Eco-Friendly Photography? Inkjet/Digi or Silver? or ?

[Ed K.]

This is not a film vs. digital question, but rather a request for opions regarding which is truly more environmentally friendly...or even which causes more harm. I'm not talking about which makes a better looking or more valuable print.

A few thoughts to kick it off:

Both require manufactured equipment.
Computer type stuff is usually more toxic to dispose of.
Computer stuff has nowhere near the lifespan of traditional equipment.
Plastics, metals and inks are probably bad in landfills, no?
Batteries aren't exactly eco-friendly either, no?
Making film and photo products probably generates pollution.
Chemical wastewater does have some issues, but for city folks, no problem.
Digital printers do waste paper and ink just as silver prints can be wasted.
Selenium toners and EDTA are definitely bad news for the environment.
Silver photographs might last longer than inkjets in spite of what manufacturers say.
Most cities don't care about waste from ink cartridges.
Some cities care alot about wet chemicals when used in any significant volume.
Water pollution is starting to become a much more critical issue lately.
A traditional darkroom uses more water, but less power (unless using a UV burner)
Computers pollute initially in another country (at least not in US) when made.
Digital products are essentially computers.

Which is more friendly to the environment, considering the big picture?
How would you make your case to a city planner if you wanted to do a startup biz?
Is the Internet with digital viewing of images actually more eco-friendly? (cringe!)
Are silverfast chemicals more "friendly" ?
How can photographers overcome the environmental issues associated with their craft?

:confused:

[davidb]

where does all that plastic stuff (printers, computers, ink cartridges etc) go when it is used up?

[paulr]

This kind of question is always tricky to answer ... it gets into things like life expectancy of the gear, disposal/recycling options, in-depth studies of these options, manufacturing and shipping impact, volume of disposables used, etc. etc..

Some things are hard to track down ... like the impacts of the manufacture of printer cartridges and silver papers, etc.

I suspect that it's possible to do darkroom photography in a very low impact way IF you avoid certain chemicals and are conscientous about recovering silver. Of course this is ignoring those issues surrounding the manufacture of the materials.

By the way, selenium toner is not actually so high on the list of darkroom evils. Silver compounds in the exhausted fix are a much bigger concern, as are metal compounds used in toners, intensifiers, etc..

If I were in the city planning biz, the first way I'd address darkroom polution is by making it easy for people to dispose of their chemicals properly. Some states make it nearly impossible by categorizing exhausted fix as toxic waste, and therefore making it illegal to transport! So photo labs aren't alowd to accept it, and people end up dumping it down the drain. Brilliant. I think removal of self-defeating laws like that, added incentives for private businesses like labs to accept the waste, and an education program (brochures? website?) would go a long way. Most of the cities that have silver problems in the wastewater say it's from small darkrooms (homes, schools, dental offices, etc.).

On the digital end I'd support laws that require manufacturers to take back discarded equipment for proper recycling (some do this voluntarily).

Looking at the big picture, darkroom waste is going to be a smaller and smaller problem as fewer people use traditional materials. And digital waste is going to become a bigger problem on a global scale ... with digital photography making up a tiny portion of it.

[davidb]

Intel chips are made here in Rio Rancho New Mexico, one of the driest places in the USA.

Guess how much water they use a day?

FOUR Million gallons PER DAY

See this. (http://svtc.igc.org/resource/pubs/execsum.htm)

[Oren Grad]

I'm not sure collecting uninformed opinion on a topic like this is a path to enlightenment. Most people have no clue about the relevant facts and analyses. Even folks here who are very conscientious about their craft and try hard to learn about and follow best environmental practices in their own work know little or nothing about the rest of the product lifecycles.

Your initial thoughts are fine as far as they go, but if you're serious about answering the question, you're looking at a comprehensive environmental/economic model of the alternatives. It can be done, but I'd guess it would be several months' work by an academic or someone with comparable training who's familiar with analysis of product lifecycles and environmental impacts.

[Jim Chinn]

They both have negative impacts on the environment and use up valuable resources. I would think today digital has a larger impact due to toxicity of inks, dyes and the processes used to make them as well as the previously mentioned problem with disposal of half used cartrideges, obsolete printers, scanners, cameras etc.

But in its hayday, manufacture of traditional products was probably far worse since there was no real environmental regulations untill the late 60s early 70s. And where do all those obsolete enlargers and film cameras end up? In the same land fill next to last year's printers.

So you pick you poison and do what every other photographer does. Rationalize the amount that you contribute to polluting the environment.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Digital is far less damaging to the environment- provided you use a digital camera, and delete each photo soon after you take it (except for the true keepers, of course!).

[Greg Lockrey]

Things that are "safer" for the enviroment aren't always what they seem. I read an article last week, but don't know where, that was a study done by this expert in the enviroment who somehow measured the "carbon frootprint" of a man walking 3 miles verses driving the same distance in a car. Everything was measured from the manufacture of the car the gas used etc. and the preparation food from growing it and slaughtering the meat to distribution required to make the trek. The use of the car was about 2.5 lbs of carbon and the the walker used 4 lbs.

