Digital v.s. Film, which one is more polluting.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rolls Royce cars tend to do very low mileage when compared to mainstream cars and their emissions are therefore irrelevant in the great scheme of things.

 

If all cars only did 12 to the gallon, like RRs and Range Rovers do, then we really would be in trouble.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[thomasw_]

Rolls Royce cars tend to do very low mileage when compared to mainstream cars and their emissions are therefore irrelevant in the great scheme of things.

 

If all cars only did 12 to the gallon, like RRs and Range Rovers do, then we really would be in trouble.

 

 

way, way off....

 

well it is my limited understanding that we are currently in trouble; the very real and dramatic climate changes since my childhood are enough evidence for me. I see the rapid expansion of european/north american consumerism into densely populated places like China and India as only making this trend worsen more rapidly. it is quite overwhelming and frustrating if you have the heart of a naturalist or a religious man, but nevertheless i do think one must do what is within his own control to avoid contributing to the exploitation and exhaustation of our environment. i honour any intention to try to make lighter footprints on our world even though they may turn out to be futile. the reason i think they may turn out to be futile is that mankind seems to know no boundaries to acquisitiveness, and this demon seems to be enhanced through our economic system. As such, we can only expand our desires for things made out of our world's resources within its finite limits until exhausted; but our desires, collectively, are without limits. on a purely conceptual level, though, nothing finite can satisfy what is infinite. accordingly this world may not live to satisfy the unlimited desires of mankind... i hope i am wrong.

[andybarton]

Sorry, Thomas, I think that you have misunderstood me.

 

I am not saying that we are not in trouble now - clearly we are, although whether this is caused by human activity, or merely a coincidental warming of the planet due to other reasons is unclear to me.

 

What I was saying was that we all should be reducing our footprint on the world, as we are making matters worse by our activity, regardless of the underlying cause. The days of it being acceptable to waste resources through inefficient cars is rapidly coming to an end. Large 4x4 sales are already down this year in the UK, a trend that is likely to continue.

 

How many people would have even known what a "carbon footprint" is 5 years ago?

[brunom]

As an owner of a relatively OK 4x4 I've looked ino this matter and found out that [ in the UK] transport accounts for around 25 % of total pollution, with private cars accounting for around 10% of that total pollution.

 

Of these figures so called Gas Guzzlers amount to about 10% of the private car use - therefore 1% of total pollution.

 

I think bigger savings in pollution would be found if the use of paper tissues and kitchen towells was attacked.

 

Around 50% of pollution stems from housing.

 

If our great Government was really interested in the problems we face [ rather than just saying - well you can carry on as long as you pay extra!] they should be promoting in a big way such things as bio-diesel fuel [ cookoing oil etc] which I believe for instance in places like Germany they are doing - with it being available for purchase in certain fuel stations[?]

 

I understand that for around £400/£500 a diesel engine can be converted [fuel line heaters etc] so that used cooking oil with 0% pollution could be used reliably.

 

Also I remember reading about 25 years ago that during the last 15 years of each century and the first 15 of a new century the Sun produces huge variations of solar flares that causes very unsettled weather patterns, but whether or not this is absolutely true is something I cannot be sure about.

 

We have a problem, but the last thing we need to do is panick.

 

Bruno

[TimF]

Certainly the sort of short life-span, continual "upgrade" path kind of consumerism we now have flung in our faces needs rapid alteration.

 

Just look at Thomas' listed cameras for long life alternatives.

[thomasw_]

andy, i wasn't intending my remark to be directed at your post per se; i now see why it reads that way with my "way, way off" starter.....just for clarification, i intended that to read "way, way off topic" to try to get across the notion that my own post would be filled with philosophical musings quite astray from the film vs digital query. sorry if i gave you any offence:)

 

yes timf, my leica equipment is elderly....but my m5 produces absolutely smashing images once you get the metering down pat. when i can afford a decent scanner, i will show you some of the results which give me some measure of satisfaction. i use both for only available light snapshots. my IIIc is so tiny and great from a carrying perspective; i was down at granville island in vancouver, just carrying it in the back pocket of my jeans. i like to use a only a wrist strap with my leicas...keeping it simple and not having anything else to think about except the composing and reloading the film..... i agree the leicas tend to be one of the great anti-consumer hallmarks of the camera industry. take the m5: handmade, a fantastic mechanism; but it was rejected. sadly it is in the light of its fiscal consequences that it is remembered by many.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also I remember reading about 25 years ago that during the last 15 years of each century and the first 15 of a new century the Sun produces huge variations of solar flares that causes very unsettled weather patterns, but whether or not this is absolutely true is something I cannot be sure about.

 

We have a problem, but the last thing we need to do is panick.

 

Bruno

 

I would love to know how the Sun knows when it is in the last/first 15 years of a human-decided century.

 

If the Sun has a 100 year cycle that co-incides with the last/first 15 years of a century, then that's air enough.

 

Face it. The less carbon we use, the less impact we have on the ecosphere. Whether you drive a Range Rover at 12 mpg, or a Rolls Royce at 12 mpg, actually makes no difference whatsoever. 12 mpg = 12 mpg.

 

We should all be looking at cars that do 50+ to the gallon. At least.

 

And then, in 2010, buying fuel-cell or hydrogen powered cars...

[Sandokan]

Electronics manufacture is very polluting and the cost of fabrication of plants and their life span are very large and very short respectively.

 

The extra "cost" of the CCD/CMOS is negligible when comparing two electronic cameras (one film & one digital). But as someone else pointed out, nobody will be using todays top of the range digital camera in 10 years time, but a film camera will still be running. Cost of electricity (negligible for todays cameras) but cost of battery disposal is high (and recylcing is also high cost). Film also costs the environment, but can be offset by recycling ... Actually everything can be recycled - but the cost of it does not always make sense.

 

My feeling is that film is less harmful ...

 

As for environment - live close to where you work, buy locally produced goods, use up the energy you get from food instead of paying to go to a gym or using fuel for transport. Use public transport (oh - sorry does not work for North America or UK, so you have to invest and build it first) .

[square_one]

.... I see the rapid expansion of european/north american consumerism into densely populated places like China and India ....

 

lighter footprints on our world .... may turn out to be futile ....

 

mankind seems to know no boundaries to acquisitiveness ....

 

we can only expand our desires for things made out of our world's resources within its finite limits until exhausted; but our desires, collectively, are without limits ....

 

nothing finite can satisfy what is infinite .... this world may not live to satisfy the unlimited desires of mankind... i hope i am wrong.

 

Thomas - I hope you are wrong too. But I fear the essence of your post is on target - that if Global Warming doesn't get us Consumerism surely will.

 

I reckon our grandchildren's kids will be the 'pioneers' of our Galaxy - loping along in their shiny covered wagons checking out those 100 million stars for the material needed to make Leica Strataspheric lenses and possibly more important, some planetary places where they can grow corn, breath-in clean air, and retire their grandparents to.

 

I'll miss that boat, but maybe my daughter's daughter's daughter will be out there, searching, not pissing away her youth at The Subterranean Mall of Useless Junk.

 

And maybe we'll get to this point soon than later. The emphasis on car mileage standards and vehicle design back in the mid and late seventies would have greatly reduced our dependence on middle east oil by now - held back our de-greening a little longer. Well shucks ... The Great Communicator quashed that three-decade head start real quick and put us good little consumers squarely back on-track per the desires of Corporate America - and we haven't looked back since, nor have we looked ahead, particularly since 2001. Film versus pixels? Makes no diff to me - what with good ol' Greed and Pride and War and Religion hurrying us on to our collective Apocalypse.

 

Bruce

[TimF]

yes timf, my leica equipment is elderly....but my m5 produces absolutely smashing images once you get the metering down pat. ..... i agree the leicas tend to be one of the great anti-consumer hallmarks of the camera industry.

My point entirely. My M3 will be fifty next year (and is older than I am!), but still works as nicely as when it came out the factory. Ditto my Nikon F, which is probably around 40 years old.

 

I saw recently in a lens review a wonderful comment by Geoffrey Crawley that a 30 year old film camera can be brought up to modern standards simply by loading a new roll of film, whilst the quality obtainable from a digital camera is permanently fixed at the time of its building.

[bill]

Here's my suggestion for saving the planet...

 

Less use of the

button!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[square_one]

Here's my suggestion for saving the planet...

 

Less use of the quote button!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Bill, can we quote you on that?

[brunom]

Andy

The theory that I read mentioned ,as you would suspect, that the 100 yr cycle was noted from old records .

 

Bill

 

Brackets [ ] use up more cosmic energy than quotation marks " "

 

Bruno

[Chrizzlie]

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.

 

Well said! I'd augment this a little and say: work local, buy local - in particular products made close to where you live. This especially applies to food and daily needs. Have you ever been to a farmer nearby (define for yourself how far 'nearby' is for you...)? Will he let you see his livestock? Judge for yourself what he does - you don't need to be an organic-freak-hippie to quickly figure, that local products are under YOUR quality control and worth every penny - if you want to.

 

Apart from that, any product, that has a built-in longevity (...err, use 50 years old lenses...) is reducing pollution by default. The elsewhere quoted Rolls vs. 2CV may not exactly fit this as a RR consumes quite some more gas than a 2CV ( can't give evidence on a RR since I never had one but my old 2CV didn't use much, back then).

 

Since I have a certain clue on what modern semiconductor makers use in chemicals, I don't see a significance between digital and a properly disposed film setting.

 

Just my two cents,

Chris

[alyssa]

I thought the linda mccartney note was interesting. I have a small book with some of her photographs and... I guess she does seem off in her own world.

Sometimes that is quite a nice thing about a person who photographs.

 

...

 

 

a.