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?
Bookmarks