Environmental Dilemmas
Photo: Alternative Technology Association. “A worker mounds salt on the salt plains of Bolivia.”
Environmental issues have been one of film photography’s topics of concern for many years. Companies have been forced to cancel the production of long-lasting film stocks, like Fujifilm’s discontinuation in the United States of Velvia 100 in 4x5 sheet film. According to the Federal Register, the Environmental Protection Agency determined phenol, isopropylated phosphate, which is used to produce the film, to be a carcinogen. This ruling forced the company to quit importing the film into the country after the ruling’s effective date of Feb. 2, 2021.
This is just one example of how environmental restrictions have limited film production. This shows that the tolerances are pretty tight, especially in America where things like strict environmental laws exist to limit human contact with harmful chemicals. The reality is, many things are not good for the environment, and frankly, very few things humans do benefit the planet. The main environmental difference between film and digital is whether or not the user is exposed to its issues firsthand.
Digital cameras are constructed using rare metals that most likely are mined by those far less fortunate than the camera’s user. They are often paid poorly and forced to work in very inhumane conditions. This process also usually results in negative environmental effects.
Sarah Dailey’s journal article, Where’s all the lithium from? examines the country of Bolivia and how, while they are “one of South America’s poorest countries,” they are sitting on a very large amount of lithium that is found in their salt plains.
Lithium is of course just one of the metals needed to create an operating digital camera, and it is found in its battery.
Dailey states that Bolivia is being pushed to act on a mining process that is likely to cause “irreparable damage to the landscape,” and “will put pressure on Bolivia’s water supplies which will be at risk of pollution and chemical contamination once the lithium extraction begins.”
Many modern, cheaper, digital cameras today are made with a lot of plastic, and their development, production and sales account for plenty of CO2 emissions.
An FStoppers article from 2022, written by Ivor Rackham, studied the camera manufacturer, Canon’s, sustainability report from 2021. This report showed that Canon stated, “their total product lifecycle of CO2 is…7.72 million tonnes.”
This emissions total is rather large, especially when compared to the film cameras. The cameras that film photographers are usually using were built over 20 years ago. This means that someone walking into a camera store to pick one up off the used rack is subject to adding no new CO2 emissions for its production.
Because of their simple mechanical nature, most of these older cameras are also far more repairable than modern, electronic dependent, digital cameras, thus adding to their usable lifespan.
There are also some ways the film photographer can minimize their environmental footprint. For example, dilution is a way to limit wasted film or paper developer. By adding more water to the mixture, the mixture is less potent, yet there is then more fluid to work with for the same amount of chemicals. This means that they need to use and buy less of it. As a result, the photographer will need to lengthen developing times to make up for the fact that their developer is now weaker.
A journal article titled, ReNew: Technology for a Sustainable Future was written by Mara Ripani and Ralf Pfleiderer in 2001. The piece showcases a great example of how the user is able to greatly limit the negative effects of the film process, as the authors display how they built their own solar powered darkroom from mostly recycled materials.
Photo: Alternative Technology Association. “Mara and Ralf show off their solar darkroom, solar panel and mini bathtub wetland.”
Their darkroom even utilizes its space for other environmentally helpful things that could help offset some of the unavoidable negative issues. For example, the roof of the darkroom catches stormwater to feed the wetland plants living in the space.
“The wetland is home to a number of local indigenous wetland plants which are thriving in the salvaged bathtub,” Ripani and Pfleiderer said.
The electricity required to power a darkroom is quite low, and with all of the innovations to solar technology, recreating a space like this today would be far cheaper and simpler than Ripani and Pfleiderer’s darkroom from 2001. It is getting easier and easier for someone held back by environmental issues to work in the physical printing space with film.
There is no denying that the user of film has to be hands-on with the unfortunate environmental problems associated with photography. However, there seems to be no clear evidence that proves digital photography, which relies on things like computers, lithium batteries and a lot of plastic, is a more environmentally safe way to make photographs.