original question--the way I use film would most certainly be greener than the way of the digital world. I too reuse chemicals, use bulk film, and continue to use outdated cameras. I even bought a manual film RF that was worth about $50. I paid $40 for it and $150 for a CLA so that it would work like new. My old 1.3 mp digital got tossed once I got a newer version. I tried to sell it, but nobody wanted it. For me, film rules in the long run.

[digitalintrigue]

Hmm. Science never proves anything? Wow...and all along I was thinking that a proof was actually a proof, and a hypothesis was a hypothesis. :)

In this case, the best possible explanation is that there is no science behind this, just politics. ;)

[digitalintrigue]

It must be true if you found it on the internet.

Especially because Al Gore invented it. :)

[tritiated]

How do you prove the theory that it isn't 'happening because of man'? How can you possibly say that there is no science behind it? Are you saying the entire scientific community has collectively massaged data for the politician's benefit?? Nowthat's a theory.

[digitalintrigue]

Well for one thing, the climate has always been changing, well before the industrial age began, well before the evil carbon footprints started increasing in size. It was as warm hundreds of years ago as it is now.

For all the global warming denier deniers, nothing is stopping you from acting on your beliefs. It's time to destroy all your possessions that use energy, from incandescent light bulbs to computers to SUVs. (No, you can't sell them, that would just transfer footprints.) Time to log off the net, say adios to the most prosperous world since time began. :)

Sorry, I don't wish to go back in time, and bring prosperity down to the level of the third world. No thank you.

If we want to change the world, we should instead focus on helping people improve their lives and standard of living.

[Matthew Allen]

Even if you completely reject global warming as a valid theory, don't you think there are other good reasons to limit your consumption of energy? The less we use, the longer the oil reserves will last and the less competition there will be for those resources.

Leaving aside carbon dioxide emissions, it is surely still desirable is it not to minimise pollution since this has very real effects on the quality of our lives and the stability of our environment?

I for one would be in favour of increasing our use of nuclear energy since this offers a practical alternative to fossil fuels that will keep us going for long enough (hopefully) that we can develop even cleaner ways to generate energy. Unfortunately this does not appear to be a popular option.

Matthew

[benlees]

If we want to change the world, we should instead focus on helping people improve their lives and standard of living.

Cool, you can start by giving me your Porsche.:)

[digitalintrigue]

I'm 100% with you on nuclear, but I also believe there is plenty of oil, and that there is no energy crisis. That's like saying we have an atom shortage. :)

If a given country limits their consumption, they limit their growth. And that just allows other countries to grow at the expense of the first, and doesn't change pollution levels...except they are higher, as third world countries have less ability and resources to devote to pollution reduction.

[digitalintrigue]

Cool, you can start by giving me your Porsche.:)

Aah, redistribution...an old concept that also doesn't work. :)

[pingle]

Hmm. Science never proves anything? Wow...and all along I was thinking that a proof was actually a proof, and a hypothesis was a hypothesis. :)


A lot of people misunderstand how science works. That's why crackpots can say things like "no study has ever proven with 100% certainty that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming", and
some portion of society will run off declaring that it's a hoax. A hoax presumably organized by the same devious people who faked the moon landing, and tricked people into believing that they'd split the atom... them scientists is wily. I found another great book on Amazon that reveals their depravity:

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Roswell-Autopsy-Government-Coverup/dp/1569247099/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208916342&sr=1-1

[jonmanjiro]

If global warming isn't happening = nothing to worry about.

If global warming is happening (whether completely natural, partly man-made, or completely man-made) = its going to happen regardless of whether you trade-in your SUV for a Prius, or change your light bulbs to low energy types. Doing so may make you feel better, but it only takes a couple more coal-fired power stations in China to wipe out any savings made by reducing consumption. And who are we to say the Chinese aren't allowed to have lifestyles just like us.

We are here to use Earth's natural resources. The Earth has been here far longer than we have, and through much more than we could ever inflict on it. I don't buy into all this stuff, because if one takes it far enough, it means we have to leave the planet to save it. Every person creates waste and CO2. It's called life. Enjoy it and don't fret. :)

"Enjoy it and don't fret" is the exact conclusion I've come to after fretting about such things as global warming, resource depletion, peecoil etc. etc. etc. for a while. Funnily enough its also the conclusion (for different reasons) that hard core climate change scientist James Lovelock has come to as well, as he says in the article linked below.

