The real cost of digital photography? II: Environment: Can you figure it out?

[Diane Fields]

"What could you estimate is the environmental benefit of digital photography?" Asher

I haven't been on the boards for days (new pup--and a 10 yr. old dog to integrate--I forgot how much time they take LOL).

I've thought about this a number of times--and still don't really know. I wonder about the impact of the number of digicams and bodies that will be discarded over the years with the very quick upgrading. I really have no ide except the discarding of our electronic devices has to have a major impact--and it has made me consider.

OTOH--the switch from the 'wet' darkroom to the digital darkroom should have some impact on the chemical waste. Years (many) I was a natural dyer (many years a textile artist) and eventually switched to 'chemical' or acid dyes because the mordants I used with the natural dyes were 'heavy' metals and required a very disciplined method to dispose of them--whereas the acid dyes used up their dyebath and I was discarding a 'neutral' waste. Surprising to many!!

So--there are so many things to consider---how the electronic components are made--what power sources it requires to mfg. them, the power we use for the diigital darkroom and computers--has anyone done any research as to how they compare to the 'old' method of photography?? I admit--I don't have a clue about that.

Diane

 

[Asher Kelman]

What could you estimate is the environmental benefit of digital photography.

After all we now are not millions of tons of chemical, spewing millions of tons of pollutants or trucking the film and chemical all over to get them into the commercial supply chain.

Digital film requires no gasoline to transport. I can't imagine that the 4GB CG card uses anywhere near the resources of the silver gelatin it replaces and inkjets further sweeten the equation!

Sound good!

Now is it really? I personally don't know. IOW what do you think are the real effects of digital photography on our planet?

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

I wonder about the impact of the number of digicams and bodies that will be discarded over the years with the very quick upgrading. I really have no ide except the discarding of our electronic devices has to have a major impact--and it has made me consider.

Hmmm! That's important. It not only could pollute, but some of the metals are toxic and not recycling means more metals need to be mined!

OTOH--the switch from the 'wet' darkroom to the digital darkroom should have some impact on the chemical waste. Years (many) I was a natural dyer (many years a textile artist) and eventually switched to 'chemical' or acid dyes because the mordants I used with the natural dyes were 'heavy' metals and required a very disciplined method to dispose of them--whereas the acid dyes used up their dyebath and I was discarding a 'neutral' waste. Surprising to many!!

Well I must admit that someone I know moved operatiions to Honduras since they didn't mind the effluent chemicals from acid treament of jeans etc! Idiotic since what planet will their grandchildren be on? All the rivers are connected!

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Hi Diane.
I have seen at least five of these threads on other forums over the past three years. The best of them were necessarily inconclusive; nobody knows the answer. But they all tend to run like this.

The film supporters tend to point to the fact that digital cameras and their media are produced largely by one of the most environmentally toxic industries on the planet: the semiconductor industry. The digital smarties are quick to retort that the U.S. EPA has forced the semiconductor industry to significantly clean up its act. The smart film folks acknowledge this but then point out that the majority of large semi fabrication operations have fled such expensive environmental regulations to "emerging" countries less concerned about the planet.

Meanwhile the digital people point to the lack of chemicals required to process digital images. But they're left little time to bask in smugness. Film folks rush forward with two very powerful contra remarks. First, they point to all of the computer gear and semiconductor products required to even see digital images, not to mention to print them. Second, while mentioning printing, they point to the ever-nasty paper industry, common to both types of imaging but made even more environmentally nasty by the processes require for resin coating papers. And what about the chemical by-products required to produce those inks for your printer, and what happens to all of those empty plastic ink cartridges?

This is generally how these threads spin along until, thankfully, eventually they roll off the main page and out of peoples' attention spans.

Over twenty years ago I spent my days studying energy consumption patterns of various industrial and consumer behaviors. It was like trying to do an electrical experiment under water. The same would apply to attempting to conduct a comprehensive environmental impact comparison between digital and film photography. My own sense is that digital leaves a far larger and deeper environmental footprint than film.

 

[Aaron Strasburg]

Semi's not so bad

Having been in the semiconductor industry for over 20yrs now, I can tell you that there are some misconceptions about out environmental impact. There's no denying that we use some of the nastiest chemicals around, but they're either consumed or disposed of safely. Even in foreign countries that's true, as most fabs are now certified to ISO14001, the environmental standard not the film speed.

My company buys chips from fabs in Taiwan, PR of China, and Japan. All of those companies are ISO14001 certified. It's sort of a viral thing. We're ISO14001 certified, so our main suppliers have to be certified or working toward certification, then their many suppliers have to be certified, and on down the line. Even China is becoming much more serious about environmental protection, and they need it.

The better argument is in the cast off equipment. There's essentially nothing thrown away except that horrible plastic packaging that your new memory card came in until you retire your old camera (some day I'd like to meet the person that invented that in a dark alley). From a landfill point of view that old camera's not too bad as it doesn't really contain much to pollute groundwater, what seems to me to be the most serious pollution problem. If it uses rechargeable batteries that last for a few years even better. Throwing that old camera away is relatively innocuous because it will still be an old camera in 1000yrs. You can't say that about consumables for film.

Shooting digitally, print chemically (Fuji Frontier, etc) seems like the worst combination. A little leftover glycerin in a recyclable plastic shell from my inkjet seems pretty minor.

I do think that Ken's right, though. You're going to come up with the answer you want when you do your studies, just like ethanol and most other complex questions.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Over twenty years ago I spent my days studying energy consumption patterns of various industrial and consumer behaviors. It was like trying to do an electrical experiment under water. The same would apply to attempting to conduct a comprehensive environmental impact comparison between digital and film photography. My own sense is that digital leaves a far larger and deeper environmental footprint than film.

Have we not better resources?

I'd think there arenow much more sophisticated computer models for costing out environmental imapacts of two alternative approaches to anything.

In this case one can see a number of models. The work of a wedding photographers with x number of weddings per year and the work being done with either digtial or fim photography.

Each supply line's cost should be calculable. I wonder that htis has not already been someone's Ph.D Thesis!

Asher

 

[Ken Tanaka]

@ Aaron: Thank you! I was genuinely hoping that someone with current first-hand semiconductor industry knowledge would rebut my comments. It's very heartening to see that the world-wide production processes are being environmentally refined. Very heartening.

@ Asher: It's been many years since I've participated in the energy conservation business. But I'd be willing to bet that the state of general knowledge of life-cycle energy consumption is little changed since I left it. It's not something that a computer can just whip up. (I actually worked for the most formidable scientific computing company in the world at that time.) It requires a great deal of data, much of which is not even collected.

Estimating environmental impact is an exponentially more complex undertaking than estimating total energy consumption. I am sure that detailed studies are attempted for smaller-scope analyses. But analyzing something as complex and amorphous as digital photography would be a Herculean undertaking.

So the debate will roll on.

 

[Diane Fields]

I'm not sure how I become the instigator of this thread LOL--I was replying to a new thread started by Asher--but maybe it was all spun together with another thread I saw into one thread. Nonetheless the other posts were interesting and helpful. I had just done a quick reply and hadn't had time to think further--altho' the environment is a major interest of mine. As I said, it was the reason for moving from one type of dyeing to another in the past--but I chose that route with research--which I haven't done with digital.

Diane

 

[Scott B. Hughes]

Asher, you're speediness in replying to the OP gives a new meaning to "Quick Reply"!

Both were posted at 1:19PM! OK... back to your discussion.