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?

[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.

[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