[Patrik Roseen]

Ed.K, this is an interesting topic and one which most of us probably (should) have given some thought.

When does a larger negative size (film) nolonger make any sense?
Yes, we are all impressed by a filmsize of 12x20" but considering the amount of chemicals used for producing it and developing...is it really worth it?

I use film only and to be sure I get the right exposure I bracket...2 - 3 times more film than what should be required for the final print.

On the other hand buying used LF gear means a perfect example of environmental friendly reuse, apart from shipping across the globe.

[Gordon Moat]

Some commercial inkjet and flatbed printers are moving towards eco-solvent inks. These do not emit the fumes more common in solvent inks. Unfortunately there are none of these systems within the reach of enthusiasts.

I think as a consumer, you have more to worry about with your personal impact on the environment than what type of gear you use for photography. Most of the enthusiasts I have seen are very careful about their gear, and the images they output. People probably create more impact in the course of their regular lives.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Marko]

Let's face it - almost anything we do as individuals is just a fool's errand.

Decisions made by a few people in Washington steered by a few hundred lobbyists for various interested industries/corporations is what really makes an impact. The remaining 299 million of us get to sort our garbage and try to behave in a way that makes us feel good, but the impact we make is miniscule in the long run.

If we are really serious about conserving natural resources - and please note that I am not saying "preserving" because we have to use some energy and some resources in the course of our lives - then we need to affect the policies much more than simply our day to day behaviour.

If we think that switching from Sequoia to Prius will make any kind of real impact, we're simply kidding ourselves. What we really need is a thorough change of lifestyle and even more radical change in policy making. Invest heavily into clean energy sources and technologies. Reduce consumption. Reduce or at least meaningfully control industrial emissions and waste. That's where the real impact lies.

And above all, outlaw lobbying and redirect the millions or even billions expended on it toward research.

[Robert Hughes]

I'm not convinced that outlawing lobbying would be beneficial or make much difference. Besides, anybody can lobby if they want to, even the Sierra Club. Lobbying is just advertising to a small target market; Capitol Hill and its feeder departments.

Whether or not elected officials should accept de facto bribes is a different issue.

[Marko]

I'm not convinced that outlawing lobbying would be beneficial or make much difference. Besides, anybody can lobby if they want to, even the Sierra Club. Lobbying is just advertising to a small target market; Capitol Hill and its feeder departments.

Whether or not elected officials should accept de facto bribes is a different issue.

Not just anybody - only anybody with enough money. That's why the airlines, for example, can afford spending tens of millions lobbying - successfully - against consumer rights legislation but can't afford to accommodate stranded passengers with even the most basic amenities such as fresh water. Or that may be why we can afford to spend $4-5 billion a month on a single war that is now running longer than WWII did but can't afford general health insurance. Or for that matter any health insurance for some 45 million Americans.

The problem with money and power is that both inherently corrupt and lobbying is a way of bringing the two together to the detriment of the rest of us who have very little of either.

[Ed K.]

David - your link to the tech industry pollution article (http://svtc.igc.org/resource/pubs/execsum.htm) covers a great deal of relevant issues. The article covers many of the the "big picture" points.

Traditional stuff was made mostly with metals, glass and wood - plus it lasted a long time. There is the landfill computer issue - people change electronics way more often than they should have to due to "milking the cow" and holding back features for incremental model changes. Much of the "recycled" computer equipment actually leaves the US to be processed in other countries, which are then polluted by it. In the largest picture, polluting in other countries comes back to all of us even though it takes longer for the problems to be known or critical.

Marko - please put the political part in a lounge if you don't mind - not that I agree or disagree, but rather, I'd like to prevent this thread from gettting deleted posts. Your points are well taken regardless.

Everyone - keep the ideas coming - I know that this doesn't form a large study with good science, however with all of your experience, your thoughts are very stimulating as to where to look for more answers at minimum.

[Marko]

Marko - please put the political part in a lounge if you don't mind - not that I agree or disagree, but rather, I'd like to prevent this thread from gettting deleted posts. Your points are well taken regardless.


You are right, Ed, sorry for poluting the topic (no pun intended!).

I did not mean to be political, though. It just happens that my view on conserving the environment is that the road that leads to it is effectively blocked by politics and that any meaningful, long-term solution needs to take that into account.

[paulr]

I read an article last week, but don't know where ...The use of the car was about 2.5 lbs of carbon and the the walker used 4 lbs.

I'm beyond skeptical of this. I would very much like to see this person's methodology and numbers.

I imagine it would be possible to get results like this if you fed the walker 300 calories from the most inneficient calorie sources imaginable ... like kobe beef flown over from japan in a supersonic jet.

