Carbon footprint, eco-friendliness, being green, etc.? Someone will hate me.

[jtayloreckstein]

<i>(Moderator's note: These types of discussions, no matter how well intended, tend to deteriorate into non-constructive digressions about ethics and morality, with a smattering of self-righteous posturing, none of which are directly applicable to the techniques of traditional b&w photography. Have fun banging philosophies and ideas together, but don't be surprised if this thread is locked at some point. I'm not really interested in writing repeated reminders to stay on topic. Specifics and actual evidence or links to such evidence are more credible than unfounded assertions about whether film or digital is less eco-unfriendly. Thanks --- Lex)</i><p>

 

======================================<p>

 

Hey all,<p>

 

This is most likely a question with no answer due to its sheer complexity. This could be posted in other forums,

but many are unfamiliar with the entire process of darkroom work. The popularity of digital photography has made

most of us familiar with the necessary elements for digital work (this is an Internet forum, after all), but

those familiar with averages and the usuals of digital work will have to chime in.<p>

 

I searched for this and all I could get were green filters and carbon tripods. I want to know about the carbon

footprint, environmental impact, and energy consumption of B&W film vs. digital. I first got on to this when my

friend said their DSLR battery lasted for maybe 1.5 to 2 hours of serious shooting! Those lithium batteries take

a lot of energy to charge, too! I told him about the time I was shooting some important portraits and my Nikon

N90s SLR died, and I still needed at least 2 more rolls of shots. I pulled out my Kiev 4AM and my light meter. It

was a truly humbling experience. I had always assumed all my chemicals, shipping of film, production of

film/chemicals, and the smell of the whole process revealed its eco-unfriendliness.<p>

 

This is a tricky topic since in cameras, you are not necessarily paying for the material, but for the

engineering. It's not enough to simply ask, which is more expensive? To clarify: Canon's white lenses probably do

not cost what they are asking if you look at the going rate for the individual components. At the same time, many

people needing digital components or film represents a large demand, although it's most likely insignificant to

the whole world schema of TVs, computers, vacuum cleaners, houses, cars, methane producing cows, etc.<p>

 

Let's assume 5-10 rolls a month or the equivalent 200-400 pictures. Most film bodies are used. Most digital

bodies often require the purchase of new lenses to get the same angle of view with film. You can include digital

P&S if you like... I think my wife is the only one who shoots traditional B&W in an old Canon P&S.<p>

 

Which is friendlier to this big blue ball we're stuck on for a little while? B&W film or digital? I have no

familiarity with color processing. Any format, large or small.<p>

 

Oh yeah, and I'll try to work through the bias,<br>

Bonifaz

[carbon_dragon]

Maybe Canon can answer that question, or Kodak, but I don't see how we can. You'd have to know what the footprint

of film manufacture and processing (and printing) is, you'd have to know if you intend to print chemically or digitally,

the differences in battery technology between the old and new.

 

Presumably any already existing camera is already manufactured so depending on whether you take into account

it's manufacture or not would influence your answer. Your Kiev DID require some manufacture and I'll bet it was

highly manual and more than a little toxic (the chrome plating anyway).

 

So this is a question you can answer any way you want -- all you have to do is to set the specifics to match what

you want and you can either get the answer of using existing cameras or film cameras or digital cameras.

 

And it's complicated by the fact that many film photographers these days actually scan their film and proceed

digitally from there. When I use film, that's what I do. So I still need a computer, a printer, printer paper, printer ink,

etc., all with a potential manufacturer footprint.

[bob_sunley]

Neither one, but your or any person's use of a computer/internet, purchase of any goods or foods produced in a foreign country all have a much greater eco footprint than your photography hobby or profession. So in the grand scheme of things, any single individual's use of resources for digital or or silver based photography is so insignificant it is really totally irrelevant.

[rustys pics]

Very good and thoughtful answers so far. I'd say digital is likely a lot worse than you think; the manufacture of silicon chips is highly polluting. This is made worse by the fact you need to upgrade every 18 months or more. So all the old cameras, computers, hard drives etc. which end up in the dump just add to the detritus of our society. Unlike other past cultures, which are known by their great monuments, ours will be known by the stuff we threw away. Our trash will last a lot longer than the badly constructed modern buildings we have.

 

But that's neither here nor there. In the old days people bought one or two really great cameras and kept them a lifetime, as they did their slides, negatives or prints. Sure, film manufacturing is not eco friendly, but remember that all of the big film manufacturers like Kodak, Ilford and Fuji all exist in countries with tight environmental laws. Most of the manufacturing has been cleaned up.

[felipe]

I've also wondered about this. To compare the two we need to do some many assumptions about user habits that it's

not even worth it. Do you print the digital files? Do you scan your negatives? How often do you replace your

equipment? How do you store your digital photos?

 

If I had to venture a guess I'd say digital is more environmentally friendly.

 

1. The manufacturing and disposal of digital cameras have a bigger environmental footprint than that of

non-digital ones due to the extra electronics and batteries.

 

2. After you bought the camera, film seems to have a larger environmental impact. Sure those batteries use

energy, but so does the production and processing of film, which have more significant impacts than energy

consumption. So the more you use the camera, the largest the benefits from digital would be.

 

3. You might argue that storage of digital files have a long-term environmental impact as it would require energy

and hardware. If you scan your negatives this advantage would obviously disappear.

 

For a professional photographer the biggest impacts would not be related to film vs. digital, but more with

travel, studios and lighting equipment.

 

There are clearly a lot more things to consider. Hopefully someone who really know what

they're talking about will jump in and enlighten us.

[patrick_gainer]

Not all cameras require batteries. I prize my Leica M3 2-stroke. The clip-on meter is light powered. I also love my Canon Elan IIe. It can run on 4 D cells for a great many rolls of film, with or without motor wind. Digital cameras as a rule use batteries. The cameras do not last as long, partly because they become obsolete.

 

Is a camera of any kind any worse than a throw-away cell phone?

[yog_sothoth]

People still use 50 years or older film cameras. Do you think anyone will be using a digital rebel in 2058? Digital cameras are disposable, while film cameras improve over time as film improves.

[chris_waller]

I have noticed that this year even the used camera section of the stores are full of digital cameras. Me, I'm shooting with Canon F1s which are at least sixteen years old and Mamiya TLRs which are at least 25 years old. And gelatin is a by-product of animals which we are going to eat in any event.

[john_hugens]

This is an interesting question but it also really depends on where you are, and the capacity of your sewer system etc. If you dispose of your photo chemicals in a city that has a well-developed sewer system that can process and handle the extra waste, then I'd say that film by far, is a better option.

 

Comparing the manufacture of film to digital cameras is like comparing a typewriter to a computer. No one's ever complained, as far as i know about a typewriter (especially the manual ones) being horrible in landfills. Computers, computer screens, computer batteries, computer chips etc. all contain highly toxic elements either to manufacture or dispose of. Also, as someone pointed out, it's VERY rare to dispose of or get rid of a good quality film camera. The Pentax K-1000s that I have are old, and still run well. If I'm in a pinch I still use my grandfathers K-1000 that traveled with him to Vietnam many years ago. I highly doubt I'll ever be able to gift my GRAND kids the Canon P and S digital camera that I use now.

 

This thread actually makes me like film more now that I consider the manufacturing. Yes, film manufacturing COULD be very bad, but as someone pointed out Fuji, Ilford and Kodak are all in countries with fairly tight rules. EFKE I don't know about, I really doubt that Croatian eco-law is quite as well developed as say, Japan's.

 

Either way, it all comes down to the fact that a film camera can be used for 100 years with minor repairs if cared for well, whereas a digital camera has a life of MAXIMUM 10 years, with a closer maximum (more realistic of 5) and most people probably using them for 2.5 years total before tossing them, or giving them away. Also, after a point the cost of a new battery (they only hold so many charges) just isn't worth it. The computer I"m writing on is nearly to that point, it's worth probably 250 or 200 bucks, and a new battery would be 75 or 100. In one more year, 5 years to be exact, if the battery dies, the computer goes to the thrift store right alongside a bunch of other digital junk that I've got.

[john_shriver]

At one point, you can evaluate the carbon footprint of an object on the basis of it's cost. For instance, consider that almost everything that goes into film is a petrochemical, except the silver. So some part of that cost was oil that was at least partly released as carbon. On the other hand, a good percentage of the film base is carbon, so that carbon is sequestered as long as you don't throw out the film.

