| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. digital vs. film
Asked by craig auge
(K=552) on 2/20/2005
|
I was out and about in the wood shooting some film when i ran across this guy who told me that he shoots digital only now days cause he said it was more enviromentaly freindly. Dose anyone care to comment on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
(K=86139) - Comment Date 2/20/2005
|
My initial reaction is that he was pulling your leg. For one thing it is arguable whether digital photography is significantly more environmentally friendly than film and for another it is hard to believe that this was a major consideration, enough to actually determine which he decided to concentrate on. It sounds like those arguments vegetarians use to justify vegetarianism--a bit of special pleading from an established position.
|
|
|
|
Pete Dawes
(K=272) - Comment Date 2/20/2005
|
I use a manual focus film SLR because it is more environmentally friendly. I use no electricity winding on to the next shot, or for operating my zoom lens. In fact, these activities are good for my health, as it is perhaps the only exercise I ever get.
The camera I am using is about 25 years old, so the original environmental cost has been spread over many many years. Furthermore,, it is metal, so it is more biodegradable, and it didn't create petrochemical fumes during its manufacture.
I won't replace my camera as often as tends to be the case with digicams, thus reducing landfill, emissions etc.
Using film means that I don't need my own computer, scanner or printer, with a much reduced demand in electricity, plastics etc. I get my film processed in a lab, which gives a much greater chance of economies of scale, responsible storage of dangerous chemicals, recycling of anything that might be profitable to them.
Whereas YOU, Mr High and Mighty, have an obsolescent POS plastic camera that you are probably already planning to replace, thus placing a further burden on the already faltering heart of our Mother Earth. You should be ashamed of yourself!
That's what I would have told him. (Obviously not, but it woulda been cool to have been ready with it!)
|
|
|
|
Ed Francis
(K=1165) - Comment Date 2/20/2005
|
Yay Peter!
Go get'em! Love your ddress to Mr High and Mighty!
(though I must confess to buying a basic digital camera and being bowled over by what I can do with it!... slinks off in shame.... I have no intention of disposing of my SLR's and their beautiful lenses - love them to bits, and they're all at least 20 years old and working just fine. There, now I feel better! ... Whew!)
Ed
|
|
|
|
Pete Dawes
(K=272) - Comment Date 2/20/2005
|
Yeah, I am a sinner too.
I bought 2 digicams within about 10 weeks of each other, in Nov and Jan.
But still missed something undefinable about SLRs, so now I also have 2 Minoltas I bought off ebay. I like my first digicam a lot, it is light and has 10 x zoom, I but wish I hadn't bothered with the little compact P & S I bought for carrying with me always.
The responses I have got using the compact and the Slrs have been very revealing.
With the compact it seems like "Hey, I don't want no damned amateur taking snapshots of me"
With the slr it seems like "hey, that guy looks like a pro, I wonder if I will appear in the local newspaper?"
The SLR is much more obtrusive, especially with my massive 24-70 zoom, but it seems to be tolerated more when taking candids.
|
|
|
|
Pico diGoliardi
(K=540) - Comment Date 2/20/2005
|
The stranger in the woods is deluded.
To truly know whether something is environmentally friendly, one has to take in the full view, fully encompasing the creation-to-disposal to nulleffect. So consider the consequences of aquiring the materials, making them into something, then the effect of its use including all perriferals and supplies, then disposal and consequences until it is completely gone - then add in the social consequences.
I think you will find that in all, digital is very polluting. It may not show in your area because the materials and manufacuture are in a third-world, and disposal is burried (no pun) from social evidence.
|
|
|
|
Lea Mulqueen
(K=7396) - Comment Date 2/21/2005
|
I completely agree with all of you...and I love Pete's response!
But, perhaps the man was referring to those photographers (surely none of us!) who drop their film canisters and film boxes wherever they happen to be when finished with them. I can't begin to tell you how many empty film cannisters abd boxes I have seen over the years littering the landscape!
|
|
|
|
Ed Francis
(K=1165) - Comment Date 2/21/2005
|
Ah film canisters! I taught primary school for more than 25 years, and film canisters were my favourite bit of junk to recycle. Yes they had to be disposed of eventually... but they had wonderful second lives as resealable paint pots, building blocks, wheels on models, containers for weights and balance experiments, adjustable flotation aids for hydraulics lessons, containers for tacks, paper clips, coloured stars, beetle and bug traps, seed beds, I could go on! Ssh! Don't tell the local minilab, or they'll want to SELL them!
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
