[titrisol]

raz-o i think you are pointing on the wrong direction
Digital photography is great because it allows anyone to feel like a photographer and it prvides images on acomputer...... but for a few geeks/amateurs/dorks/elitists/anachronists/purists/jerks/whatever is not a good option

IIRC Water and chemicasl usage was NEVER a concern for the "industry", it was just use a technology that was widespread for people to get instant satisfaction. In fact producing a digicam that will last only 5 years, plus lots of memory sticks, batteries, and so forth pollutes the environment quite a lot, and uses as much (if not more) water.

Liek someone said... If you have a piano you have a piano, if you have a camera you are a "photographer"

Look, if a multi-million dollar industry decided that this was a problem, and their best answer was digital, there might not be any other choice given the circumstances.

A lot of the motivation was the chemicals part, not even water being in short supply. But if the OP has water issues, and by association disposal issues, what he would like to do, and what is reasonably possible may not be one and the same.

If you want to do some old fashioned, get your hands dirty type of picture taking, perhaps you can look all the way back to tin type. It was used by traveling photographers back before there was much public utility infrastructure available, so I suspect it lends itself to low resource photography. Some contemporary pros are shooting with that chemistry and getting some very nice results as long as you prefer a "look" rather than technial perfection.

[Blue]

Welcome to one of the motivating factors to the development of digital cameras. Water usage and disposal of chemicals.

That just shifts it to the manufacturing process of electronics and plastics, and the disposal of junk electronics later. That's why it is good to look at the big picture a.k.a. "cradle to grave."

Edit: Don't forget all the computer equipment, hard drives, electricity and batteries that go along with the camera when doing digital.

[Spongefingers]

I would like to see a comparison between the material costs of film & developing versus the material cost of making a digital camera, including all the ancillary costs/issues. Most people don't realise just how much water it takes to make a microchip.

Just a thought. Anyone know if there is a study on this?

[jamonation]

I would like to see a comparison between the material costs of film & developing versus the material cost of making a digital camera, including all the ancillary costs/issues. Most people don't realise just how much water it takes to make a microchip.

Just a thought. Anyone know if there is a study on this?

Not on both film and digital, but there is some data out there about the semi-conductor industry. Ritter cites Williams et. al.

Ritter, S. K. (2002). Microchips' heavy burden. Chemical & Engineering News, 80(51), 25-27.

Williams, E. D., Ayres, R. U., & Heller, M. (2002). The 1.7 kilogram microchip: Energy and material use in the production of semiconductor devices. Environmental Science & Technology, 36(24), 5504-5510.

"Williams and his colleagues analyzed limited process data from several sources to come up with estimates of the aggregate consumption of materials needed to manufacture a standard 32-megabyte chip fabricated on a 200-mm silicon wafer. At a minimum, each 2.0-g chip requires 72 g of chemicals and 1.6 kg of fossil fuel for its fabrication and projected use over a four-year lifetime. In addition, 700 g of elemental process gases and 32 L of water are required but are not included in the weight estimate because they can be recovered or are released harmlessly to the environment."

They only thing that really requires a lot of water is the wash. Stop bath is reusable as is the developer and fixer. Stop bath is used to instantly halt development. On my prints I use to just use plain water but I took it out of the developer a little early to compensate for the carryover from not using actual stop bath.
Sending it to the mainland labs isn't a bad idea. They're recycling their water, not using new water all the time. There are also additives that can cut the water usage in the rinse. Look for some of the old Kodak books. They use to have a lot of good ideas that just seem to have been lost.
If you send it out for the negs than at least you can do your own prints. That was always more fun for me anyway. Especially doing composites and cutting all the rubylith masks etc. My work was always with paper backed material. The RC stuff doesn't absorb the chemicals as much so even there less water is needed.

[Wombat]

That just shifts it to the manufacturing process of electronics and plastics, and the disposal of junk electronics later. That's why it is good to look at the big picture a.k.a. "cradle to grave."

Edit: Don't forget all the computer equipment, hard drives, electricity and batteries that go along with the camera when doing digital.

This is one of the things that's been concerning me. Since I got a digital camera my laptop has been taking a real hammering and it's only a matter of time before all those things you and others have mentioned start to become an issue. Whichever way we go with photography we're using resources and creating toxic waste, so for me it's a question of minimizing the impact of my hobby at source and then offsetting what I can by planting trees and all the other practices for sustainable living. As part of that, I suspect going back to film may be easier on the environment for all the reasons set out by contributors to this thread. And apart from all that, I just enjoy the whole experience of using a film camera more and I'm sure I don't have to explain why on this forum.
So, I'll continue exploring some of the ideas you've all put up. Originally I was hoping someone would say "chemical X can be used dry to develop your film," but it doesn't look like chemical X exists. Actually, a friend of mine suggested checking out what hospitals and dentists use for developing X rays. If I find anything interesting I'll post back.
Thanks again, people. I'll save this thread for future refenece.
Cheers,
Les (male, by the way, Lithos!)

Wombat, if you're developing your own stuff you're pretty much stuck with finding a way to dispose of the chemicals. The labs add replenishers and when they are totally spent they are disposed of in an environmentally sound way. The silver is extracted and the water evaporated what is left is basically a sludge which is then treated. Back in the late 70's I use to install those units in the larger commercial print shops in NYC.
You might try talking with one of the labs and seeing if they will dispose of your little bit of chemicals. At least it can't hurt. Or ask around and find out what others are doing.

[Wombat]

Wombat, if you're developing your own stuff you're pretty much stuck with finding a way to dispose of the chemicals. The labs add replenishers and when they are totally spent they are disposed of in an environmentally sound way. The silver is extracted and the water evaporated what is left is basically a sludge which is then treated. Back in the late 70's I use to install those units in the larger commercial print shops in NYC.
You might try talking with one of the labs and seeing if they will dispose of your little bit of chemicals. At least it can't hurt. Or ask around and find out what others are doing.

Thanks, mate. I'll do that.

[titrisol]

There area few chemical X around, but you asked about low water development which is a completely different pot.
IMHO The Diafine route is the one that uses less water since 2l of developer last for at least 30 rolls.

This is one of the things that's been concerning me. Since I got a digital camera my laptop has been taking a real hammering and it's only a matter of time before all those things you and others have mentioned start to become an issue. Whichever way we go with photography we're using resources and creating toxic waste, so for me it's a question of minimizing the impact of my hobby at source and then offsetting what I can by planting trees and all the other practices for sustainable living. As part of that, I suspect going back to film may be easier on the environment for all the reasons set out by contributors to this thread. And apart from all that, I just enjoy the whole experience of using a film camera more and I'm sure I don't have to explain why on this forum.
So, I'll continue exploring some of the ideas you've all put up. Originally I was hoping someone would say "chemical X can be used dry to develop your film," but it doesn't look like chemical X exists. Actually, a friend of mine suggested checking out what hospitals and dentists use for developing X rays. If I find anything interesting I'll post back.
Thanks again, people. I'll save this thread for future refenece.
Cheers,
Les (male, by the way, Lithos!)