Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Kodachrome
From: Shawn London <st942432@pip.cc.brandeis.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 97 03:08:31 -0400

>
>Almost any chemical, no matter how toxic you wish to make it sound, can
>be managed with today's technology without creating the environmental
>nightmares you wish to conjure up.  I seriously doubt that there is
>anything any worse in the Kodachrome scenario than what goes into the 
>manufacture of automobiles and the petroleum products that they need to
>run.  Do you wish to let our petroleum based transportation die also?

Although this is true, the industries which you mention are using these 
hazardous chemicals  out of necessity, not out of an appreciation out of 
aesthetics.  That is not the case with Kodakchrome, obviously.  Although 
the film has wonderful qualities which have only begun to be rivalled in 
the recent generations of slide films, from a technical standpoint it 
does not blow competitors away as in the past.  

Yet, it is rather common to use rather environmentally unfriendly 
chemicals in photography.  Even B&W processes are rather unhealthy, with 
sepia toners containing ferricyanide compounds themselves.  So one might 
say that if the thought of your hobby doing harm to the environment makes 
you lose sleep at night, you should just take the plunge for a digital 
camera back and avoid the issue altogether.

Given Kodak's renewed committment to Kodakchrome, however, it seems 
highly likely that they have anticipated these problems and are dealing 
with them through safe disposal and/or recycling programs.