Eco-Friendly Darkroom Printing

[snappy]

I think this is terrific news. I very much prefer the more organic process of traditional film developing, but have been concerned about the chemicals used in the process. I think this is a huge leap in the direction of safer, more sustainable film processing. I am wondering if this would mean anything for web video production? I know most have gone totally digital, but some still like the look of old school film. What do you think? Thanks a lot for the post.

 

[emraphoto]

What about all of the water needed to wash a print? If I was concerned about the environment then I'd be using a digital camera for all of my pictures.

I wouldn't be so quick on that draw mon ami. The business of supplying the needed minerals to create those digital wonders is bloody and nowhere near environmentally friendly.

 

[Chuck Albertson]

What about all of the water needed to wash a print? If I was concerned about the environment then I'd be using a digital camera for all of my pictures.

This is the book I show people (the really obnoxious ones, anyway) who tell me I should get a clean, green digital camera, and quit fouling the earth with b&w chemistry:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j.../feature/2076648/pieter-hugos-permanent-error

All those computers don't spring out of the earth like organic mushrooms, nor do they biodegrade when the next product cycle arrives.

 

[blw]

When holding that argument- especially here in the US where it's very applicable- please don't leave out the environmental cost of making the electricity to keep those batteries charged and computers running. A large percentage of the US' electricity is generated by burning coal. And I won't bother delving deeper into the environmental costs of getting that coal.

 

[dmc]

If every photographer in North America dumped their used developer in the sewers at the same time, you would not come close to the environmental damage a single natural gas Frac'ing operation does. Having said that, we need to be concerned about all pollution, and I applaud the concern shown here. Let's get all the info we can out there.

 

[rog]

how toxic is fixer

how toxic is fixer

That is just my question, how toxic is fixer?
In a scale of 1-10 for humans or/and the environment?
Is it more toxic then developer?
I always assumed it was the other way around.

Will try the eco-developer soon!

ps. I just got to the website of the photog instead of the chemicalshop in the above link, so this one will go straight to an othershop that sells the eco stuff, to which i am not associated or anything offcourse.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/ecopro.php

 

[rog]

filmdeveloper

filmdeveloper

Did anybody tried the eco-filmdeveloper for pushing tri-x to 1600 iso or even 3200 iso already?
i know it says something that is comparable to xtol but i never used that, only d76.

 

[emraphoto]

If every photographer in North America dumped their used developer in the sewers at the same time, you would not come close to the environmental damage a single natural gas Frac'ing operation does. Having said that, we need to be concerned about all pollution, and I applaud the concern shown here. Let's get all the info we can out there.

Indeed, applause all around!

 

[The Standard Deviant]

Did anybody tried the eco-filmdeveloper for pushing tri-x to 1600 iso or even 3200 iso already?
i know it says something that is comparable to xtol but i never used that, only d76.

Xtol is already non-toxic. It makes me almost feel ok about using Rodinal for the other half of my developing. Obviously it's not logical though, it's not like Xtol is actively improving the environment.