'Enjoy life while you can' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange)

To answer the original question, I shoot film and digital, but mainly film. I prefer film because I like the tactile feel of it and the wonderful metal body Nikon rangefinders and lenses that use it. I also prefer the "look" of film over digital. I don't even think about whether or not film is "greener" :D

[sjw617]

To answer the original question, I shoot film and digital, but mainly film. I prefer film because I like the tactile feel of it and the wonderful metal body Nikon rangefinders and lenses that use it. I also prefer the "look" of film over digital. I don't even think about whether or not film is "greener" :D

BUT that does not answer the question.

[jonmanjiro]

BUT that does not answer the question.

Hehe, touche. Ok, my answer is "c. what the hell does "greener" mean anyway???

[Dfin]

Getting back to the original question, they are both as bad/good as one another over their life cycle. As for global warming and mankinds roll in it, I`m very skeptical, consider the geologically recent volcanic eruptions of Mnt. St. Helens & Mnt. Pinatubo? Either side of the Pacific ocean each ejecting enough particulate matter & green house gases to negate anything mankind has done in the last 250 years. Mount Etna still erupting, Mount Vesuvio, dormont ? Volcanoligists say its over due to erupt, where do 8 million Neopolitans go? Reduce your carbon foot print , use bio-fuels!! Notice the price of cereal crops? Wheat UP 62% RICE (3rd world staple) UP 73%, food riots in Africa & India, spare me the Green Crocodile Tears. Al gore is a politician he is only in it for the money, he used to be the next president of the U.S.A. in other words a Has Been. Now he has this global warming gig. Having said all that, the Earth don`t need US, WE need the Earth!! Is that an Asteriod I see approaching???

[Pherdinand]

Science never "proved" the existence of gravity. There are only theories...

I still am pretty sure there IS something like a gravity, though, no matter if we call it the attraction between masses, the curvature of the spacetime, or the upward acceleration of a flat earth.

[Pherdinand]

I'm 100% with you on nuclear, but I also believe there is plenty of oil, and that there is no energy crisis. That's like saying we have an atom shortage. :)

now that, my friend, is a theory and is an absolutely wrong theory.

Oil is in small puddles underground, formed at some well defined period of our mother Earth.
"Atoms" i.e. nucleii are all around in the universe.
In terms of oil, we talk tens of years of resources - maybe hundred, if we are most optimistic about the "not yet found" puddles.
In terms of nuclear power, we talk about...dunno...thousands of years? Millions? The Universe is rather large, unless you are a FlatEarth believer.

[BillP]

*fingers in ears*

"la la la, not listening"

So. Somebody has bored holes in the bottom of our boat. Water is coming in. But it's not our fault because water would come in anyway? In the meantime, everyone should move to the first class cabins?

Hmmm...

Regards,

Bill

[digitalintrigue]

Although there is plenty of oil, I didn't say there was unlimited oil, I said there is unlimited energy; i.e., no crisis. There is only a crisis of politics and power.

now that, my friend, is a theory and is an absolutely wrong theory.

Oil is in small puddles underground, formed at some well defined period of our mother Earth.
"Atoms" i.e. nucleii are all around in the universe.
In terms of oil, we talk tens of years of resources - maybe hundred, if we are most optimistic about the "not yet found" puddles.
In terms of nuclear power, we talk about...dunno...thousands of years? Millions? The Universe is rather large, unless you are a FlatEarth believer.

[digitalintrigue]

Science never "proved" the existence of gravity. There are only theories...

I still am pretty sure there IS something like a gravity, though, no matter if we call it the attraction between masses, the curvature of the spacetime, or the upward acceleration of a flat earth.

OK, taking that line of thought, consider the humorous possibilities if the scenario was 'man-made global gravity change' instead of 'man-made global climate change.'

(Ignore for the moment that the problem was originally defined to be 'warming' and was recently revised to be just plain 'change' -- either 'warming or cooling' -- that's just an inconvenient truth.)

OK, everyone knows that a chrome 85/2 Nikkor is a heavy lens, right? You walk out your door in Bangkok, and it weighs 525 grams. Then you fly to the North Pole and incredibly, it weighs 600 grams!

Then you go to Calcutta and low and behold, said heavy lens is now only 400 grams! Heck, for that matter, Calcutta looks pretty damn good to me; other than the smog, I have a lot more energy when I'm there, and when I got off the plane it was like getting instant results from the Atkins Diet! (Not only that but I can play basketball a lot better there, I can actually dunk.)

Of course, at the same time I'm enjoying the effects of reduced gravity in Calcutta with my formerly heavy Nikkor, Kobe Bryant is having all sorts of difficulties in Los Angeles. He just can't jump as high anymore, the ball feels heavy, his shots all seem to be short and hitting the front of the rim. Everything feels normal in Chicago, but when he's playing in Boston, in contrast, all his shots hit the back of the rim, although rebounding and dunking seem to be a lot easier, he's just got way more energy on the east coast.

What we have here are people actually personally experiencing 'global gravity change.'

The acceleration due to gravity is defined as 32 feet per second per second. Everywhere on Earth.

On the other hand, what is the temperature of the earth? Well, unfortunately there is no global temperature constant. All we have are 'models.' (We do have temperatures in individual locations, which have always changed -- every day, in fact.)

Soon, all across the world, individual TV stations start adding Gravity Forecasts in addition to news, weather, and sports. Like this one from Houston: "Tomorrow looks like thundershowers combined with a 20% chance of increased gravity, but by the weekend, things should be great for being outdoors; sunny with temperatures in the 80s, combined with a 5% gravity reduction, that will mean more chances for home runs at Minute Maid Park this weekend, so head on out to the ball park!"

Al Gore sees his opening. The Earth is in the Balance. We've got a serious problem here, what can it be?

So it's decided that we'll get the United Nations to put together a group of bureaucrats, and let's find out exactly what is causing this problem! Let's call our group the Intergovernmental Panel on Gravity Change. (Since we put 'intergovernmental' in the title, everyone will obviously realize this is entirely science and has nothing to do with government.) And since we put 'Gravity Change' in the title, everyone will know that gravity change is, in fact, a fact, not just a theory.

We know it's a fact, because we can simply use a scale and see it for ourselves! Try that with 'global climate change.' (No, you can't use anecdotal evidence of more snow in the Midwest US this winter than at any time in history! That doesn't count. Ignore that, only look at the polar ice caps and the poor polar bears!)

All the bureaucrats get together, looks at some computer models that scientists have created, and decides that the only thing that can explain all of this, is the industrial revolution has caused increase emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and it's wreaking havoc on gravity!

We have meetings where 'hockey stick' graphs are shown, indicating that gravity has changed from the past few hundred years. We compare it to the graphs showing atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide. We tell everyone that gravity has never been stronger than in the past 8 years (or weaker.)

We must do something, or else!

So, what do we do? Well, we raise taxes! What else are governments good at? That way we can slow down the economies of the offending big nations! Yeah, that will definitely work to reduce emissions. (Yes, while different bureaucrats in the US were sending out $300 to a few tax payers that made under a certain amount of income last year, in order to stimulate the economy to avoid recession.) Logically, the real way to get back to our 32 feet per second per second, is we have to not only slow down the economies, we have to freeze them, or actually reduce them, so we are creating the same amount of CO2 as we did a few years ago when there was no gravity change problem. Right?

We become executive producers of Hollywood movies, and we start companies that sell pieces of paper that purport to reduce our so-called 'carbon footprint' so we can stop this gravity change problem.

OK, since the US is the largest emitter of CO2 (well not anymore, but we don't want to mess with China, do we?) let's punish them the most. Can we get every country on board regarding this gravity problem? Hey, we are the United Nations! If it's bad for the US, it's good for us!

Well, actually no, this might be difficult, you see we have some fast growing nations...

[Pherdinand]

Yeah, nice theory:) but you should go to Hollywood with the idea.

The difference between your theory about gravity and the theory anout climate change / global warming is this:
Nobody ever noticed a change of gravity.
Many people noticed a change in the climate (yes, in general, warming!) in the last 10-30 years.

What the exact reasons are for global warming, well, that is yet to be determined - i agree, it's not that easy to say that we burn more fuel so it is getting warmer. But that's why some (many) people are payed - to study this and come up with a conclusiion.
If you don't trust them, it is within your rights. However, if nobody should trust them, then why bother studying it???

[Pherdinand]

Number One:
No reasonable person thinks, that the going down of the US economy would be better for the rest of the world. It would be very very bad.
Number Two:
It's not about punishments. We are not in the kindergarden (although many politicians do behave like). It's about reasoning pro or contra an idea that popped up in clever peoples' minds.
Number Three:
Meteorology is a difficult thing. It is not a matter of is the frog climbing up on the stick or not. It is not the matter of is my grandmothers' joint feeling bad today, then we have a rain tomorrow. Especially on global level it is extremely difficult to make a proper working model. It's not like football where everybody seems to be a genius (watching it i mean).

Number four:
No we cannot do anything to *stop* the natural evolution of the climate, due to e.g. volcanic activity. The question is how important is the human contribution: can we speed it up or it does not matter at all. As long as there is no evidence that our contribution is ignorably small, we have to consider it and think about what we do.

And finally: It's not only about global warming when we talk about which photographic process is greener or is it better to drive a SUV versus a hybrid car. It's about how much we mess up the neighborhood. Air pollution and excess garbage production is a real issue. I can understand if u don't care about climate change much, or don't believe in it, but how can you not care or not believe in a stinky sao paulo (you can see the damn smog even on satellite images!!) or how can you like driving your SUV through garbage heaps that are flooding the cities everywhere in the world.

We produce too much waste, in solid, liquid and gaseous form. That's a fact, and it's much worse fact than the global warming, at least on the short timescale.

[digitalintrigue]

Number One:
No reasonable person thinks, that the going down of the US economy would be better for the rest of the world. It would be very very bad.


Bolivian President Evo Morales has told a UN forum that capitalism should be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change.
“If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system,” he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7359880.stm

Interesting quotes on biofuels in there.

Fix one problem while creating another...governments are quite good at that. How many examples can be listed? Let's start with DDT...

[tritiated]

Nuclear power does not instantly solve an energy security crisis, it just means that you have to get your fuel from somewhere else, from someone else. Then you have to figure out how to dispose of the waste economically and safely, for the next few hundred centuries. No country has so far managed to dispose of its current waste inventory in the long term.

I'm not against nuclear power, I just want to point out that its not as simple a solution as you make out. The only source of "unlimited energy" is from renewable technologies. "Atom shortage"?!? This is a GCSE misconception!

Its true, the climate has changed and is in flux, and is regulated by complicated dynamic equilibria - but never before has it been effected and changed as a result of anthropogenic sources.

We don't have to destroy all our worldly posessions and disappear off the face of the earth to make the desired change, the idea is to mediate our impacts by controlling outputs. Research, and develop technologies and strategies to help us out in this respect.

Meanwhile get on living life with a more sensible ecological footprint (ie. consume less, perhaps use the old camera that works fine (and has done for years) and run film through it - being responsible with the waste materials). Probably the most simple, significant change as ordinary people is to use air travel very sparcely.

No need to go back in time, just time to think ahead. Its not all doom and it doesn't automatically mean we have to all live in tents.

The previous argument is bizarre, gravitational field strength varies across the planet and is in no way affected by carbon dioxide emissions. We know carbon dioxide absorbs and radiates infrared radiation.

Also - how is the IPCC only problematic for the US>? How about the other high income countries!?

[Pherdinand]

Evo Morales, LOL
apologizing to any bolivian members here, i don't think the bolivian president is the one to decide this. He's just too ...umm, .. uneducated for this.
As are all the other presidents (and president-wannabes like Al Gore).
They are voted to be president in order to represent a group of people and try everything within their legal right to make that group the happiest on the Globe.
They are also supposed to listen to specialists when bringing a certain decision. Specialists, that KNOW IT BETTER.
Alas, this does not happen often enough.

There's always a problem of "side effects", by the way. Even with the nuclear fuel you supported above, things can go wrong, and life can be affected in the wrong way.
Sometimes because of lack of full knowledge of the science behind. SOmetimes because of ignorance. Sometime sbecause of bad will.
But we are humans. Some build bombs, some like to drive SUV's to their mailbox at the end of the front porch, some get rich by being a communist... welcome to the human race.

[digitalintrigue]

And the UN is filled with plenty of Evo Morales's. :)

[JoeV]

The problem with the original scenario posed by the OP is that, in order to definitively arrive at an answer between the two options given, one has to assume that there is an intrinsic environmental impact difference between the two options. This is, as has been pointed out repeatedly, not the case; rather, the individual choices one makes can sway the distinctions between the choices offered so as to make arriving at a definitive answer impossible. Semiconductor (i.e. chip making) factories can be made environmentally sound, or can pollute badly. Chemical factories (for analog products) can be made environmentally sound, or can pollute badly. The devil is in the details. There are little intrinsic differences.

For example, one reply indicated that with digital printing one only has to print the images that one really wants to print. The same is true with darkroom printing. Why the hell would I be 'forced' to print ALL the shots on a roll of film while in the darkroom; is the enlarger holding me hostage?

With the development of rollfilm, one also has the choice of a homebrew developer using instant coffee crystals and sodium carbonate, and stop bath with white vinegar, then dry the film in the darkroom and print under red lights so we don't need fixer; this is more environmentally sound than factory-manufactured chemicals; also we need to consider the energy content in shipping materials from a great distance.

