Main Menu
|
Sponsor Links
|
Mini Stats
|
 |
332 |
 |
0 |
| Members |
Entries |
 |
296 |
 |
0 |
| Threads |
Reviews |
 |
1,371 |
 |
8 |
| Posts |
Polls |
 |
0 |
 |
0 |
| Content |
Files |
 |
13 |
 |
0 |
| Links |
Ads |
|
|

05-05-2008, 06:22 AM
|
 |
IAAP Associate Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Minneapolis and beyond
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 15
|
|
Green Photography?
Within our community, and nation wide we hear a lot about Green initiatives in building construction and architectural design.
In the business of photography, what aspects of our business can we claim as Green that would set us apart in marketing to the community?
Working with a Green Printer, printing on post consumer recycled paper, using soy inks if possible, are a couple that pop to the surface - but I feel there might be more.
I look forward to your thoughts.
John
|

05-05-2008, 06:24 AM
|
 |
IAAP Founder
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: West Coast
Posts: 476
Rep Power: 10
|
|
Re: Green Photography?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ray
Within our community, and nation wide we hear a lot about Green initiatives in building construction and architectural design.
In the business of photography, what aspects of our business can we claim as Green that would set us apart in marketing to the community?
Working with a Green Printer, printing on post consumer recycled paper, using soy inks if possible, are a couple that pop to the surface - but I feel there might be more.
I look forward to your thoughts.
John
|
I guess if we are shooting digital thats green. No Lab Chemicals involved.
|

05-05-2008, 11:02 AM
|
 |
IAAP Associate Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Minneapolis and beyond
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 15
|
|
Re: Green Photography?
No Chemicals ~ that's true. But is that offset (positively or negatively) by the added power used by the computers, the drives we use in storage, the disks for back ups, proofing or presentations, etc.
There is no doubt in my mind there is gas saved by the use of electronic transfer of files versus driving to drop off the film and back again to pick up prints. But how many ink cartridges are consumed a year (even at 220ml each)?
While there are "green aspects" of shooting digitally I wonder if there might be more to discover, than just the lack of chemistry used in film production. Or maybe digital photography isn't very green to begin with.
|

05-06-2008, 08:31 AM
|
 |
IAAP Associate Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: CO, AZ, UT, IL, MN, NM, CA, NV, TX, India
Posts: 135
Rep Power: 87
|
|
Re: Green Photography?
Let me first state that I am not on the Green Bandwagon. I think it is overall a good idea, but it has been taken to extremes by many people.
To that end, transitioning to digital is definitely much greener than film. I used to work in labs, and still do in my own for B&W personal work. The chemicals involved in both color and B&W work are toxic. By shooting digital, we eliminate those to a great degree. There are still some toxins involved in digital manufacturing, but they are minute compared to film.
Energy usage by modern computers, drives, and printers is also no big deal. Electricity, for the most part, is a clean form of energy. There are some ways of producing electricity that aren't that clean, but the industry itself is constantly working on improvements.
"Working with a Green Printer, printing on post consumer recycled paper, using soy inks if possible, are a couple that pop to the surface - but I feel there might be more."
There are also drawbacks to this John. both soy ink and recycled paper have definite archival issues. Most manufacturers already have a program in place where you can return your cartridges to them to re-use. Where I buy my Epson inks, if I bring in empties, I get a discount on new ones.
Even recycle centers are taking used printers and computer components, thus taking that much more out of the landfills.
I'm all for responsible stewardship of the earth. After all, that's one of the reasons we were created. However, we also have to look at the overall effect of proposed measures on the economy in general. We must weigh the cost/benefit analysis.
Example: I have an SUV that gets 15MPG. However, it doesn't make sense for me to buy a smaller vehicle just to use when I'm not shooting. The cost/benefit doesn't justify that to me. When we travel as a family, we use my wife's van. But if I have an appointment, or need to deliver CD's while she's at work, I just use my Yukon. With the cost of a new vehicle, upkeep, and insurance, I can't justify the extra costs just to make my "carbon footprint" smaller.
I have a number of builders that a Green Builders. We like to impress that to people as we're shooting their projects. That is another way for us to be green.
Remember those famous words of Kermit, "It's not easy being green."
My 2 cents worth.
~V~
|

05-06-2008, 08:50 AM
|
 |
IAAP Associate Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Minneapolis and beyond
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 15
|
|
Re: Green Photography?
Great insights Vic! Thank you for the reply.
John
|

10-04-2008, 01:07 PM
|
 |
IAAP Founder
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: West Coast
Posts: 476
Rep Power: 10
|
|
Re: Green Photography?
How much do I hate green light!? Oh, so very much! But I bit the bullet and replaced 17 lamps in my home today with "green light" Yes green, that is the color temp of these darn fluorescent lamps! So going green is literally GREEN.
I did find a few that burned close to a warmer white for the inside of the house, but they're still green to me.
The big areas were the outside security floods (6), and all of the garage's (6) two per bay. Then one for each entry way, and one for the guest bathroom.
Here is a problem I encountered... 99% of every indoor lamp we have is on a dimmer. The box clearly says "No Dimmers". So even if I wanted to, I can't do anymore in the house (thank God).
I also caulked every door, and window, and on the old windows put up shrink film to keep in the heat.
So that is my green effort for the month. Hopefully it will help with this winters heating and electric bills.
Anybody else doing something green and and energy wise for the winter?
Best Regards,
Tom
|

10-04-2008, 07:24 PM
|
 |
IAAP Associate Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: CO, AZ, UT, IL, MN, NM, CA, NV, TX, India
Posts: 135
Rep Power: 87
|
|
Re: Green Photography?
Thomas-
Your CF bulbs are not going to be happy this winter in the NW. Also, if the fixture you put the CF's in is an upside down fixture (Base up, bulb down), you are setting yourself up for a fire danger. The starters and stuff in the bottom of the CF's are not rated to have heat constantly applied to them.
Also, did you know that you aren't supposed to throw away CF's? They have trace amounts of mercury and other not-so-friendly ingredients. You are supposed to take them to a hazardous waster disposal site. How's that for "green"? How far up their butts did our wonderful people in Washington have their heads when they passed the law outlawing regular Tungsten bulbs? It is supposed to take effect in 2012. Better start stocking up on real lightbulbs within the next couple of years. I plan on having about 100 of each watt by then in my garage. I wonder if the Green Police will come arrest me?
Okay, I'm off of my soapbox now.
Everyone have a great week.
~V~
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:56 AM.
|