- This topic is empty.
The Environmental and Ethical Concerns in Photography
-
I read recently that some model or another refuses to be photographed on film because digital is better for the environment.
I could just go to Google and read up on the pros and cons, but I thought it would be interesting to try and start a wee discussion. Think of ethics aswell.
Throw these into the pot:
- Batteries
- Emulsion
- Processing
- Chip Manufacture
- Plastics
- Metal Extraction in 3rd World
- Slave Labour in Far East
Is your glass recycled??
Again, the survey is missing the ‘I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue’ checkbox-
I reckon that if everyone was shooting as much film as digital,
and processing it, that the chemicals used for processing would be a small issue-Still, probably not in the same league as regular use of a car,
or living in a poorly insulated house
or thousands of other everyday things-Though I’d have to vote for Digital being the more environmentally sustainable of the two-
but thats only on the basis of a hunch-j
jb7 wrote:
Again, the survey is missing the ‘I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue’ checkbox
Of course it is. You have to damn well make a decision!
It’s true what you say, i.e. our little bit is small, but your eco-warrior would say that it’s all the tiny bits that make the whole.
I imagine camera manufacture is a bigger thing than film processing in terms of its negative impact on the world. I’m not sure.
If we all used “classic” cameras, then they wouldn’t need to keep making new ones etc etc.
jb7 wrote:
…but thats only on the basis of a hunch…
Aha. At least now I’ll be able to recognise you.
Rob.
The second option should really read “No – film is just as destructive”! :wink:
Rob wrote:
jb7 wrote:
…but thats only on the basis of a hunch…
Aha. At least now I’ll be able to recognise you.
Hee hee.
Try to bring this serious issue down to jokes, why don’t you?
Some things,
you know you’re making a mistake, even as you write them.Though, after your initial reply,
I did think I had just about gotten away with it-:D
j
Thorsten wrote:
The second option should really read “No – film is just as destructive”! :wink:
Let’s hear why. I’m standing by the dustbin with two cameras… which will I throw away?
No. That’s not a good test. I’m in the shop with 2 cameras – which will I buy?
Just think of all the extra earth destroying solder fumes soldering all those extra wires… :D
I think it’s a mute point.
Yes, films need nasty chemicals to process them, and generate waste.
BUT. How much extra energy etc is used manufacturing digital cams? How many extra chemicals and processes are involved making them? What about the lovely non environmentally friendly batteries they use? And the extra power requirements… And the disposal requirements…
Just some thoughts….
Tim
…and all that ink that is now being used that wasn’t being used before…and the empty ink cartridges…more packaging waste than ever before…etc., etc.
I’d say the biggest environmental concern we have at the moment is global warming mostly caused by increased amounts of Carbon Dioxide and other “Greenhouse Gases” A considerable amount of these gases would be produced by burning of fossil fuels in the production of energy.
So in considering the question raised by the original poster I would be of a mind to choose the type of photography that uses the least amount of energy.
So I would guess that Film photography is more friendly to the planet than Digital Photography
Thorsten wrote:
The second option should really read “No – film is just as destructive”! :wink:
That was my first reaction when I read it too! :shock:
Forget cameras for a moment.
With film goes chemicals (manufacture of, processing of), a bunch of general accessories (trays, tanks, reels, carriers..), some equipment (enlarger, timer, drier..), grades of paper of course, and water & electricity supply.
With digital goes computer system unit, screen, computer software, internet technologies (email, websites), more equipment (card reader, printer (+inks), scanner..), and electricity to power all of said. This equipment being finite will require replacement and possibly maintenance more frequently than what’s required to process film, or upgrade to keep up with technology.
Then you have the cameras. A digital camera won’t be of any use without a charged battery and memory card, both requiring to be powered. A recent film camera will require a battery, previous film cameras had a backup manual setting that didn’t require a battery and at the very least its still possible to shoot film with an all manual/mechanical camera.
Each discipline does harm in its own way, though with the growing digital age (including camcorders, mobile phones even) you’ve got to start thinking about disposal and recycling given the sheer volume of expiring or expired hardware. Just how much landfill is there?
I’m not an eco-warrior but do see the benefit of doing what I can as an individual to shop ethically and recycle where possible, as a lifestyle, though we’re kinda limited in this digital photography lark.
That said, all this photogizmology is great fun!
Just a really funny thought about this
What about all the energy we are using just reading and writing about the harm in this thread
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
stcstc wrote:
Just a really funny thought about this
What about all the energy we are using just reading and writing about the harm in this thread
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
And then how about me sending everyone a written letter in reply to your post instead of posting here! We’d be here forever, probably resorting to olde language, given the speed of things “My liege, furtherto your most recent enquiry of the aforementioned topic, ergo I humbly submit…” :shock: :shock: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
