Which is "greener"?

Dunn

Dunn

Well-known
Local time
3:43 PM
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
258
Location
North Carolina
View My Gallery
Film or digital?

Just wondering what your thoughts are if you're into that sort of thing. Let's hear your opinions. I'm not even sure if I have a definitive opinion. I use both anyway. I'm just curious.

Cheers
 
Let's first define whats is "green" and go from there.

My take is both routes waste resources, to some extent, as photography isn't vital to survive. Though it's useful as it leaves layer of visual documents which are (and will be) appreciated by next generations to better understand evolution (well, or maybe apposite process) of mankind.

Charcoal paintings on natual surfaces (i.e. no paper) are greener than devices produced in huge amounts, deprecated after short time and being replaced by newer devices. Note, manufacturing devices still creates lots of pollution, and people would print more, that would add. Staring at pictures on screens also isn't free for planet, as long as electricity is needed to power up screens. Solar-generated electricity still requires some waste to produce solar cells so even that isn't free and green.

But really green aspect of photography is that LOTS of people (both film and digital) just chat at forums and discuss their lenses instead of going out and hurting ecosystem more than just drawing electricity. Even driving hundred miles to take a picture of old barn or sunset will hurt planet more than chatting about which tech is greener!
 
When I look at film photos of landscapes, nature, flora, and such, it always makes me appreciate the ecosystem a lot more than a digital photo. It could be that film inherently has those beautiful grainy and natural colors and tones, especially those greens.
 
Purely analog? Then film. Chemicals are the only real polluter. Cameras last a lifetime, electrical consumption of a dark room is minimal.

If film/computer -- then it's probably a toss-up. Upgrading computers and screens every 5 years, electrical consumption, etc. Add developing chemicals to that and you're offsetting your analog camera.

Digital will win in 10-20 years with far more efficient computers/screens and renewable electrical energy. Maybe, since we'll be up to 100 megapixels, we can even keep a camera around for a decade or two.
 
jparriott said:
Purely analog? Then film. Chemicals are the only real polluter. Cameras last a lifetime, electrical consumption of a dark room is minimal.

If film/computer -- then it's probably a toss-up. Upgrading computers and screens every 5 years, electrical consumption, etc. Add developing chemicals to that and you're offsetting your analog camera.

Digital will win in 10-20 years with far more efficient computers/screens and renewable electrical energy. Maybe, since we'll be up to 100 megapixels, we can even keep a camera around for a decade or two.
Click to expand...

Ideally I think your right, but the onslaught of 'progress' means those that change digital camera every 3-5 years are causing a lot of manufacture, electronics manufacture and disposal is really not very green IMHO compared to a few chemicals for developing film.
 
Don't know but the production of digital camera's is -my opnion- far more polluting than any film camera. The energy used in production of semiconductors, combined with the use of water and chemicals is rather large. Then comes that wafers are flown over the world to be cut and packaged at another lower cost part of the world. Then flown further on to the center of production of the camera's. Combine this with the much shorter lifetime and I think it isn't hard to feel that digital camera's are bigger polluters than film cameras. Recycling the raw materials of film cameras is also a far better proposition than doing the same for digital cameras. Recycling integrated circuits isn't very effective.

If you look at consumables then the picture is different. The making of film isn't harmless and continues as long as the camera is used. Same for develloping chemicals. A sd card is a small contributor to that over its lifetime.

If you look at postprocessing then darkroom is an advantage compared to a pc. On the other hand is the pc rarely onmy used for photos. But if you compare a digital photoframe that is using power 24/7 to a couple of frames with real prints then again it isn't hard to feel analog the greener choice.
 
Digital is more green obviously because there are no nasty processing chemicals.

But then think about all the exotic materials it takes to make a digi cam which has a limited lifespan compared to film. It contains lots of bad junk like a TV or computer and how many ever get recycled and recycled properly without doing more harm than good.

So film is greener in my opinion.
 
Most of the processing B&W chemicals are actually quite harmless and break down naturally, if you use household detergents, bleach or drain cleaner you're doing more damage (to the environment) than you could with most chemicals. Kodak Xtol is a very eco-friendly developer and also low bio toxicity.

Colour chemicals are less friendly on the whole, I can recommend Fuji chemicals which are about as green as you can get, most can be put to drain and the bleaches are now low or EDTA free, fixer should be dealt with either by sending to a lab for disposal or can be evaporated and disposed of by your local recycle or waste centre.

To be truly green you'll have to stop using quite a few modern systems, most require power, or have dangerous materials during manufacture most of the worst pollutants used in LED and computer components i.e arsenic, phosphors etc were banned from film and paper long ago in Europe at least are now used in huge quantities by electronics firms in China.
 
If you also consider that the pixel peepers use massive screens to 'perfect and refine' their vision for many many hours in adobe they are burning electricity, how is that produced? All labs nowadays have to recapture silver and have the EPA on them to make sure all is well.


Every few years camera/scanner/printers change in the onslaught of progress and if you've seen the piles of E debris in Africa you know that it isn't by any stretch of the imagination 'green'. Just because you don't see the waste doesn't mean it doesn't happen, I think this is why digital shooters feel cleaner, their mess is swept under the rug.
 
Not being in the industry it would be hard to say in any meaningful way. While film is not particularly toxic, it does need a lot of resources to be made. Polyester and acetate film bases, gelatin, chemicals and dyes. But we tend not to throw negatives in the trash, so I guess there's probably not a big problem of discarded film strips laying around everywhere 500 years from now. If as many people were using film as were using digital, I'd think the environmental impact of film users may be larger, but as that is not the case today I doubt film use has as large of an impact as digital does. Especially since so few people are printing optically still, and the associated waste of paper and chemicals must be far lower than it was five or so years ago.
 
Spanik said:
Don't know but the production of digital camera's is -my opnion- far more polluting than any film camera. The energy used in production of semiconductors, combined with the use of water and chemicals is rather large. Then comes that wafers are flown over the world to be cut and packaged at another lower cost part of the world. Then flown further on to the center of production of the camera's. Combine this with the much shorter lifetime and I think it isn't hard to feel that digital camera's are bigger polluters than film cameras. Recycling the raw materials of film cameras is also a far better proposition than doing the same for digital cameras. Recycling integrated circuits isn't very effective.
Click to expand...

+1

Very well put. The same line of thought made me consider switching back to film. I am simply horrified by this stepped up production of short lived disposables - the average life of most of today digital cameras is just a few years, and after that they got dumped away. Compare this to film equipment the life of which is counted in decades... and which, quite probably, was produced with less harming effect in the first place (much smaller quantities by today's standards; and made locally by better educated and better paid workforce, a fact contributing to the health of the local societal ecosystem)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MNS
Developing black and white film without using stop bath?
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
2K
Godfrey
Godfrey
T
Film versus Digital, and vice versa
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
Tim Murphy
T
E
Curious — What defines a perfect street shot for you?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
2K
boojum
boojum
Jamie Pillers
One camera, one lens?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
1K
38Deardorff
38Deardorff
PatrickT
How long do we think digital Leica M cameras will last?
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
5K
boojum
boojum
Back
Top Bottom