[Alan Davenport]

I imagine it would be possible to get results like this if you fed the walker 300 calories from the most inneficient calorie sources imaginable ... like kobe beef flown over from japan in a supersonic jet.

Perhaps the walker's diet produced excess methane? :-)

I can only suppose that the study in question was funded by the auto industry...

[paulr]

so beware of beans!

i just did some quick math. consider that the average person burns about 300Cal walking 3 miles.

a reasonably efficient car (30mpg) would burn 1/10 gallon, or .38 liters of gas in 3 miles.

the energy density of gasoline is about 34MJ/liter, so the car uses 12,920,000 joules of energy--about 3090 Cal. that's about ten times the energy of walking.

so for the carbon footprint to be the same for driving and walking, you'd need to show that producing gasoline (never mind the car itself) has one tenth the energy cost/carbon footprint of producing the food. or in the case of the author's thesis, sixteen times.

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

No offense meant, but the question you pose is, in my opinion, irrelevant. As long as consumer capitalism is the dominant mode of living, the environment will continue to be polluted, the resources depleted, etc. What we do or don't do as modest and conscientious individuals (or photographers for that matter) doesn't really matter. It is the wealthy that has to change its overall lifestyle and consumption habits. The capitalist socioeconomic structure causing all this destruction and pillage of the earth may very well bring about the end of the earth before we know it. Hoping for a better world......

[Greg Lockrey]

so beware of beans!

i just did some quick math. consider that the average person burns about 300Cal walking 3 miles.

a reasonably efficient car (30mpg) would burn 1/10 gallon, or .38 liters of gas in 3 miles.

the energy density of gasoline is about 34MJ/liter, so the car uses 12,920,000 joules of energy--about 3090 Cal. that's about ten times the energy of walking.

so for the carbon footprint to be the same for driving and walking, you'd need to show that producing gasoline (never mind the car itself) has one tenth the energy cost/carbon footprint of producing the food. or in the case of the author's thesis, sixteen times.

That's not the total issue, Paul. Don't forget the energy needed to produce the food that the walker needs to eat from the grass that the cow eats on up and all of those in the chain needed to get it to him. Apparently from the article that total is greater than the chain to make the car and pump the gas, etc. It was surprising to me too.

[paulr]

That's not the total issue, Paul. Don't forget the energy needed to produce the food

i didn' forget it. i'm suggesting that in order to find an energy cost for food that's sixteen times that of gasoline, you'd have to rig things pretty far in favor of that conclusion. keep in mind that for both food and gas, but much moreso for food, there's a huge range of potential energy cost.

[adrian tyler]

still sounds a bit wild to me too, say they ran the numbers against a veg-head, or someone who just has a little meat every now and agian.

i was recently working in a nucler power station and they had displayed a whole study of our "energy footprint", from primitive man to modern man. whichever way you look at it and no matter how eco-concious you are, we are way beyond this planets means.

[Greg Lockrey]

i didn' forget it. i'm suggesting that in order to find an energy cost for food that's sixteen times that of gasoline, you'd have to rig things pretty far in favor of that conclusion. keep in mind that for both food and gas, but much moreso for food, there's a huge range of potential energy cost.

And don't forget the gas that's needed to produce the food...

Here is the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

And it's a British source so it has to be true...;)

[Ed K.]

A couple more thoughts:

The corporations often respond to what people are purchasing. If nobody purchases enough of something, then generally corporations find no profit in making those things, so they cease production. This is one way the actions of individuals do make a difference.
Carbon footprint is just one part of the picture.
The lifespan of a product makes a lot of difference. Durable goods, if they are well-designed, can make a difference. For example, if one purchases a really great pair of scissors for 100 bucks to cut film, and then the scissors outlast that person, another person can use those scissors perhaps for a lifetime. But a cheap pair of scissors that lasts just a few months before worn out due to their poor quality and design - those scissors are quite wasteful. For my part, I bought a pair of scissors that cost $140 bucks. I'm pretty sure that if people need scissors 200 years from now, somebody will use mine. Otherwise, just melt them down and use the steel.
I would rather not get into political discussions about capitalism here - all I can say is that capitalism did build much of the technology, so using it, is using a product of capitalism. In other words, it's not that bad - at least we have technology. To debate that sort of issue, I suggest we move that to a lounge if anybody wishes.
The principle of reuse was mentioned, a good one at that. But what of others such as "reduce"?. Changing to a newer, faster computer because one's software is bloated and inefficient inside (doesn't matter which vendor - all, repeat all operating systems and major applications are bloated these days), and then doing that change every couple of years is not reducing. Reducing would be stripping out old code before releasing the next version of software - that takes time, but overall, it saves so much equipment. Having non-proprietary ink cartridge systems / tanks - that would be reducing. There are ways.


Does anyone think that silver darkroom work might actually produce less pollution overall if properly handled? Or carbon printing perhaps?

Again, good thoughts all. Keep those thoughts coming!