Which do you think is greener?

BillP

BillP

Rangefinder General
Local time
9:09 PM
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
828
a. Using a IID to take 36 exposures, develop and print.

b. Using an M8 to take 36 RAW exposures, process and print.

?

I have my own views, but I would like to hear yours.

Regards,

Bill
 
Although there are more chemicals used and discarded in the film process, I suspect that in the long run it is greener. Consider that the Barnack has an indefinite lifespan with proper servicing whereas the M8 will likely expire within a decade or so and the materials used will probably not be recycled. Every time the M8 is replaced there is a large investment of energy in the manufacturing process, while all the time the IID soldiers on.

That said, the whole equation depends on the amount you shoot and in any case it is my impression (and my experience) that digital shooters print far less than film shooters so it's difficult to make sensible comparisons.

Matthew
 
You'll use less materials though with the M8 since the sensor is cropped (slightly less than half).




;)
 
Green is the "opposite" of magenta in photoshop world.
The answer thus: depends, if you use an IR filter on the m8 or not.





:D
 
BillP said:
a. Using a IID to take 36 exposures, develop and print.

b. Using an M8 to take 36 RAW exposures, process and print.

?

I have my own views, but I would like to hear yours.

Regards,

Bill
Click to expand...

I'd go with A in your scenario as presented. Long term, it woulld depend on how you dispose of your used computers, digital cameras and batteries.
 
I'd go with A.
I think this could change if you were talking about a new ZI and someone who uses an inefficient darkroom with heavy toxic chemicals, instead of newer safer formulas such as:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/cart/Silvergrain-Chemicals-sp-11.html

the problem with digital, IMHO, is that most of the products are new and the processes and later disposal to make these are toxic and not green friendly...

most darkroom printing and products we use are recycled (enlargers, trays, cameras, lenses, etc)
 
Back when digital was all I know about, I was thrilled to read reports like (paraphrased of course) "toxic level on sewage systems are reduced thanks to digital photography"

Now that I have researched myself how to develop (and soon print) myself, I realize that the toxic level wasn't that great to begin with, and like PlantedTao said above, there are newer formulas that are specifically designed for "green-ness".

On the digital side, I remember reading a relevant article on Nat Geo, here's the online version:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/carroll-text

Y'all decide which one is more "green", I know my answer.
 
AFAIK, the process involved in producing semiconductors, chips, memories, CCDs, you name it is using very nasty chemicals (Boron, Phosphin, the craziest acids in the world etc).

So, now we need to compare the industry of the past who was producing cameras that lasted in parallel with lots of film and chemicals with maybe less care to the environment, to the new industry which is producing self destructive, low lifespan apparatus, that are not consuming anything more but are thrown away every five to ten years.
I think this deserves a serious study.
I know what I prefer...
 
sanmich said:
So, now we need to compare the industry of the past who was producing cameras that lasted in parallel with lots of film and chemicals with maybe less care to the environment, to the new industry which is producing self destructive, low lifespan apparatus, that are not consuming anything more but are thrown away every five to ten years.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Regards,

Bill
 
The greenest.... camera obscura. :)

Another option to be weighed would be use of traditional camera + film scanned to CD + prints made in the digital environment.
 
I suspect it depends on what is meant by 'green'.

To assess the environmental economics of the situation, you need to define the parameters. eg. Do you include a life cycle analysis of each camera (from cradle to grave) and the corresponding consumables. The whole thing is probably very complicated.

The natural environment is usually undervalued in markets, but I suspect the economy (£) of the choice is still a useful if conservative indicator (which depends on what you hypothetically need to pay for).

Thinking about things more simply, using the everyday rule of thumb; "reduce, re-use, re-cycle", I have my preferred solution!



Very slightly related (about laser printing/indoor environment) if anyone is interested:
http://www.separationsnow.com/coi/cda/detail.cda?id=18331&type=Feature&chId=4&page=1
Abstract:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117891109/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
 
It's too hard to call for me with all the levels and factors involved.

I will add though, that having recently begun doing my own B&W film, I was surprised just how much extra garbage a couple rolls of 135 and just one roll of 120 generated before I even got to chemistry. Steel & plastic in every 135 cart and a staggering amount of paper litter for 120, plus the plastic wrap and box for each and every roll. Then there's the bits of leader and film ends.

A digital camera costs a lot of resources to produce and doesn't last as long, no mistake, but over your shooting life you're also generating a lot of waste for every roll of film.
 
I think that the morally more clear-headed option is for the anaiogue gear. The wholesale rape of Congo and other mineral rich African states for copper, cobalt and other things required for semiconductor production is too horrific to consider That's why I sit here typing on my laptop, listening to a digital radio, looking at the cheap digicam and cheaper printer on the shelf and talking on my new cell phone. Fact is, these are things that I simply cannot operate without - and even if I could, I wouldn't want to.

The world is a bitch. If I could buy ethically sourced technology - I like to think I would - but given I buy my knickers from primark - I wonder if I could afford to. I can't imagine the factory conditions my pants are made in are too hot when they cost £1.50 a pair.
 
Pitxu said:
I suppose the digi route would consume more electricity, fossil fuels, pollution etc.
Click to expand...

And thats exactly what I used to consume for hours on end in the drakroom processing BW film :D

We are comparing one type of waste to another; one major disadvantage of the digital route besides the medium, is the massive use of batteries previously not needed as much, even with the more electronic film bodies.
 
I guess it depends on how much you print. Using a used digital camera and a used printer, while only printing the good ones would be more green in the long run. Just think of the transportation, for starters, involved in shipping film, chemicals, paper, and then there is the consumer side of it. Picking up the film and then the prints, etc. Have to think of the extra steps.

Obviously, this is a general statement, certainly not meant to describe how anyone in particular does it (myself included); just thinking out loud, as it were, about what is involved.

I bet most people here bought used film cameras. Digital cameras can be bought used as well. No reason to think they can't last awhile. Perhaps not as long as film cameras but longer than the time it takes for the next model to come out.
 
We are here to use Earth's natural resources. The Earth has been here far longer than we have, and through much more than we could ever inflict on it. I don't buy into all this stuff, because if one takes it far enough, it means we have to leave the planet to save it. Every person creates waste and CO2. It's called life. Enjoy it and don't fret. :)
 
digitalintrigue said:
We are here to use Earth's natural resources. The Earth has been here far longer than we have, and through much more than we could ever inflict on it. I don't buy into all this stuff, because if one takes it far enough, it means we have to leave the planet to save it. Every person creates waste and CO2. It's called life. Enjoy it and don't fret. :)
Click to expand...

The concept of sustainability hasn't reached you yet, then? Reducing your carbon footprint requires you to do more than just wipe your feet as you come in.

Regards,

Bill
 
the oldest is the greenest, manufacturing the camera will cost more in resources than all the photos of both, sad isn't it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BillP said:
The concept of sustainability hasn't reached you yet, then? Reducing your carbon footprint requires you to do more than just wipe your feet as you come in.

Regards,

Bill
Click to expand...

I'm working to make my Carbon Footprint exactly the same as Al Gore's. For that, I need to INCREASE it...

And, if you think carbon is deadly for Mother Gaia, you should strive to reduce your carbon footprint to zero. Are you game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom