Are there any alternative processes for developing b&w film that are safe for the environment? I do not want to use a digital darkroom but am fearing that this may be my only solution. If anyone out there can help I'd be most grateful.

-- Steven DeWitt, Jr. (sdewitt@targetsite.com), June 18, 2001

Answers

Steven,

it is most admirable that you are aware of your impact on the environment and the effects your photography may have. I might be fooling myself, but I use Xtol and have set up a recycling scheme for all waste. I have a farm in the Oregon coastal mountains, on a river, and must capture all developer products and rinsings and recycle everything. I print digitally to avoid the excessive waste products associated with conventional enlarging, and make an effort to be conscientious and respectful of our planet. perhaps digital will be the ultimate green photographic process.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), June 18, 2001.

Greetings,

I realize this isn't an answer to your question, but the thought struck me while I was reading your question. Is going digital really a means of saving the environment? Is it better than conventional processes? I wonder what impact the plastics that make the some of the digital cameras have on the environment. I do know that printed circuit board manufacturing is not earth friendly. What about the ink, paper and IC manufacturing? Just beacuse it appears clean and all the "nasty" stuff is hidden from us, does it mean it's earth friendly? Sorry, but I just had to offer a different perspective. Good luck in you endeavors.

regards,

-- Pete Caluori (pcaluori@hotmail.com), June 18, 2001.

I don't have an answer and will be interested to hear some responses, but yes, you must look at the big picture! You might not polute your local environment, but what's happening elsewhere for you to be 'clean'? If your serious you will care.

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@unite.com.au), June 18, 2001.

Daniel and Pete both put their fingers on the wounds, and Nigel found the keyword: the big picture. In fact, none of us is able to see this big picture. If the manufacturers had their way, we wouldn't even know that darkroom chemistry (or computer manufacture, for that matter) are bad for the environment. Both technologies are bad for the environment, the wet way because of the hazardous chemicals it uses, which are not collected for recycling, and the digital way because a lot of chemicals and energy are used to produce the hardware. Later, in use, the energy consumption is the main issue.

As a rule, it is easier to keep the recycling chain unbroken when as many of the environmentally harmful processes as possible are centralised, i.e. at the plant of a manufacturer. This is in favour of computers. It is possible to keep most of the hazardous stuff in the plant for recycling. On the other hand, centralised production requires additional energy to transport the goods to the consumer. Whether more energy is consumed by shipping computers around the world or by shipping photo chemistry, is a question which probably no one can answer because it strongly depends on the life cycles of the computer hardware in question.

When going the wet way, you may look for less toxic chemistry. XTOL is probably a good choice in this respect as it contains much less of the conventional, mostly highly toxic agents. For prints, Agfa's Neutol Plus (Vitamin-C-based like XTOL) is similar. You should also make sure you don't dump hazardous stuff down the drain just because it's so convenient to believe it's biodegradable. It is not too difficult to collect the material to bring it to a collection point for incineration at a specialised plant, if such an infrastructure exists.

Regards, Thomas Wollstein

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), June 19, 2001.

The industrial processes that bring you the camera and film and make the chemistry we use is far more destructive than anything you might do in photography. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), June 19, 2001.

Although it would be nice to have a scapegoat, this is not exactly true. A great manufacturer's plant is bound to comply with strict legislation. Also, not only for the benefit of the environment, but also to minimise cost, there is often quite a tight system of in-plant recycling and reuse. So the total quantity of waste and emissions produced by such a plant is comparatively low. This is quite different for amateurs who do not collect their waste for recycling or proper disposal. Each one of them may only dispose of a few dozen gallons of toxic waste per year, the large number of amateurs who do this makes for quite a quantity of hazardous matter released into the environment w/o any treatment.

Regards, Thomas Wollstein

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), June 20, 2001.