chouhsin Posted December 19, 2006 Share #1 Posted December 19, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello everyone, I have this question on my mind already for long long time. But since I am not a chemist, I have no answer to it. Maybe there are some experts here on the forum? Which media do more harm to our mother nature? Digital or film? IMHO, to compare, we have to list out all possible pollution sources: fabrication of the camera, fabrication of the film, development of the film. To me, I stick to my camera for years. I do not change everytime there's a new product be it analog or digital. The thing that I noticed when I changed to digital, I almost do no more developments (only 1% comparing to my film period). The amount of chemical stuff I saved is enormous! Do I make less pollution using digital then using film? How bad is the digital camera fabrication process for our environment comparing to film camera? (There's also lots of electronic devices in a film camera today.....) Maybe in this critical time for our beloved planet earth, we should all chose the most harmless way when we enjoy shooting the beauty she reserved for us? Hsin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 19, 2006 Posted December 19, 2006 Hi chouhsin, Take a look here Digital v.s. Film, which one is more polluting.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fuerst Posted December 19, 2006 Share #2 Posted December 19, 2006 Well, that is an interesting question. And, like with all interesting questions, there are no clear answers - it all depends. Here is a storey from the Guardian you may find interetsing: Leo Hickman: Is it OK ... to use a digital camera? | Comment | Guardian Unlimited Environment Cheers Bojan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted December 19, 2006 Share #3 Posted December 19, 2006 Hsin Strangely enough this same question was posed in this week's AP here in the UK. The answer given in the magazine was, "it all depends". If you dispose of your chemicals carefully, e.g. through recycling centres then it limits the effect on the environment, versus pouring them down the drain. The response stated that commercial photo labs in the UK have to collect their used chemicals and have them disposed of in accordance with regulations (although I would be interested to know if this really is the case). It did make me pause and think whether it is therefore more enviornmentally friendly for me to have my films developed at a lab, rather than at home (although at present I have not started to develop my own films). Compared to some hobbies, I have to believe that photographers are more in tune with the environment and preservation than other pastimes so I'd hope we don't find ourselves being attacked for failing to be environmentally friendly. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted December 19, 2006 Share #4 Posted December 19, 2006 If you really want to help the earth, live closer to your job and buy products made in countries with strong environmental and labor protections. The camera business is not the problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted December 19, 2006 Share #5 Posted December 19, 2006 Well, that is an interesting question. And, like with all interesting questions, there are no clear answers - it all depends. Here is a storey from the Guardian you may find interetsing Well, that was somewhat diverting, but also incredibly shallow. Nowhere in the article is the damage to the environment from mining of silicon and the whole IT and electronics industry mentioned. See here for example. The article linked to dates from 2002, so if anybody knows a more recent one..... It may well be that this more than cancels out any damage caused by production of film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuerst Posted December 19, 2006 Share #6 Posted December 19, 2006 Well Tim, sorry for not providing a definitive answer , but this was a result of a quick Google search because the question was interesting. The link you provided indeed offers some good information. Thank you for that. Bojan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted December 19, 2006 Share #7 Posted December 19, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) The question is interesting yes. I'd like to know more than I currently do (not that it would change my preference for film either way!) Regards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 20, 2006 Share #8 Posted December 20, 2006 Interesting question and I would guess that digital would end up the loser. Film cameras have a longer lifespan than digital (once you have a decent camera like an M7/P for example, why would you change it? If you have digital the tendency is to upgrade regularly). OK film uses chemicals, but when you look at all of the PC's, printers, toner carts etc ending up in landfill, not to mention the manufacturing process and packaging, as well as inks, and peripherals I think the balance starts to tip....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted December 20, 2006 Share #9 Posted December 20, 2006 Hsin The response stated that commercial photo labs in the UK have to collect their used chemicals and have them disposed of in accordance with regulations (although I would be interested to know if this really is the case). LouisB That is correct. I used to own a Lab and all chemicals were collected by a company called Silver lining, the local water company came to test our drain water to make sure we complied with the law. Lots of new RA4/C41 processes use low replenisher environmentally safer chemicals (Fuji-Hunt Envirochem) It's not the dirty business it was 15-20 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_peter_m Posted December 20, 2006 Share #10 Posted December 20, 2006 Interesting question and I would guess that digital would end up the loser. Film cameras have a longer lifespan than digital (once you have a decent camera like an M7/P for example, why would you change it? If you have digital the tendency is to upgrade regularly). OK film uses chemicals, but when you look at all of the PC's, printers, toner carts etc ending up in landfill, not to mention the manufacturing process and packaging, as well as inks, and peripherals I think the balance starts to tip....... You beat me to it James If you figure the lifespan of the camera... just take the old Leica ||| for example if you spread the environmental impact over the live of the camera...... you can do the math. You are still using one to I believe and there been a few people on the forum that just got some of the old jewels. I don't think anyone will be using a MB or 5D in 30 years. All the extras that go with digital do add up, lets not forget the software.... software itself is pretty environment friendly but not the boxes and manuals that come with them. I would say film is ahead in this game. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted December 20, 2006 Share #11 Posted December 20, 2006 I would say film is ahead in this game. Must say I'm leaning that way too. Add in the fact that it is theoretically possible to do film photography from start to finish without using any electricity at all, and there's the 'killer fact' (to coin a phrase!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted December 20, 2006 Share #12 Posted December 20, 2006 Film for sure. Most people need or use a computer anyway so it's not something you buy just because you shoot with a digital camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodaktrix Posted December 21, 2006 Share #13 Posted December 21, 2006 I have difficulties to understand the "silver pollution" of sewers. Silver has been in use for quite a long time as anti bacterial wound cover to avoid sepsis before penicillin was discovered, and today they start again to use silver fabric in plasters as wound cover. Maybe there is a chemist among us, who can explain what "silver pollution" does. Regards Oliver Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksparrow Posted December 21, 2006 Share #14 Posted December 21, 2006 silver pollution is just another form of heavy metal pollution, like mercury, lead, chromium (remember the film Erin Brokovick?)... most heavy metals (those in the center in the periodic table) are usually very toxic in different forms, plus being accumulative. take a look here: http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/Ag-en.htm not that much chemistry, but clear and simple Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodaktrix Posted December 21, 2006 Share #15 Posted December 21, 2006 Thank You for that link! Regards Oliver Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 21, 2006 Share #16 Posted December 21, 2006 Y'know, this thread reminds me of two things. Firstly I remember a study that showed it was greener to own a Rolls Royce than a 2CV. When one factors in the generally extreme longevity of the Rolls, it actually "writes off" it's energy debt from creation over a much longer period than the "tinfoil" 2CV. The other is slightly OT, but related. I remember Linda McCartney, fervent animal rights campaigner that she was, being asked at the end of a magazine interview how she reconciled her work as a photographer with her strict vegetarian views. When she asked what the interviewer meant, they referred to the gelatin in film. She apparently reacted as if she had never realised... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 21, 2006 Share #17 Posted December 21, 2006 You beat me to it James If you figure the lifespan of the camera... just take the old Leica ||| for example if you spread the environmental impact over the live of the camera...... you can do the math. You are still using one to I believe and there been a few people on the forum that just got some of the old jewels. I don't think anyone will be using a MB or 5D in 30 years. All the extras that go with digital do add up, lets not forget the software.... software itself is pretty environment friendly but not the boxes and manuals that come with them. I would say film is ahead in this game. Peter Peter, Yes I use my lllf regularly. Its fully mechanical of course and now approx. 50 years old, so as green cameras go it has to rate very highly! Like Bill says, it could be compared to the old Rollers that some people still use as their everyday car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted December 21, 2006 Share #18 Posted December 21, 2006 The other is slightly OT, but related. I remember Linda McCartney, fervent animal rights campaigner that she was, being asked at the end of a magazine interview how she reconciled her work as a photographer with her strict vegetarian views. When she asked what the interviewer meant, they referred to the gelatin in film. She apparently reacted as if she had never realised... Ooops, just as well she didn't find out that D76 is made from baby seals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunom Posted December 26, 2006 Share #19 Posted December 26, 2006 James I think you may well be right , but when you factor in the CO2 emissions from an old roller and compare that with a modern CV2, I think the balance would shift very sharply toward the Citroen ? Bruno Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 26, 2006 Share #20 Posted December 26, 2006 James I think you may well be right , but when you factor in the CO2 emissions from an old roller and compare that with a modern CV2, I think the balance would shift very sharply toward the Citroen ? Bruno Actually, my understanding is that the total energy debt, including manufacturing, means that the Royce still wins hands down. The pollution put out during it's time on the road tends to be less than that caused by it's manufacture. Then it's the longevity that does it Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.