One could also argue that powder-based developers are more environmentally sound, since the energy required to ship a powder package is much less than shipping heavy, water-based liquid developers. In fact, any locally-mixed solution is more sound than shipping in from a great distance. In this point one could reasonably say that alternative process printing is more sound, since the emulsions are mixed and coated in-situ, rather than being factory manufactured and shipped in from afar.

Of course, I can manufacture scenarios that make digital imaging appear more environmentally sound, too; it's like the old adage that statistics don't lie; statiticians lie.

Regarding greenhouse gas-based global warming: whatever warming is happening right now is the result of emissions made years ago; the affects of these we can't change now, since we can't change the past. Therefore all this discussion about our individual choices has nothing to do with our climate today; rather, it's about the climate that our children and grandchildren inheret.

There's no doubt that human activity is a prime factor in greenhouse-gas based global warming. If we take the secular view that man is but another organism inhabiting this planet, having evolved from primordial ooze just like all the other animate life forms and therefore not possessing any special fiat to inhabit the planet at the expense of the other life forms, then the most environmentally sound policy we can make for the good of the planet, to return the planet's climate as rapidly as possible to pre-industrial revolution levels, is global slaughter, mass warfare, pandemic and starvation. Ultimately this is the 'logical' conclusion one must reach if we make the assumption that man is but an evolved animal.

I have the sneaking suspicion, however, that many of our more noble environmentalists aren't really concerned about the planet's climate as much as they are about continuing western culture's standard of living.

~Joe

[digitalintrigue]

The previous argument is bizarre, gravitational field strength varies across the planet and is in no way affected by carbon dioxide

I guess I'm not ready to be a comedy writer.;

The only thing more bizarre is what is proceeding with this constant doomsday talk, and Gore saying things like the 'Earth has a fever' when there is no such thing as a standard Earth temperature.

[sjw617]

The problem with the original scenario posed by the OP is that, in order to definitively arrive at an answer between the two options given, one has to assume that there is an intrinsic environmental impact difference between the two options.

I see no issue with the OP. Take 36 pictures and end up with prints. There is no need to go into how things are manufactured.. What is the impact of the 36? Simple question that people are trying to make harder.

Steve

[Alex Kinnan]

Regarding the OP, I think that there are, or will be so few people souping film in home or community darkrooms that the environmental impact of even the sloppiest handling will be minimal. Add in "greener" photo products, plus a growing awareness of the sort that leads to questions like the OP being asked in the first place, and I think things will be fine. If a wet darkroom keeps you from running your computer for long hours editing photos, or constantly charging your camera batteries, then there might even be a net "green" gain.

Regarding the other bit here about global warming, my current view on it is that, whether-or-not it is a natural cycle, a human-made event, or a human-accelerated natural phenomenon, it might well be a good idea to endeavour to have cleaner fuels, more economical vehicles, healthier factories, etc...

For me, the concerns currently caught up under terms like "global warming" or "climate change" are valid and varied, covering basic, time-honoured themes like clean air and water, sustainable growth, having waterways not filled with garbage, animal-waste from factory farms, dioxin, and so forth. In a way, it's a pity there is so much focus on the phrase Global Warming, because it seems to take attention away from some of those more immediate environmental concerns; and if human-involved Warming did ever turn out to be bunk, the co-opting of other Green concerns by the proponents of Global Warming might even undermine progress in those other, more pressing fronts.

Regardless of how little or how much oil there is left, I think we would do well to reduce our consumption of it, especially because of the power that consumption gives some parts of the world over other parts of it. Just because some can afford to own and keep fueled high-end, high-powered sports cars with premium gas does not take away from the fact that a much larger number of people are hurting trying to keep their compact sedans fueled with Regular for their work commute. The oil companies and producers can get away with high prices right now because of the high demand. At any rate, I doubt that, say, having a 40 MPG CAFE standard would seriously hurt or slow economic growth.

And anyway, who says markets have to keep expanding, or that they even can? The trashy quality of allot of consumer goods, especially electronics in recent years seems to suggest that there is only so far down you can go to chase profit and market share, at least with current technology.

To be honest, as far as oil goes, and that's relevant here, as many of our plastic cameras require oil for their creation and delivery to market, we would benefit in so many ways from reducing demand; so many ways politically, even. It's one of the reasons why I have reluctantly come back to supporting technologically advanced, vigorously regulated, intelligently implemented nuclear power.

In all things there are risk, but today's best reactor designs are relatively clean and produce minimal waste. Advanced fission designs, coupled with expanded renewable energy sources, could eventually provide cheap power to longer range electric commuter and even cross-country trains; to cargo ships at port, relieving them of the need to use their "bunker fuel" onboard generators; expanded electric bus and trolley systems to alleviate congestion in crowded urban centres; and so on...

While atomic waste will still be made, I don't share the pessimistic view of many on the matter. Perhaps I am a Pollyanna, but I have often thought that spent nuclear materials are so bound up in the public consciousness with fearful and apocalyptic visions of what could be, that there will always be a high priority on finding solutions to the problems of management.

Yes, right now we can only bury the stuff in mountains, or convert some of it into morally void tools like depleted uranium rounds for attack aircraft and tanks to poison the desert with; but science (usually! hopefully!) marches on. The fear of bad things happening during the long storage time of atomic waste may well spur the development of yet unimagined new and beneficial uses for the stuff using technologies and processes still undeveloped.

Heck, if we were to finally perfect a completely fail-safe space-delivery system, then we could simply use rockets to truck the stuff (as well as centuries of garbage) into the sun. As long as society keeps at least trying to improve, or as long as there are a few people in each generation who keep trying to improve it while the bulk of the others watch TV, then there WILL be solutions to many of the problems of today.

However, as we don't know when these solutions will come to pass, we should probably try to not create too much of a backlog of work for the new means and methods science may give us; human-controlled climate in the year 2300 doesn't mean we should poop where we eat in 2008.

And finally (sorry for the length and rambling nature of this), I think it is important to tackle issues of responsible resource management for no other reason than the idea that one day, if all goes well, we will probably start colonising other worlds and we are in all likelihood going to have to be exceedingly tight-fisted and hyper-efficient with life sustaining and life promoting resources, especially if we're talking about gaining a purchase on dead worlds like the Moon or Mars.

That last bit won't likely happen in most of our lifetimes, but it WILL probably happen, and it would be a nice gift to those folk of tomorrow to start laying the foundations for conservation and efficiency that will give them a leg up in the centuries to come.

Oh, and to further attempt to keep this on topic, I wonder what sorts of cameras those colonists will take with them...:D

[tritiated]

The gravity thing just didn't fit as an analogy to be honest- the argument didn't get through, it was amusing though!

It seems your argument is with Gore, what and the way he does/says things. And that's fine because as I have discovered recently - his message is fogged and probably does more harm than good to laypersons perceptions. He doesn't seem to set a good example from what I gather.

One day I'll find out more about him, and perhaps watch his film (unlikely) - but I have heard it is rubbish and will irritate me. I do get annoyed whenever someone mentions biofuels, windfarms, or other 'magic bullet' type solutions. I think implementation of biofuels/ofsetting are going to become one of the most significant global disasters this decade, and many will suffer.

If you think the whole thing is a hoax or conspiracy that's fine, scaremongering warmongering anti US feeling, whatever. I personally think a precautionary principle is appropriate, based on the severity of the possible consequences. Perhaps it could be an opportunity for everyone to get some positive cooperative spirit against a common foe! haha!

I have discovered a lot as a result of this thread, it's fascinating to see how others think and I've found it useful looking again at the various issues. One thing I do get from all of this, is that science needs to be communicated much much better. There's a lot of confusion on various things. The media and celebrities seem to be very poor at this, I've read some terrible articles.

Regarding the original post, yesterday I went on to the "post some pictures from your M8" thread and I have to say they are incredible! The images are truly fantastic! I think the best thing to do given the original post choice, is to sell the car, buy the M8, and get shooting on the bus or at cycle stops!! hoho ho (:

[benlees]

For example, one reply indicated that with digital printing one only has to print the images that one really wants to print. The same is true with darkroom printing. Why the hell would I be 'forced' to print ALL the shots on a roll of film while in the darkroom; is the enlarger holding me hostage?


Sure love your enthusiasm! But no one is forcing you to do anything, obviously. You missed the point on that particular example. The point was that once we are sitting in our (hopefully) comfortable homes with our gear snuggled up beside us, quietly tapping at our keyboards (all thoughts of semiconductor manufacture, strip mining and otherwise, oil spills, chemical spills, all safely tucked away) we can wonder about the EXTRA steps it takes to use film. Or digital. That was all! Merely casting the net, so to speak.

Everyone has their own bias. Why, and/or how, that bias needs to be defended leads to interesting discussions.