 

Or look at it another way. Most folks spend many thousands of dollars a year on some combination of gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, natural gas, and electricity. Few folks can spend more than a small percentage of that on photography.

 

Chip making does use prodigious amounts of energy and water. Keeping a clean room clean is an energy-intensive proposition. Also, the dopants are rather exotic elements, some rather nasty ones. I know that at least Intel paints their chip plants as environmentally sensitive, and they recycle the vast majority of their wash water now. On the other hand, used chips are not handled well as waste, at least in the US.

 

DSLRs probably have between $100 and $400 of chips in them (wholesale cost). Much of the rest of a camera is pure plastic. Obviously the energy to make all those dumped a lot of carbon. On the other hand, the plastic itself is mostly carbon, so again that carbon is sequestered. (Probably forever, unless it gets burnt.)

[ed farmer - mount laurel,]

Hey and let's all remember that the vast majority of the computers that we are typing and reading (and processing our digital pictures on), in the USA, are mostly COAL powered!

 

Ed

[jeff_drew4]

One can also ponder the depreciation of current technology vs the mature technology. Several of my old film bodies get used periodically and they are decades old and do a stellar job. With care, the bodies could last another few decades assuming film is available. The old, mechanical cameras are tough to beat! I cannot get that same value curve out of digital unless all the supporting ancillary gear keeps pace with it. If the DSLR system (PC, Camera, Storage etc) breaks down after 5 years or has a significant evolutionary change, that initial investment is pretty much kaput! Gee, how does the 5 function, calculator compare with the older slide rule or the abacus when considering "carbon footprint?" :-)

[nickc1]

The other issue must be the points in a products life cycle that you buy into and leave the technology - one could

argue for instance that buying a secondhand digital camera one was not causing a new camera to be made, but

adopting one that already existed - ie no further carbon footprint. Whether one could apply the same argument to

one 'in stock' at a shop is perhapa more arguable, but I can see a case, even if I am not yet convinced. If one then

sells or gives away the camera, again there is no new carbon footprint, leaving the sole impact the energy used in

charging a digital camera while in your care, or in producing film. I hesitate to say how much this would be, but (just

to play devil's advocate??) I suspect that it was a lot less than the impact on the environment in 1947 in Gerrmany

when my Leica was built!

[jpo3136b]

I believe that traditional, black and white immersion film technology is more eco-firendly. Here's why:

 

Chemical colloids and solutions can often be neutralized. The key is to find the appropriate decontaminant for your solution. Once

broken down, then your previous solution is little more than a liquid of broken parts.

 

Transportation and storage of chemical wastes are more easily supported by public disposal facilities in my area. Once a month, the

local public works department has a "Hazmat Saturday." On the given day, local residents can bring by materials that they cannot

usually discard. These items are taken up by trained professionals in the chemical disposal business, and then destroyed to standard.

 

Also, while we often focus on residential environmental contributions to pollution prevention, our more significant polluters remain among

larger industries. Which industry polluted more when building the product it sold you? Film or digital? Which mode of transportation

polluted more, the one that brought you film or digital? Which mode of storage and financing caused more environmental damage, film

or digital? In today's economy, I'd say these could be tough calls for one person's purchase, but that within those big systems, you

might find who would be the greater of the two polluters.

 

I disagree with the assertions that digital is cleaner. It may appear cleaner, cheaper and easier to some users, but overall, I think that

call is bogus. The objects are both dirty in an environmental sense; that is, they are both synthetic. How those dirty, manmade objects

are used has a lot to do with how green they are.

 

At the individual use level, it probably has more to do with the degree of discipline you exercise to keep your operation clean than it has

to do with what type of technology you've chosen to employ.

[michael_oneill2]

I'm still trying to figure out what the question means.

 

Clearly, the digital footprint is much larger than the film's, because there is just so much more of it. If the question is whether the footprint of an all digital photographic world would be greater than the footprint of an all film photographic world, then I don't think there is an answer, because I don't think that these are interchangeable things. Digital and film cameras do a lot of the same stuff, and for many people the former has simply replaced the latter, but that's like comparing autos and horses. Digital cameras have not just replaced film cameras, but they have radically changed the nature of photography, just as cars radically changed the nature of personal transportation.

