Film Vs Digital

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would suggest, seeing that film cameras have been thrown away for over a hundred years, that the total number of discarded film cameras is higher that the number of digital ones.

 

Let me see, what "for life cameras" have I thrown into the dustbin? A whole series of consumable ones like Agfa Clicks and Clacks, a number of irretrievably broken folders, Brownies, box cameras, some 1970ies Praktikas, Revues, and some more low grade stuff I can't remember. Film containers, old darkroom gear, etc. Not to mention all developer and fixer poured away before the age of disposing correctly.< What do amateurs do with their chemicals nowadays I wonder? > How many digital ones landed in the bin? One Ricoh P&S I think, the rest is either sold or in my cupboard.

 

Jaap - I don't any longer believe in the 'for life' thing either - our current lifestyle doesn't really fit that paradigm anymore. But as I've written elsewhere, my father used an OM1n for his entire adult life, and my mother still uses a horrible P&S she bought in the 80s and is more than happy with it.

 

My partner's father part-exchanged his film camera for a digital unit about ten years ago - I have no idea how long he'd used the film camera, but since then he has 'upgraded' his digital camera three (or is it four?) times. He reads the magazines that fuel his musings about new upgrades. When I visit and sit reading the reviews it takes me about ten minutes before I'm also saying to my long-suffering partner that maybe I should get one of those neat little EP1s or possibly an EP2, (or is the GF1 better) as a daily carry-round...

 

Constant updates, upgrades, more and/or better pixels. A flatter screen, a new iPhone, blu-ray, faster wash cycle, more miles to the gallon... It's an undeniable fact of life.

 

Blaming film for being more environmentally unfriendly just won't wash, imho.

[jaapv]

Mani, in my book it is not the gear that is environment-unfriendly, it is the user. As long as gear is not disposed of properly, we will have problems, irrespective of the hardware.

[plasticman]

Mani, in my book it is not the gear that is environment-unfriendly, it is the user. As long as gear is not disposed of properly, we will have problems, irrespective of the hardware.

 

Our lives are all about consuming and using and disposing - more so now than at any time in human history. Naturally we should all do our best to limit the impact we have on the world - and one thing we could plausibly do is try to forego at least some of the lust we have for new gadgets on a constant basis.

 

As I said, I'm as guilty as any (today I'm looking into how quickly I can get hold of two new iPhones), but I bridled at the suggestion that film is environmentally 'dirtier' than digital. A simplistic notion imo.

[jaapv]

Oh - I quite agree - mty post was aimed at the far too simplisitic: "Film cameras are for life" cliché. Folks tend to forget how many film cameras have been scrapped, and were fit for nothing else too.

[honcho]

I think the images in the OP's link have some documentary interest, even though they are poor quality scans of dirty, grainy originals.

 

The pro-film brigade should remember that we would not even be able to view these images without the benefits of digital technology. That will apply for the foreseeable future, so I really don't understand comments concerning the 'longevity' of digital files.

 

Personally, I thought this argument had burned itself out in the 80's.

[pgk]

Why was the Hasselblad Xpan discontinued;)?

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why was the Hasselblad Xpan discontinued;)?

 

Lead solder on the circuit boards, as you obviously know. The interesting point in this case, was that the amounts were so small that they were not considered an environmental hazard on disposal, but that manufacturing the component could be harmful to those working with the boards.

 

The actual EC directive that killed the camera was aimed at curtailing the use of lead solder in electronics with a short life: computers and cellphones, in fact. The camera could possibly have been exempted because it didn't fall within this category - but Fuji did nothing as they wanted to move on to more profitable throwaway digital production

 

PS: this debate is really a waste of time. Digital camera users pointing fingers at film for being environmentally unfriendly remind me of the ads proclaiming a new car model to be 'environmentally friendly' (I've even made some of those myself). No cars are friendly to the environment, some are simply less unfriendly.

[pico]

Allan points to the convenience of digital, and to the fact of less waste for hiim. Good.

 

However, to study the environmental impact of the manufacture of semiconductors is a real project. How _much_ does someone want to know this information? I am at home now and cannot get into the subscription-only journals. What is interesting is how very much such information is locked-up in proprietary journals, when most of the research is publically funded. Shame! But I say that a lot.

 

At work I have access to the articles. If I have time, I will post some Fair Use portions of articles. Such does loosely fall within the scope of my work there.

 

In the meantime, a taste:

The scale of environmental impacts associated with the manufacture of microchips is characterized through analysis of material and energy inputs into processes in the production chain. The total weight of secondary fossil fuel and chemical inputs to produce and use a single 2-gram 32MB DRAM chip are estimated at 1600 g and 72 g, respectively. Use of water and elemental gases (mainly N2) in the fabrication stage are 32000 and 700 g per chip, respectively. The production chain yielding silicon wafers from quartz uses 160 times the energy required for typical silicon, indicating that purification to semiconductor grade materials is energy intensive. Due to its extremely low-entropy, organized structure, the materials intensity of a microchip is orders of magnitude higher than that of “traditional” goods. Future analysis of semiconductor and other low entropy high-tech goods needs to include the use of secondary materials, especially for purification. (What that means is the author(s) did not fully study the cases.)

[pgk]

PS: this debate is really a waste of time.

My point entirely. ALL products utilise resources and produce waste. Film cameras had a longer usable life generally but used unpleasant chemistry to produce images, digital have a shorter life and so are disposed of more often (someone mentioned a 1DS, which as an expensive 'pro' camera had a longer life than the cheaper dSLRs which soon become uneconomic to repair). Its a pointless debate unless people want to shift away from a consumer lifestyle ..... no, didn't thinks so:(!

 

I look at this thread for a bit on entertainment and am amazed that it has gone on so long and that people are prepared continue to debate (argue) the whole film vs. digital even now.

[plasticman]

My point entirely. ALL products utilise resources and produce waste. Film cameras had a longer usable life generally but used unpleasant chemistry to produce images, digital have a shorter life and so are disposed of more often (someone mentioned a 1DS, which as an expensive 'pro' camera had a longer life than the cheaper dSLRs which soon become uneconomic to repair). Its a pointless debate unless people want to shift away from a consumer lifestyle ..... no, didn't thinks so:(!

 

I look at this thread for a bit on entertainment and am amazed that it has gone on so long and that people are prepared continue to debate (argue) the whole film vs. digital even now.

 

I agree the debate is mostly pointless - but I object to the fallacy so broadly disseminated on the net that digital is somehow more environmentally friendly than film. Each has its impact on the environment, and in the case of our electronic lifestyle, the impacts sometimes directly include the death of children in third world countries. That 'invisible' cost is something we'd rather not know about.

 

In the case of the XPan, I'd find it interesting to know whether it is more ethically 'correct' to buy a used unit that's already seen twelve years of use, with the intention of giving it at least twelve more, or go out and buy (say) a new Olympus EP2 that I'd use for two or possibly three years before putting it in a drawer where it would gather dust until thrown away six years from now?

[AlanG]

I agree the debate is mostly pointless - but I object to the fallacy so broadly disseminated on the net that digital is somehow more environmentally friendly than film. Each has its impact on the environment, and in the case of our electronic lifestyle, the impacts sometimes directly include the death of children in third world countries. That 'invisible' cost is something we'd rather not know about.

 

I wasn't talking only about environmental impact but also the cost in additional time, money and space required. Nobody has addressed these issues.

 

Talking about electronic lifestyle is really not relevant to what I was saying. You are using a general concern to try to counter a specific issue. For all I know, mining silver and processing other materials needed for film and associated chemicals has similar issues. At one time, Kodak terribly polluted the Genesee River. And there is still a lot of concern about pollution in the Rochester area. (I used to live there.)

 

http://www.coldtype.net/Assets/pdfs/17.Nim.May27.pdf

 

"Carcinogens. Eastman Kodak Company dumped more cancer causing chemicals into the nation's waters than any other company, 879,000 pounds between 1990 and 1994, according to the TRI. All of these discharges went into the Genesee River in New York."

 

From: Dishonorable Discharge | Environmental Working Group

 

Buy two cameras an M9 with 10 memory cards and an MP and about 3,000 rolls of film. Shoot 100,000 images on each and measure the total impact on the environment, keeping in mind all the things I listed and others that may be appropriate. I know that I felt bad to pay for and then throw away so much film - processed, unprocessed, and Polaroid

[Bartie]

Sorry Guys but what a totally pointless debate..................

