- This topic is empty.
WATER CHARGES AND THE FILM PHOTOGRAPHER
-
Assuming that the water charges come into force, do you think that it might put an end to our analoge hobby. When it comes to washing our prints do you know how much water we use ? Perhaps now our site will be full of helpful hints how how to conserve water and still manage to perserve our precious prints. Maybe film photographers should be given an extra allowance?
I think you have a reasonable point tex, if people want to stay in the past and use prehistoric equipment then they should pay more. Their waste disposal rates should also be much more expensive as treating all those harmful chemicals can be quite costly.
Dave.
I think that it’ll just have to be a cost of film processing and printing. I’ve not been in the darkroom for well over a year but still
develop film which of course doesn’t consume quite as much.Will be interesting to see what tips will come up all the same.
Tut tut Dave re: staying in the past and use prehistoric equipment :) Its all got a place and people use different media for different reasons.
Seaview wrote:
I think you have a reasonable point tex, if people want to stay in the past and use prehistoric equipment then they should pay more. Their waste disposal rates should also be much more expensive as treating all those harmful chemicals can be quite costly.
Dave.
This argument reminds me of the whole green car thing. Building millions of new cars uses a lot more of the Earths resources then maintaining an old car and keeping it on the road.
And you can be sure manufacturing millions and millions of Digital cameras for the hoards who think the latest model will make them a better photographer produces masses more pollutants then the small amount of Fix used in photographers darkrooms. Most of which is more then likely disposed of correctly rather then just flushed down the bog.
With regards to the OP, I’m sure its a question about how darkroom users can save water, not about flushing waste chemistry down the toilet :roll:
Water charges are something I don’t have to worry about, my own well and septic tank. ( And yes I do dispose of those Earth killing :lol: chemicals correctly )
Most of the water used will be when washing prints so one possible way to save is to leave your prints in a tray of water to let most of the fix disperse naturally and then a quick rinse in a wash tray to finish. This will of course be more successful with RC but can be done with FB also.
Seaview wrote:
I think you have a reasonable point tex, if people want to stay in the past and use prehistoric equipment then they should pay more. Their waste disposal rates should also be much more expensive as treating all those harmful chemicals can be quite costly.
Dave.
There’s always one to chime in with their idiotic contribution.
I too have my own well so not a concern for me.
Film and RC paper don’t need much water for washing and fewer people use fibre paper so I don’t think it’s a major problem for most people.
Seaview wrote:
I think you have a reasonable point tex, if people want to stay in the past and use prehistoric equipment then they should pay more. Their waste disposal rates should also be much more expensive as treating all those harmful chemicals can be quite costly.
Dave.
Your post made me laugh. I still shoot film and like to work in a darkroom to do my printing. I dont see it as pre historic and even if it was I would not care as I find it very enjoyable. Allot of the chemicals I use are fairly harmless, kodak xtol which is vitamin c based, ECO 4812 which is also fairly harmless as well as the lith developer I use which has been formulated to be friendlier to the environment. I think if you were to look under your sink at your house cleaning products, these are actually allot more harmful and costlier to the environment:-)
Anyhow will get back to my prehistoric hobby
MVincent: Water charges wont stop me. I dont use that much water anyhow. I wash my prints in Hypo or Sodium Sulphite which cuts the wash time in half. I also use very hot water to wash my prints which reduces the amount of water I use. I never leave the tap running… My prints will outlive me washing them this way…
EDIT: Forgot to say Vincent, you can also use sea water to wash your print, they used to use sea water years ago. Anything clean with salt/sodium in it basically can be used. Rinse in fresh water afterwards though…
Seaview wrote:
I think you have a reasonable point tex, if people want to stay in the past and use prehistoric equipment then they should pay more. Their waste disposal rates should also be much more expensive as treating all those harmful chemicals can be quite costly.
Dave.
I’m sure Dave’s reply was posted with his tongue firmly in his cheek, it’s not often digital workers get a chance to have go at us. After all we are already on the higher ground. There is endless discussions on the subject on both http://www.apug.org and http://www.fadu .co.uk which makes for interesting reading, I’ve yet to decide what system I’m going to adopt. Meanwhile I sit here enjoying Lucinda Williams new CD ‘Down where the spirit meets the bone’ a truly great singer.
I’m glad someone got my humour, your post sat there for two days unnoticed and I thought it needed a push. :D I do apologies to all the film buffs I upset but I was having a very quite day in my defense.
Dave.
The water conservation thing put me off using fiber paper since I started printing, even before talk of paying for water came up. I eventually got an archival washer and found a study on them on fadu, it recommended the Ilford way, Fixer 1-4,Print 1 minute in fixer,5 minute pre wash,10 minutes in hypo,five minute final wash. Actually, it could have been Ilford recommending the study’s way. I can live with using that amount of water,which is about 1.5 litre’s per minute for the wash in my yoke, that’s 4 prints per wash, probably saving hundreds of litre’s per cycle. I use twice as much fixer though.
Panic over until 2019 at least, was thinking of using the local canal if the metering had come in. I will switch to the Ilford method it makes sense. Good point Martin on the warm water for washing it will cut down on washing times.
Took my prints down to the beach to wash in seawater and would you believe it tide was out!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