 

I use both digital and film, but for different things. When I take a family vacation, I either leave the film at home or use it very sparingly. In the past, on a typical vacation, if I shot 15 rolls of 35mm film, that would be a lot. Today, I can take 2,000 pictures in a week with my digital. In the past, those 15 rolls ended up mainly as 3x4 prints. Today, I might have Adoramapix print 150 8x10s or larger.

 

On the other hand, when I drive 200 miles to shoot some pictures with my Swiss Arca, is the gasoline part of the film footprint? (By the way, I'm still trying to figure out where to put the batteries in the Arca.)

 

I suppose it's possible to observe some difference in the nature of the environmental impact as between the two, but since the tools change the nature of the work being done, it's really a pointless exercise.

[patrick_gainer]

While we're at it, let us remember that the thick, "greenhouse" gas atmosphere of Venus is the reason that it's surface temperature is about twice that of Mercury which is very much closer to the Sun. We photographers cannot do much about the greenhouse gases in our own atmosphere, but we might be able to raise consciousness about them through our pictures. Every forest we cut down, even if the wood is not burnt, takes away some of nature's cure when we replace the trees with buildings. Our average temperature has been rising. Pointing to the fact that this has happened in past eons is little comfort when we realize that melting of the polar caps would put most of our major cities under water.

 

Too much preaching. So long.

[gary_l._quay]

I've been an environmentalist for almost 30 years. It's one of the reasons I'm a nature photographer. Clearly, both have issues. every time I'm in the darkroom, my water heater gets a good workout. When I drive to a location, my car gets likewise. As for printing digitally vs darkroom, in as much as the issue is shipping and manufacture, iI'd guess it's a wash. As mentioned earlier, manufacturing chips and printers and ink cartridges are resource intensive, as well as energy intensive. I'm also an old car devotee, which brings me to my main point: I could fill up and drive an old car, say a 1950s gas guzzler, for the remainder of it's lifespan and not expel the same amount of carbon it takes to build a Prius. I can only assume that my Calumet C-1 is in no danger of expelling any carbon at all, especially when compared to a new digital SLR, even if we were to call film vs digital storage a wash, which it is clearly not. Digital storage manufacturing has a much greater carbon footprint than film manufacturing. That said, If an image taken with either medium causes one or more persons to change their habits, I believe that it would be well spent carbon. you have to spend money to make money, and you have to spend carbon to save it.

[christopher earle photogra]

I think one's lifestyle choices have a far greater impact on CO2 emmissions than which medium a photographer uses (I'm a photographic

whore, I'll sleep with whatever medium will get me the photographic results I'm after, he he).

 

It IS very much possible for a photographer to have zero CO2 emmissions, but when I went through the environmental analysis exercise a

while back, photography was less than 10% of my CO2 output (but more than 5, can't recall exactly). As far as photography goes, I ended up

moving to strobes as much as possible for studio lighting (lower power consumption, and they don't heat up the room requiring more A/C). I

still use hotlights for some shots because I haven't figured out how to replicate the light of a 1950s Strand Fresnel with strobes (any

suggestions?).

 

I think the most important decision I made was to quit obsessively looking at every new gadget that comes out. It struck me one day that the

WORST lens that I own is better than the BEST lens that Edward Weston used (probably). It struck me that if I can't make the photograph that I

envision 95% of the time with the equipment that I already *own*, then I probably should look for another career. SURE, I'd LOVE to have a

Leica with a 50mm f/1.0.....or an 8x10 view camera, but the reality is that I can probably get the shot with what is alreay in my studio.

 

The other thing, in those rare cases where I DO need something that I don't own, I try and rent. If I can't rent, then I look for it used...

 

The other tricks for me to become carbon neutral were: I no longer own a car, I bike everywhere (and yep, there are bags for bicycles that are

*excellent* camera bags), and I subscribed to my local power company's wind program. When I calculated CO2 footprint after that, I simply

bought offsets (yes, there are some questions as to their usefullness, but at the moment its all we've got). I actually had *wondered* if I was

the only photographer worried about these issues :-).