Don't know why, but this question jumped into my head the other day......
Has digital photography (vs film photography) been a good thing for the environment?
There can certaionly be arguements for and against, such as:
1. Digital photography has probably reduced the amount of chemicals used in the photography industry in general. No film to manufacture or develop. No photo paper to expose and develop.
2. On the other hand, the advent of digital photography has prompted an explosion in home printing. So more printers are being manufactured along with ink cartridges and packaging.
Any difference in the enviromental impact of one format over the other is extremely minute, if there is any at all. For any "advantage" there is always a disadvantage.
Digital Photography has also another environmental affect as now camera makers are releasing new "improved" models more often which makes some less experienced photographers think their camera is outdated and they are either reselling or otherwise disposing of their perfectly good camera.
A worker at a local landfill has said he finds perfectly working cameras IN THEIR BOXES more often now. Cameras which were thrown out by people who very likely bought the "latest and greatest" new camera on the market.
Actually you see this reflected in posts on dpreview.com quite often.
I suspect it's probably for the worse, mainly due to the gear churn introduced. Digital cameras are mainly image-capturing computers & more dependent upon circuit boards than ever. Those are not particularly friendly to manufacture (probably just as much volume of chemicals if not more, and much more toxic). Add to that the rapid replacement, and you see stuff like what tygersclaw mentions. Top that off with increased PC requirements causing increased churn of the supporting computers. Then look at some of the developer formulations for film with an eye to being friendly (Coffee-based developers, anyone?). Yeah, I'd say film is friendlier overall.
More camera's come with lithium ion batteries which are bad for the environment.
As others have said, cameras have shorter life spans, than their film counterparts, and so turnover is higher, increasing the post consumer waste (even if the camera is sold, the packaging might end up in landfills).
Many digital cameras (and certainly most of their internals) are made in countries that don't have strong environmental protections. So as the number of cameras produced increased, so did the impact on the environment.
Along with the quick obsolesence comes the increased shipping necessary to transport new model cameras, which again negatively impacts the environment.
Rocketball wrote:
On the other hand, the advent of digital photography has prompted an explosion in home printing. So more printers are being manufactured along with ink cartridges and packaging.
People no longer print pictures that were out of focus, very badly exposed, duplicate, mis-timed, or accidental and throw them away, which is what happened with print labs processing rolls of film.
HinduG wrote:
More camera's come with lithium ion batteries which are bad for the environment.
The rate at which lithium ion batteries are changed is much much lower than the rate at which film and film chemicals were changed. Further, lithium is such a light metal, I think it will have little impact, though other components of batteries may not. Certainly lithium has much less impact than silver which is a heavy metal.
jcw1982 wrote:
Any difference in the enviromental impact of one format over the other is extremely minute, if there is any at all. For any "advantage" there is always a disadvantage.
Nonsense. The difference can be estimated and quantified. It will not be minute, I am sure.
I think it is in favor of digital being better (less impact), but I haven't made the estimate or seen one. I for one do not miss messing with chemicals, so at least my immediate environment is less impacted, but that is just a personal observation. I may be personally healthier as a result of not breathing powders and vapors or absorbing toxic through skin.
I would put a lot of money on digital having a greater negative impact on the environment. It's all about quantity, and it has increased vastly. Even if you took the disposable aspects of film into account, the increase of demand due to ease of use in digital photography probably easily overcome the lack thereof.
There are a couple of things I would like to point out:
1. Professional labs processing film (and prints) recover nearly 100% of the "waste" silver, in BW, and 100% of the silver required to produce color negatives and prints, and recycle it to refiners.
2. The processes used for photofabrication are, indeed, much more toxic than those used to produce standard photographic images. Wash-off chemicals and resist systems are very hazardous, and quite recently, OSHA has required companies like IBM and H-P to tighten their control of fumes and fine mist sprays.
3. There is no free lunch; Everything is a trade-off. The new, fluorescent bulbs being touted as the efficient replacement for the Edison incandescent bulb, contain Mercury. Very little in each bulb, granted, but what happens when these start to fail and get replaced at the rate of several hundred million per year? What about the one you drop on the kitchen floor?
There is never enough information to make a perfect decision;- You pays your money and takes your chance.
Where can we find the estimates and quantitative differences of how digital is better for the environment than film? My guess it does not exist-as you mention in closing.
You may also want to brush up on your 'knowledge' of batteries, recycling and the recovery of materials used in each.
What is the correlation you are reaching for when comparing lithium batteries and the chemicals used in film photography? "Lithium a light metal"(?), "less impact than silver"(which is recoverable)?
AND you can throw them in landfill ~~~ one of the Irish Government's ministers is on record saying they are harmless ... ergo read that Mercury is harmless, and unleaded fuel has to follow as being harmless too, and I guess there did not have to be recalls of children's toys painted with lead or mercury ....
What about the fluoride in the water ... safe toooooo .... have no fear it's all safe as long as their is money to be made selling it, then more money to be made cleaning up afterwards, sure it's a great con altogether .....
44lefty wrote:
The new, fluorescent bulbs being touted as the efficient replacement for the Edison incandescent bulb, contain Mercury. Larry
There are a couple of things I would like to point out: