Oh, I’m a member of that club. I still vividly remember when I was working in Munich and the photo shop (not to be confused with Photoshop™) messed up the slides for a conference my boss was speaking at. We got the corrected slides a little over an hour before my boss was supposed to be on a plane. For some reason he had me drive while he sorted the slides into the right order in the carousel. He finished just before I dropped him off at the airport, and he still somehow made his flight. Meanwhile, I had his car and didn’t know his home address to drop it off. So I just drove back into town, parked at my place and used his car to go to work until he got back from his conference. 
5 Likes
I’m curious which is worse for the environment, some trace amounts of nasty chemicals bonded to celluloid or 150,000,000 cell phones going into the trash every year (in the U.S.) to be replaced with newer models.
3 Likes
Birds aren’t real. Flying DSLR. I find your “pelican?” Icon suspicious.
User name checks out.
1 Like
I just wish they would bring back packfilm.
[quote=“djfitz, post:13, topic:201051”]
- The costs of film are outrageous compared to digital.
True enough.
- No preview. So lots of wasted shots.
All my analog cameras (as well as my digitals) give me a preview of the shot in the viewfinder. But I guess you’re talking about chimping. Deleting a bad shot immediately after taking it is not the same as not wasting a shot.
- The biggest limitation of film is you can’t do anything with it any more.
Another way of looking at this is you can do the exact same things you could before digital came along.
- They also take up a lot of room.
Well, they take up room, but so does digital storage - it’s just a different kind of room. Digital storage also comes with a set of issues that physical storage doesn’t.
- There’s no print media anymore, so there’s no magazines/newspapers to publish film-based photos.
This is simply not true. Even if it were, this is far from the only reason to shoot analog film.
- A decade or so ago, digital was probably as good resolution as a 35mm, but medium format film was still the only way to get higher quality. Today, an iPhone probably takes better pictures than your vintage Hasselblad. (heresy I know, but it has to be said) If you want medium format quality, get the 100MP medium format from Hasselblad.
You are confusing resolution with quality. A high resolution lousy shot is no better than a low resolution lousy shot, although it likely cost more to achieve.
“An orchid has taken flight!” to paraphrase a brilliant, accurate spoonbill-related quotation.
2 Likes
I’d assume that the cellphones win by a wide margin; but I’m not sure why you are phrasing a comparison of two distinct pollution problems as though there is some kind of either/or, rather than those being two largely independent problems that require distinct resolutions.
1 Like
But the nachos! Think about the nachos!
1 Like
My point is that, since digital photography, which is predominantly done with cell phones, has almost completely supplanted the use of this type of photographic film, then it seems odd to spend effort to solve the already tiny and shrinking problem when the huge and growing problem more urgently demands attention.
I’m not a regulatory expert; but it looks like this situation is one where there wasn’t really a choice in allocating effort:
The EPA fairly recently took action on PIP 3:1 because it apparently met the criteria for being ‘persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic’ for the purposes of the Toxic Substances Control Act. This film happened to be one of the products that contains the chemical; but the EPA action was against the chemical as a whole(which has a fair number of other applications) under existing legislation; rather than some sort of new activity concerning electronic waste.
I’d assume that the EPA is against that, at least in principle; but taking measures to push increased product lifespans or more recycling or similar would be conducted under a different authority(not sure if the EPA has that authority at present or if they’d need Congress to do something); and likely by a different department than the one handling TSCA toxicology reviews.
2 Likes
Many thanks for the suggestion, P.Formulary is still active it seems, even if I woudn’t dare make my own film. But you never know… anyway, I doubt I could get images good enough to print in any large format (and I do love biggish prints). Ah well.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
