Film Friday: NFTs and film photography? It&#39;s not as weird a pairing as you might think

The blockchain is already very environmentally friendly. Particularly Proof-of-stake based platforms that don't require huge computing power.

Compare that to traditional finance.

May 22, 2021permalink

The simpletons who drank the NFT and blockchain Kool-aid don't know that Proof-of-stake systems are also staggeringly inefficient in terms of energy consumption and carbon footprint compared to the electronic payment systems supporting modern societies.

These simpletons have no idea of how a limited number of fault-tolerant computing systems at various levels of payment aggregation and hierarchies are sufficient, today, to clear and settle not only intra-bank payments, but also inter-bank payments culminating e.g. at payment clearing houses and central bank RTGS systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_gross_settlement)

On blockchain-oriented Internet fora, the number of people who have the ability to coherently integrate into their thinking issues like modern payment transmission network architectures, payment clearing and settlement systems, IT security, carbon footprints, fractional reserve banking and money supply aspects is so vanishingly small as to be essentially zero.

May 23, 2021*permalink

ZilverHaylide

I sat on the toilet this morning and deposited several non-fungible tokens. No buyers, despite being unique.

May 21, 2021permalink

Tungsten Nordstein

You forgot to embed them in blockchains

May 21, 2021permalink

Copal Fit

Best comment!

Jun 1, 2021permalink

thielges

If you care about the environment, don't create NFTs. Creation and transaction of NFTs consume large amounts of energy which contribute to climate change.

Instead just simply sell the negative, an option not available to digital shooters.

May 21, 2021permalink

While I agree that it wastes so much energy, the same can be argued against artificial lighting, Photoshop image processing, and camera production. Film development isn't environmentally friendly either.

So maybe just take in-camera jpegs and sell the SD cards?

May 21, 2021permalink

Christopher_James

The environmental concerns are real, though mostly a proxy argument for “is this legitimate or not” as we do many many things that are not environmentally friendly (upgrading phones and gear, for example) because we think it’s worth the cost. These issues will be addressed by the ETH2 upgrade anyway - hopefully in the next 12 months.

The point about selling negatives however is not equivalent. An NFT is metaphorically the same as a signed print. Selling the negative is like selling the master copy and presumably all the rights of reproduction. In most cases that’s not viable or desirable.

May 21, 2021permalink

thielges

Txoni - The goal isn't to eliminate energy use. That's nearly impossible. The goal is to avoid wasting energy. There are alternatives to NFTs and this case of a unique photo shot on film, just sell the negative.

May 21, 2021permalink

That's simply fake news/ misconception, whatever you want to call it.

NFTs are based on Ethereum which is migrating to a Proof-of-stake based platform. In layman's terms that means it won't require huge computing power to run, and offers a far more eco-friendly alternative to traditional finance. There are already alternatives to Ethereum which are running on Proof of Stake and eco-friendly consensus mechanisms.

Digital currencies will actually incentivize green energy sources like Hydro and Wind power. This is because electricity from these sources cannot be easily stored (e.g. at night, when power consumption is down). Rather than waste this electricity, it could power decentralized finance, and incentivize green energy companies to grow.

Read more before you spread misinformation.

May 22, 2021*permalink

@certo, you should do a little bit of research before claiming those things, because 1) actually there are very well known mechanisms, some pretty old but effective, to store electric energy (e.g. hydroelectric dams, heck no batteries needed!) and 2) the generated power is controlled to satisfy demand.

Thus, green energy stored at night can be used (and actually is used because it's cheaper) during the day peak times to reduce impact. So.... you're suggesting wasting that precious energy to produce silly numbers?

Again, do little bit of research....

May 22, 2021*permalink

That is not the case, and the fact that you dismiss decentralized finance as merely "producing silly numbers" says it all.

Decentralized finance has a high chance of replacing (or at least reforming) existing infrastructure for banking, insurance, loans. And it can do it in a far leaner and environmentally sustainable way than traditional financial institutions. Central banks all over the world are already investing in this space. It sounds like you've already made up your mind though, so I guess this is a more honest example of wasted energy.

May 22, 2021permalink

Mister J

But negatives can be duped as well – I recall doing so on several occasions back in the day.

May 22, 2021permalink

@certo, did I even mention decentralized banking? I was correcting you about energy storage, right? and I gave you references you couldn't deny. No, your brain isn't (only?) messed, it's only biased by your banking interests 🤣

May 22, 2021*permalink

@certo666

Ethereum have been saying they will move to Proof of Stake since their inception in 2015. Even if one accepts their stated intention on faith, it is worthless until it is accomplished.
IF decentralised finance become accepted, it has the POTENTIAL to reduce environmental cost*, but not the obligation.
I'd prognosticate that the immediate future is, at most, a blend of financial models. Investors have to be willing to move wholesale and so far that is not the case.

May 22, 2021permalink

Felts

@txoni sorry but you're arguing about stuff that you clearly know nothing about. Not disputing your depth of knowledge about power generation, but as for your crypto understanding... there's 100 hours of research for you to conduct before you want to weigh in. Friendly advice, promise!

May 22, 2021permalink

@Felts, I wasn't even arguing anything about cryptocurrencies. Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly. I just don't find it reasonable to justify that their impact on energy usage is low because they use "energy that would otherwise be wasted".

I used the words "generate silly numbers" in response just because of the ridiculous argument. It's not my research field, but I have a rough idea about it's math.

If cryptocurrencies and other tech based on blockchains or any other certification methods are necessary was out of the scope of my comment. If they are necessary, so be it. But it is not free from energy impact.

May 22, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

Weston's print of a garden pepper sold originally for about $20 in the 1930s. Recently the same print sold for $57K. Most of the new prints were produced by his son Cole.
So how would that work with NFT? Digitize the original and sell it?

Honestly not sure how you would earn a living.

May 21, 2021permalink

I like the idea that one can sell digital images in the same way as one does prints, even though I primarily sell prints and love physical art.
I don't like that NFTs are tied to very environmentally unfriendly blockchain and will believe Etherium's transition to a greener source only when it happens.
I would note that although NFTs offer the promise of egalitarian access, it will remain primarily the purview of the already famous.

May 21, 2021permalink

It is not environmentally friendly. Compare that to traditional finance, and the logistics, staff, and the legacy computing power required for that.

May 22, 2021permalink

@certo666
That is what I said, it is not environmentally friendly yet.

May 22, 2021permalink

masklayer

Hey Don't

May 21, 2021permalink

VJ2M0

I think the question of "should you sell your photos as NFT's" is a super easy one: yes! I would absolutely recommend that any photographer sell photos as NFTs if people are buying.

The much harder question is "should consumers buy photos as NFTs"? To me, the answer to that seems like an obvious no, absolutely not. My best guess is that in a couple of years everyone will have forgotten that NFTs exist, and they will be essentially valueless.

The problem is that they are trying to replicate physical exclusivity digitally, but physical exclusivity is driven by real-world factors (printing costs, a desire for tangible goods) that don't exist in the digital world. So in the end it is just artificial scarcity with nothing else. I think as consumers realize that, they will probably stop buying and the value will collapse.

May 21, 2021permalink

tl;dr: It is not artificial at all.
They are replicating the exclusivity, and the cost of a physical print is completely irrelevant to the value of a physical print in regards to uniqueness.
Unless one destroys the film or digital file after making a single print, an NFT is more unique because one can make identical prints of the film or digital file, but blockchain cannot be replicated.

Scarcity, by itself, is not a value. Scarcity must also be tied to demand to have any value and it is entirely possible that demand will die.

May 21, 2021permalink

VJ2M0

When you buy an NFT, you are essentially buying a row in a shared spreadsheet. It used to say 1 copy of the that the photo at x URL was assigned to someone else; now it says that 1 copy is assigned to you.

What do you get? You get the right to say you own that copy. Do you get a right to display it on your website? No, not unless you have some other agreement. Can you make copies of the art? No, that is copyright infringement. Can you set it as your desktop wallpaper and your phone wallpaper? No, that too is copyright infringement. You get nothing other than the line in what is essentially a spreadsheet (or a "shared ledger").

In other words, it's artificial scarcity. Where the photographer used to make a limited run of original prints for $x each, now they can sell a limited number of NFTs. The limit is whatever the photographer wants. 1? One million? A hundred million? It's artificial. The photographer creates whatever amount of scarcity the market will bear.

