|
|
Post by 33dollars on Apr 29, 2012 5:05:49 GMT -5
Which is better for the environment, Film or Digital?
Not sure if this question has been asked before on the forum.
I've been trying to nut this out & think that both formats have environmental issues. Film with its chemicals for processing & all the water used. Digital with its batteries, recharging, inks & short lifespan.
Sure I get a lot of shots with digital, but It takes a lot of electricity to get it to paper or the web.
Then again if i use a selenium metered camera (circa 60's) only the film as such is impacting the environment. But then I digitize it for to be shared.
I think each have their pros & cons.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 29, 2012 8:29:24 GMT -5
Came to a similar conclusion myself, no matter what you do you will impact the environment. Neither digital or film are faultless and the difference is likely so small as to be of no importance. Use either one with confidence in the knowledge that you are indeed harming the environment.
Bob
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 29, 2012 9:14:04 GMT -5
Bob is right, I think. Interesting question though. I never ever thought about this issue seriously yet, but I would definitely consider the "short lifespan" as a problem somehow. The trash mountain of electronic goods is tremendous, at least here in Japan ... and the disposal complicated. You have to pay for the disposal of bigger items like TVs, but smaller goods just go to the normal garbage, I guess. Actually a little bit pervert but an expression of our consumer society, they have huge garbage boxes here in Tokyo at the entrances of electronic or multimedia stores, filled with digital cameras and cellphones every day. Plus ... here in Japan, people do have the very bad habbit, that they never use rechargable batteries. It was really hard for me to get some and wherever I asked for it, people looked at me as if I am an alien or so. One way batteries are damn cheap here. You can get 10 for a dollar .. like umbrellas ( which is a different topic of course ). People buy them somewhere when it starts raining and when the rain stops, the streets look like that:  after the rain by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Disgusting, isn't it. |
|
kennb
Contributing Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by kennb on Apr 29, 2012 10:15:15 GMT -5
You take everthing into consideration right from the manufacturing on through to disposal of the used cameras, There is probably very little difference over the course of the life of a camera. Personally (since I do electronic recycling for a business) I get rechargable batteries for my cameras and try to get others to do it also. It s a small step but in total can make a big difference, not only to the recycling of used batteries but to your own pocket book. Dispite what some may say batteries should not be in the landfill anymore than old computers or cameras, They just will not break down. (this goes for anything that will not break down, plastics ect.) When you get to the bolts of it, they both will be detrimental in some aspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by grenouille on Apr 29, 2012 11:22:29 GMT -5
Sadly we live in a throw society, both 35 mm or digital will have impact on the environment, unless someone comes up with something more friendly, end users will have no choice but to get on with their hobby or work.
Hye
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Apr 29, 2012 15:41:05 GMT -5
Everything we do, breathing, eating, living, dying diminishes the environment and always has from Adam and Eve to you and me.
Whether the environment can repair or restore the diminution is a question that has yet to be answered by honest, responsible scientists. So far it has done pretty good.
Demagogues and fear mongers like Al Gore and David Suzuki and their wealth creating (for themselves) pseudo scientific theories of doom and their outright lies do nothing to advance true knowledge. They merely confuse the issues and delay the answers and the solutions that may - or may not - be necessary.
Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2012 18:09:48 GMT -5
Amen, Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 29, 2012 20:59:40 GMT -5
Not taking any photos at all lessens the impact of photography on the environment.  |
|
|
|
Post by 33dollars on Apr 29, 2012 22:20:49 GMT -5
I think as a hobby, collecting cameras & shooting pictures whether film or digital. The impact on the environment is less than say if I collected cars. The impact is there no matter what we do. I don't think many of the digital cameras of the past will last as long as some of the film cameras of the past.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Apr 30, 2012 3:08:02 GMT -5
Not taking any photos at all lessens the impact of photography on the environment. Since the cameras are going to be built whether I buy one or not I might as well enjoy destroying the environment. To compensate for the carbon my camera might have released into the atmosphere during its construction I am going to plant another tree. I already have 4 on my property as well as a multitude of shrubs and some scruffy looking grass. The dandelions are quite healthy. Please pardon me while I step outside for a deep breath of fresh oxygen. Over the course of the 5 or more years I hope to use the camera the tree should convert more than enough CO2 to oxygen to compensate. By the way - does anyone know the quantity and kinds of noxious fumes an active volcano spews into our pristine skies? Mickey |
|
|
|
Post by grenouille on Apr 30, 2012 3:57:41 GMT -5
When I look around and see what pollution is, I think my hobby is not even a speck of dust in this world of pollution.
My little garden with its flower plants, trees, etc will defintely cancel out the pollution caused by my hobby.
Hye
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2012 10:19:10 GMT -5
Sorry, Mickey. I draw the line on dandelions (although I suspect your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek). The little yellow beasts owned the yard at out house when we moved in 20 years ago. It took me five years to get an upper hand. Our grass and the five trees we have planted now give off a lot more oxygen than we can use and I am considering sending Al Gore a bill for the excess production. ;D I think I read somewhere that one volcano eruption like St. Helens or Krakatoa put hundreds of times more pollution into the air than man has been able produce since the beginning of recorded history. W. Not taking any photos at all lessens the impact of photography on the environment. Since the cameras are going to be built whether I buy one or not I might as well enjoy destroying the environment. To compensate for the carbon my camera might have released into the atmosphere during its construction I am going to plant another tree. I already have 4 on my property as well as a multitude of shrubs and some scruffy looking grass. The dandelions are quite healthy. Please pardon me while I step outside for a deep breath of fresh oxygen. Over the course of the 5 or more years I hope to use the camera the tree should convert more than enough CO2 to oxygen to compensate. By the way - does anyone know the quantity and kinds of noxious fumes an active volcano spews into our pristine skies? Mickey |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 30, 2012 12:08:12 GMT -5
I can recommend, watching the movie "home", which is the best documentary on that topic, I think ( not mentioning our hobby in particular though ).
Not only educational, it's really enjoyable to watch, just from the visual aspect, containing breath taking pictures of our planet. It also focuses on a very important point: Our planet is a very complex ecological system, where everything is connected.
Very beautiful movie. I really enjoyed watching it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 33dollars on Apr 30, 2012 13:34:39 GMT -5
I love that documentary HOME. It can be watched with the sound off because its so visually stunning.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Apr 30, 2012 14:40:14 GMT -5
In the mid 1990s we went to Florida and at the Epcot Center we watched a film that had the title of "This Fragile Earth", or at least something similar. It told how, if we didn't change our ways, pollution would be the end of us. It was sponsored of course, in it's case by Exxon. The company could obviously see the importance of things being ecologically friendly, but had obviously never heard of the Exxon Valdez. A case of not quite practising what they were preaching.
|
|