[plasticman]

I'd be willing to listen to this self-righteous sermon from someone who's decided to forgo the comforts of modern consumer society - no car, no electricity, no polluting electronics or plastics, whatsoever.

But it makes me sick to the stomach to read the rank hypocrisy of this garbage from a person who isn't willing to give up anything - but goes to great lengths and wastes time and effort to lecture others about their choices.

 

I'm not going to defend Kodak, but the main carcinogen that they have irresponsibly dumped into the environment is still used in inkjet inks. And if we're supposed to be boycotting Kodak, where does that leave the M9 (and many other digital cameras using Kodak sensors)?

 

Alan: sell your car, give up your computer(s) and cellphones, make your home environmentally neutral, give away your digital cameras and anything else made of plastic, then come back and give your self-righteous lectures about the evil of film (you can use the computer in your local library).

[AlanG]

 

 

 

Alan: sell your car, give up your computer(s) and cellphones, make your home environmentally neutral, give away your digital cameras and anything else made of plastic, then come back and give your self-righteous lectures about the evil of film (you can use the computer in your local library).

 

It just so happens that I ride a bike 100+ miles per week.

 

I didn't make a sermon nor was I being self-righteous. I merely listed the steps required for me when I shot film and what steps I now require when shooting digitally. If you are going to discuss something, why not stick to the facts rather than throw all of these opinions and hostility into it?

 

I think you are reading way more into this than anything I said. I have no idea why you are over-reacting so strongly. Nor do I understand why you feel the need to be so vociferous rather than just accept that the list I made for what is involved in shooting film is obviously true... whether you find it acceptable or not to deal with all these steps and costs for your operation is your choice. I never said to boycott Kodak but simply showed that film manufacturing and processing didn't have a very good environmental track record.

 

I never told anyone what to do nor did I suggest that people should stop shooting film. I did say that if you examine my list, you might have a better understanding of why so many photographers primarily shoot digitally now.

 

I simply said the costs (including time, money, and space) plus waste, of shooting film made digital much more attractive to me. If the balance went towards film, I'd still be using it.

 

500 rolls a year adds up to about $10,000 plus the cost of Polaroids, all the time spent testing film, and running it around as I listed. I can't say I have records of how many rolls I shot each year but in the 20 years that I shot a decent volume commercially on film, it probably came to about $300,000+ for the film and processing alone, plus all the associated costs. Probably only 10% of this film was saved. And of that, I scanned many of the images needed for jobs and the film is simply a back-up that has rarely been needed. I go through my film files and throw away the old projects periodically. I also spent about $12,000 on scanners.

 

In the past 7 years that I have shot digitally, I've spent under $15,000 on digital camera bodies and memory cards. I also saved huge amounts of time and other costs related to using film. I sold off a lot of gear when I went digital, so the out of pocket expense was very very low. There are no photographic expenses (other than camera depreciation and misc. supplies) when I shoot a job digitally. And now one can buy decent digital cameras for fairly low prices. Plus digital cameras are the only "practical" way to shoot virtual tours and other projects that I probably would not have been able to do if I only shot film.

[plasticman]

I didn't make a sermon nor was I being self-righteous. I merely listed the steps required for me when I shot film and what steps I now require when shooting digitally. If you are going to discuss something, why not stick to the facts rather than throw all of these opinions and hostility into it?

 

I notice that you threw in this extra paragraph in an extra edit - it neatly turns things around and I guess you hope it puts me on the defensive, and makes me seem like the bad guy.

 

The point is, I've read your posts in this and other threads. Your contributions are selective and self-serving imho. Why anyone goes to the sheer bother of accumulating these random factoids and 'statistics' is beyond me, quite frankly. If you don't want to shoot film then don't - but spare those of us who still do the spurious selective comparisons with digital.

 

As I've said, I personally shoot both film and digital. I work professionally in a business that constantly and insatiably consumes and disseminates imagery - I know perfectly well that (for the most part) digital is the only solution for those needs.

 

What I don't need is the lecturing.

[AlanG]

What I don't need is the lecturing.

 

Geez... and did I misread the title of this thread somehow?

 

One of my drawers...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!