May 21, 2021*permalink

@VJ2M0

Fine, it is the same artificial scarcity that any other reproducible work is. It is the same as a physical print then. And if that is a tenable model, then so is the NFT.

May 21, 2021permalink

Christopher_James

This is a great point, though I agree with lilbuddha that the scarcity of most art is artificial and NFTs are no different.

Rather than thinking about all NFTs as worth a million dollars though, why not think about them more like signed zines or prints you buy from a photographer you like online.

People still buy and enjoy these things, they support the artist, but they’re not really “investments” with an eye to re-selling them - they’re a way of participating in something.

It’s useful to the buyer and the seller, and if your zine gets lost or you print gets sun damaged or your NFT link eventually breaks - well, so what?

There’s a strong argument that using permanent online storage like Arweave or similar could actually be safer than chucking a zine in the back of your camera cupboard anyway.

It’s not going to stop me buying zines and prints but it might be nice to have as an extra marketplace - especially once the environmental issues are resolved.

May 21, 2021permalink

* https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/book/

@Christopher_James

The number of current NFTs which will retain their value is probably low. Much of the early prices are tied to the newness of the concept and fanaticism towards people who will not all likely retain their celebrity.
The general concept, though has potential. We'll see if it retains its interest. It might not, but many of the naysayers are shouting at teenagers to get off there lawn more than analysing the situation.

May 22, 2021permalink

Hubertus Bigend

Blockchain is the snake oil of the digital post-fact era. Suggested reading: "Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain" by David Gerard*. Attaching NFTs to film photography is an act of defilement.

May 21, 2021*permalink

Christopher_James

That’s a strong analysis and an interesting link.

There’s a counter-argument here that’s worth a read too:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/the-hidden-costs-of-the-petrodollar

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle right?

May 21, 2021permalink

@Christopher James
Middle? What is this middle you speak of? Things are only one side or the other, get thee gone with this heresy of "middle"
Next you will say that grey exists

May 21, 2021*permalink

Dragonrider

No such thing as grey. Only small bits of black an white.

May 21, 2021permalink

Mr Bolton

I can't buy the book mentioned above because I only have Bitcoin and they don't accept it ;-)

May 21, 2021permalink

MyReality

To an artist, their is the art of destruction. There are at least ten shades of everything.
"Ten Shades Of Grey" -by Terrorvision:
"Ten Shades Of Grey Lyrics: Times we spent cheating and lying / Wondering when we would be back by your side again / Hoping and praying to get through the day / I need your attention to see through ..."

May 21, 2021permalink

Artists and people in general used to consider photography a defilement in the beginning...

May 22, 2021permalink

Hubertus Bigend

@Christopher James: The Bitcoin Magazine (which is the religious medium of a religious cult) article is not about blockchain, it is about its specific application in cryptocurrencies, which are even worse than blockchain itself. The author seems a generally knowledgeable person with good intentions, but then he essentially tries to argue "bitcoin is not bad because traditional money is bad too", and then he speculates about a promise of cryptocurrencies abolishing those bad aspects of traditional money.

But that's not how economy and money work. What he accuses the US Dollar of is not really a property of the currency, it is a property of the economic system, the market economy. A nation's ability to turn value into more value with its productive economy is what infuses value into its currency. And it is the only thing that can infuse value into a currency. It is not possible to separate the two, one depends on the other and vice versa. Bitcoin only has value because of the Dollar.

May 22, 2021*permalink

See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65165044

@Christopher_James

> There’s a counter-argument here that’s worth a read too:
>
> https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/the-hidden-costs-of-the-petrodollar

May 23, 2021permalink

https://web.archive.org/web/20210523144501/https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65165759

Mako2011 (the moderator) deleted my post from the "News & Rumors Talk" forum

"Forums: News & Rumors Talk
Welcome to the News & Rumors Talk Forum, the place to discuss news articles"

giving as reason that it was "off-topic".

This is a bit bizarre.

Maybe Mako2011 doesn't know that there is a link between NFTs, blockchain and cryptocurrencies, and therefore that commenting about cryptocurrency is germane to a DPReview news article titled "Film Friday: NFTs and film photography [..]"

Anyway, here's an archive link of the text of my forum post deleted by Mako2011:

May 23, 2021permalink

@Antisthenes

It is easy to see why your post was deleted. It dropped into politics. And whilst political manoeuvring is in the mix of the greater discussion, invoking it as you did could quickly devolve into a completely off-topic discussion. With a not exactly friendly tone.

May 23, 2021permalink

@Hubertus Bigend

More properly, it is the people's faith in the economy that provides value to any fiat currency, such as the dollar.
Crypto is also faith based, even more so than gold or the £,$,€,etc.
In reality, it is that faith that power any currency. Even gold. Whilst a gold standard is tied to a physical object, the idea that the object has value is one that is based (mostly)* on faith.

*Its being relatively imperishable has been its only objective value for most of the history of its use.

May 23, 2021permalink

Hubertus Bigend

@Antisthenes: "Anyway, here's an archive link of the text of my forum post" – very insightful, thank you.

@lilBuddha: "More properly, it is the people's faith in the economy" – unfortunately, that's what many critics of the economic system and/or the monetary system claim, and while it's not completely false, taken literally, it's also not completely true. It is not just "faith" – it is a reasonable, well-founded judgement of an economy's constantly proven potential to return invested money as more money.

May 23, 2021*permalink

@Hubertus Bigend

Welllllll, kinda. The basic reality is that no one has a complete grasp of how the economy actually works. (Which leans heavily towards faith) The economy trundles past milestones that economists mark as points of failure, and doesn't fail.
And the average person has no clue as to how any of this works anyway, and so take the presentation of stability as stability itself. And we have seen the opposite. "The world is falling!!!" when it clearly isn't.

May 23, 2021permalink

Or more properly, it's people's faith that in a modern, democratic society, there's a social contract between its members that there will be an apportioning of the country's resources over which the members will have a measure of control.

The apportioning will, in general, be mediated by taxes and benefits, denominated in a certain currency.

There is a "faith", nay, an "extremely high degree of confidence" that these social contracts, public and private, can be /validly/ discharged using that currency — the concept of "legal tender".

In the US, pay your agreed upon debts in USD, and you can expect — this isn't really a matter of faith — that a court of law will find that your obligations have been validly discharged.

Attempt to "pay" them using, say, some cryptocurrency ledger entries, and expect increasingly forceful reminders and collection procedures that your societal obligations — e.g. as regards to tax payment — have /not/ been discharged.

May 23, 2021*permalink

Mr Bolton

Somehow I doubt the IRS is going to have much faith in Bitcoin anytime soon.

May 23, 2021permalink

jnd

When I see Bitcoin paired with phrase "post-fact era". I know I don't need to read any further. I get you don't like the new digital token and try to find anything that supports your belief.

But let's go back and realize what blockchain is. It's based on math which deals with hard, provable facts. Thanks to that math everyone can check the proofs and confirm that the network indeed operates faithfully.

Now that you have this baseline you can use it as platform for whatever reason, from shared storage, to art token, to alternative, decentralized currency than single government can't control. As you can se, enough people rather trust the math than their own government and therefore Bitcoin & other live happily decade later, more valuable than anything before.

May 24, 2021permalink

Dragonrider

@ jnd. Au contraire. China is pushing their digital currency and they are proud of the fact that thanks to blockchain they can direct exactly where the currency can and cannot be used. This means that whoever controls the algorithm controls how and where the currency can be used. This results in far more control than what exists with fiat currencies. The fact that Bitcoin is currently designed in a way that obscures transactions doesn't mean that it will always stay that way or even that it is really that way now. How will you like it when the IRS is controlling the algorithm?

May 24, 2021permalink

@jnd
That blockchain is based on maths is irrelevant to people accepting that as having value.
"enough people rather trust the math than their own government" First enough is a variable term. Enough that value is being generated (at least for now), yes. Enough to be a long term viable alternative to fiat currency? Not yet. Maybe later, maybe never. And that the maths can be done is different to them being able to be done by anyone. They are, effectively, running on faith.
@Dragonrider
That China's digital currency is controlled doesn't mean that all is equally controllable.
BTW, the IRS don't control American money, why would they control digital currency? The IRS enforce laws the American government make.

May 24, 2021permalink

Dragonrider

@ lilBuddha. For the proposed digital dollar, everyone would be required to have an account with the federal reserve. If you think the IRS would not have direct access to that, think again.

May 25, 2021permalink