Film and vegetarianism

[rover]

OK Guys,

The OP posted a question, please keep your comments on topic, and not directed at him.

Thank you.

 

[nighstar]

@tojeem

before this thread i (ignorantly, i guess) didn't even know that animal anything was used to make film. that does make me sad.... but i wouldn't let that alone stop me from using film. as the article that you found pointed out, avoiding using film isn't going to change anything. the only one that such a course of action would benefit is the person not using film if in not using film they feel better for it.

many people, as is obvious also from the responses to this thread, really don't understand that there are many reasons to become a vegan or vegetarian, the least of which is because one feels eating meat is "unhealthy" or "wrong". while i myself am not a vegetarian or vegan, i have considered vegetarianism for various reasons for several years. one of the main reasons (excluding the fact that i just don't care for most meat) is just what Jamie123 said-- the industrialized production of meat. i am well aware of the fact that if i became a vegetarian the meat industry won't bat an eye and so that would NEVER be the reason for me not eating meat. the same would go for using gelatin and products that use it such as film.

 

[johannielscom]

You must surely make a difference between an animal acting on instinct, and a moral being who has a choice. Some people become vegetarian because they decide they can live and eat healthily without causing suffering to other living things.

Choice has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with luxury. Lots of people have no choice because they are poor. They are not morally less.

Being vegan is as much an excess as shooting film for fun. Thing is, you're not helping the other person somewhere across the globe by refraining from it. Only two things to constantly consider: while 'endulging', try to enjoy as much as possible (nothing goes to waste) and share whenever you can with others (that's why I love the Xmas giveaway thread and sometimes invest in other peoples gear. Nothing like sharing!)

That's my two cents, at least. YMMV!

 

[gavinlg]

You must surely make a difference between an animal acting on instinct, an a moral being who has a choice. Some people become vegetarian because they decide they can live and eat healthily without causing suffering to other living things.

A plant is a living thing. There is a even a measurable physiological response to pain in plants. They are just as much alive as a cow or a chicken.
Even simply to grow those plants, trillions upon trillions of insects and small animals are killed every day in order to keep crop yields high.


The enemy isn't those who eat meat, or those who only eat plants - it's factory/commercial/industrialized farming and production.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In film's heyday there was a huge amount of research put into identifying cheaper replacements, including synthetic ones, but no good ones were ever identified.

Marty

Dear Marty,

Exactly. At least some papers use some synthetic components, as far as I recall, but not films. I think -- you will know better -- that the main issues are opacity/transparency and (above all) sensitization. Gelatine is very nearly magical for the latter.

On a wider point, at least cows are a renewable resource. The oil used for making film base isn't. Depleting the world's resources must surely be another ethical point to consider.

And, of course, it's quite hard to find well-made, comfortable shoes that aren't made at least partly of leather.

Cheers,

R.

 

[robbeiflex]

I think what you are referring to is the base of the film being made from polyester, rather than acetate.

The emulsion however is still made with gelatin.

Interesting, I had not considered that. Thanks!

 

[starless]

Choice has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with luxury. Lots of people have no choice because they are poor.

I disagree. Some people's choice not to eat meat is entirely from a moral perspective. I didn't get the point about poverty. Are you saying poor people cannot afford to be vegetarian?

 

[starless]

There is a even a measurable physiological response to pain in plants.

We are going off topic now, but all this is not substantiated. I doubt if it is even possible to scientifically determine it.

However, we know with certainty that animals do.

 

[vfrazz]

I've been a vegetarian for a good many years, and quit trying to explain myself to others a couple of decades ago, though I still state the fact when appropriate. I am certainly bothered by the fact of animal products in my film stock, as with the persistent use of "shot" and "shoot" relating to photography. I am sensitive to these things, and similar to the Kalahari bushman (above), I do utter a mental "sorry" when putting a fresh roll of film in my camera.



http://www.vincentfrazzettaphotography.com

 

[sevo]

Dear Marty,

Exactly. At least some papers use some synthetic components, as far as I recall, but not films. I think -- you will know better -- that the main issues are opacity/transparency and (above all) sensitization. Gelatine is very nearly magical for the latter.

Right. In the nineties I have handled technical film product catalogues from Agfa that listed lithography films that used a PVA/PVAC (?) rather than gelatin emulsion. All purely technical film for the print and semiconductor industry, and none of them sensitive to visible light - they were UV or electron beam exposed. Some of the current direct to plate lithography technology seems to be a successor to these processes (others have origins in Xerography) - but I don't know whether they have managed to increase sensitivity to even remotely photographic scale...

 

[rover]

OY, this thread is doomed.

I do want the conversation to continue, but as I thought initially, it inevitably is going to have to go to the OT forum.

Let's try for a little longer. Everyone can have your say, but it will have to move at some point.

 

[Jockos]

I disagree. Some people's choice not to eat meat is entirely from a moral perspective. I didn't get the point about poverty. Are you saying poor people cannot afford to be vegetarian?

I bet he's saying: some people are to poor to afford meat. Vegeterian protein sources (beans, lentils) are MUCH cheaper than meat.

 

[johannielscom]

I disagree. Some people's choice not to eat meat is entirely from a moral perspective. I didn't get the point about poverty. Are you saying poor people cannot afford to be vegetarian?

Yes, that's it.

When there's only one thing to eat that day and it's meat, you eat meat. When your diet is so meagre that you need to eat meat to even get your nutrients, you eat meat.

I don't think that starving children in Korea have even considered passing on the meat and eating rice (or nothing) instead.

Moral perspective is real nice, but it starts with the option of saying no thank you. With a fridge or a supermarket that allows to shop for other stuff.

I'm with the Kalahari bushmen mentioned in one of the posts on page 1: Let's at least make sure nothing goes to waste.

 

[starless]

Best you can do is limit the major things as much as possible.

Back to the topic: I think this is probably the best way to approach this issue. And as long as you are not buying products that directly cause animal suffering, that is, supporting the industries that breed and kill animals - you are doing as much as you can.

 

[johannielscom]

I bet he's saying: some people are to poor to afford meat. Vegeterian protein sources (beans, lentils) are MUCH cheaper than meat.

You're right, but it's theory in the sense that economies don't switch over to beans and lentils, but keep on producing meat.

In daily life there's plenty of moments where there's meat available and no beans and lentils in sight, because the local economy in a country is producing meat (even though expensive), but not beans and lentils.


choosing beans and lentils over meat still has to do with having an option.


To get back on topic: as long as people are eating meat, I'd say we should use bones to create gelatin for film from.

And to add more morality: after death I'd rather have my bones re-used in gelatin for film, than going to waste in the ground. At least I'd get a chance of (literally) being part of something beautiful.

 

[Jamie123]

Choice has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with luxury. Lots of people have no choice because they are poor. They are not morally less.

Morality has everything to do with choice and will. You can only attribute moral or immoral behaviour to a being that has the choice to act one way or another. It would make no sense to say of an animal that acts out of pure instinct that is it behaving morally/immorally.
When we say of people that they have no choice we usually don't actually mean that they literally were not able to choose but that they had no good alternatives.

Morals are relative, though, so what is immoral behaviour to some might be perfectly in line with someone else's morals. However, the problem that the OP has is that his own desires are in conflict with his own moral beliefs.

 

[gavinlg]

Vegeterian protein sources (beans, lentils) are MUCH cheaper than meat.

Most vegetarian protein sources need some amount of processing or fermentation to be edible and nutritious to humans - which doesn't help the cause of the 3rd world. They also lack the full spectrum of essential amino acids that the human body requires (hence 'essential') and cannot synthesize itself - more exotic plant based foods are needed, and in larger amounts, to make up the rest of the EAA requirements of the body.

Ever seen the price of a little container of spirulina?

 

[nighstar]

.......back on topic, people?

 

[gavinlg]

Stephen - you could always switch to digital. Though I wonder how much of the waste product of the digital camera manufacturing process would effect animals indirectly...

 

[Jamie123]

I think it's hard to deny that we (mostly 1st world population) eat too much meat on the whole. I mean it really is quite ridiculous how much meat is consumed. Does that mean we should all stop eating meat? Not necessarily. But maybe we should consider scaling it back a little. I for one could definitely eat a bit less meat than I do and still live very healthily.

And when we talk about the justifications for eating meat or not we really should remember that industrialized meat production is not the same as hunting for food. If some indigenous tribe kills an animal and 'uses everything' then it is trying to maximize the gain from one animal in order to kill as few as possible. When a farm that produces meat industrially maximizes it's profits by using as much from the animal as it can then this is an incentive to kill more animals, not less. Not the same thing at all.