Skip to main content

The Environmental Impact of Digital Photography

I have worked the entire photographic industry from camera stores, custom labs, commercial photography, and the Great Yellow Father itself – Kodak. I was at Kodak Canada when Kodak started winding down its silver based operations and at that point I looked for other employment options.

Those outside the photographic industry may not realise the environmental impact that digital photography has had. The biggest one would be water conservation.

Your average colour photo lab went through massive amounts of water to rinse film and paper prints free of the chemicals used in the process. When I worked at a custom darkroom lab, it was not unusual to print three 8 X 10 prints to produce the final good print that would go to the customer.

Every morning the lab printed off approximately 5 to 20 feet of 4 inch paper and 5 inch paper to calibrate the printers that made the small prints and proofs.

Huge amounts of water was consumed to clean the test prints, never mind the prints that went to the customer. And don't forget there was water in the developer, bleach and fixer.

Also, consider the amount of paper that was consumed. Every picture taken was printed. We did not know if a picture was out of focus, or poorly exposed until we received it from the lab. Add to the environmental impact bill the amounts of water used in the coating of film and paper as well as the water (darn good clean water too) consumed in the manufacturing of the base film and paper.

How big is this reduction in paper consumption? A paper mill that was supplying the base paper to both Kodak and Fuji in the United States closed recently.

I started thinking about this one day when I went to a camera shop to make a print from the chip in my digital camera. Insert chip into printer, select and crop, push print button, out comes the print with not a drop of water used in the process. The “photo lab” was no bigger than a breadbox.

Oh yes, let us not forget the electricity consumed in the old process, and the fossil fuel consumed moving heavy amounts of paper place to place to place.

What I have mentioned here describing the vast amount of resources consumed with the old silver halide processes is just the tip of the iceberg.

Perhaps, digital photography had to happen for the sake of the environment. There have been other changes that have happened, and more are on the way. But that is another blog entry to come.

John Kerr

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sorry, but that is just not true...

All due respect, computer-based imaging is no more environmentally friendly than traditional photochemical processes.

"The average 24 kg desktop computer with monitor requires at least 10 times its weight in fossil fuels and chemicals to manufacture, much more materials intensive than an automobile or refrigerator, which only require 1-2 times their weight in fossil fuels. Researchers found that manufacturing one desktop computer and 17-inch CRT monitor uses at least 240 kg of fossil fuels, 22 kg of chemicals and 1,500 kg of water – a total of 1.8 tonnes of materials."

http://update.unu.edu/archive/issue31_5.htm

http://www.epha.org/a/1108

Digital is no more "environmentally friendly" than photochemical; the culpability is still there for the end user -- please accept responsibility.

Thank you.

Kino

More than just front end...

Kino,

Consider the amount of fossil fuel it takes to create a modern photo minilab... (I don't know if there are numbers for this, but I assume someone must have done a study.) Basically you are looking at the same carbon cost for the computer end of the machine, but you also have to consider the output end. Most labs these days use lasers to write onto silver halide photo paper and then the paper is run through the same chemical baths as traditional labs. So in addition to the initial computer manufacture, one has to consider the constant maintence and upkeep of the chemical end. Also, when one thinks about the fact that those chemical baths have to maintain a temp of around 38deg C vs and inkjet or dyesub technology... I don't think you can argue against digital photography as a way to reduce our environmental impact. (In additiona to the prints, film processing also takes water, chemicals, engery, etc...)

Thanks for the great links to the studies for the computer production end of things, do anyone know where I could find studies relating this all to photo labs and there imact on our environment?

Jake

digital film seems logically

digital film seems logically less painful to the earth even with the computer stuff to think of. like kino, you are saying we take responsibility for the things our hands touch. after that que cera cera. n'est ce pas? I think a laptop is more eco-nom-ilogical. than a regular desk top. seems like it. more compact more earth friendly. I guess my rule is, if I can't backpack with it on then I am not thinking. thank you all for posting. I am trying to make a film about Children and the environment and WITH the environment in mind. makes it easier when children are watching your every move.

water can never run out

water can never run out freak!!!!!! what world do you live in, stupid. Go home!!!!

You're not seeing the big picture

And what about the cameras?
What you get with digital cameras are a steady fight for better and cameras and more megapixels.
My old Canon 10D, bought maybe 7 years ago has been a dinosaur already for years, whereas my old Nikon F2 still works perfectly fine.
I'm sure if you could get your hands on the data, you'd see that we devour many more cameras now that 15 years ago.-
I'm not saying that film necessarily has less of an environmental impact, just that your reasoning is one-sided.

T

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.