Is film photography more eco-friendly than digital?
As environmental awareness becomes increasingly central to everyday decisions, photographers too are reevaluating the ecological impact of their choice of medium. While the digital revolution promised dematerialization and efficiency, analog surprisingly seems to offer a more sustainable option.
The ecological impact of film vs. digital photography
I’ve been interested in the environmental impact of photography ever since I returned to film in around 2016. Since then I’ve bought only one brand new camera from the store. So basically 99% of all my cameras ever have been pre-owned or vintage. Majority of them are something that you could reasonably call junk (flea market and thrift store finds). It has never stopped me from photographing though, and I’d like to think that it must’ve had an ecological impact of some sort.
There is no definitive answer to which format is more environmentally friendly as the question is not binary but a complicated and multifaceted one. It largely depends on how each is used.
However, it is fair to say that film photography, when practiced responsibly with reused equipment and mindful habits, holds environmental advantages. It avoids electronic waste, extends the life of pre-existing gear, and fosters a slower, more deliberate form of image-making, which also has an eco impact when you think about it.
Meanwhile, digital photography offers clear ecological benefits through per-image efficiency, but only when the photographer resists the lure of constant upgrades and mitigates long-term energy usage.
Equipment longevity and manufacturing
Film photography enjoys a distinct advantage when it comes to equipment durability. Many film cameras in use today were manufactured decades ago and continue to function reliably with minimal intervention. These mechanical devices often require no batteries or only minimal power, and they were built to be repaired, not replaced. The reuse of such equipment means the environmental cost of their manufacture is amortized over a long period, resulting in a relatively low embodied energy per use.
I’m happy see that there are now entire industries revolving around keeping old cameras in circulation. Kamerastore — the camera rescue project of my fellow finlanders — emerged to my sight ten years ago and they’ve really stepped up to transforming potential E-waste into working cameras by massively sourcing old gear, professionally restoring them, and selling them. The market seems to be ever growing and the environmental impact of companies like these has to be significant. I know some of these guys personally (shout-out to Jussi and Juho) because I’m not only a customer and a fan, but also used to work for them.
By contrast to film gear, digital cameras have shorter life cycles. Rapid technological development, coupled with marketing-driven upgrade cycles, encourages frequent replacement. Digital sensors degrade, proprietary batteries wear out, and newer models often make older ones obsolete through software and compatibility limitations. The manufacture of digital cameras also involves rare earth metals, energy-intensive chip fabrication, and complex logistics, all contributing to a larger carbon and material footprint. As such, when viewed through the lens of longevity and production impact, vintage film cameras offer significant ecological advantages.
Film cameras
Typically fully mechanical or semi-mechanical.
Often decades old, built to last, and still serviceable.
Community and reuse/repair culture is strong → low embodied energy per unit of use.
No need for regular upgrades.
Digital cameras
Shorter lifespans due to rapid tech turnover and planned obsolescence.
Sensors degrade, batteries fail, parts become unsupported.
High manufacturing impact: rare earth metals, intensive fabrication processes.
Can lead to e-waste and energy-heavy recycling/disposal surprisingly fast.
Running costs and consumables
Digital photography appears to have the upper hand when it comes to operational efficiency. Once the camera and accessories are purchased, the per-shot environmental cost is close to zero. There are no rolls of film to produce, no chemicals to mix, and no physical materials consumed for each image. However, digital’s hidden costs lie in electricity use for charging, editing, data storage, and backups, which, while individually small, accumulate significantly over time.
Film photography, on the other hand, requires continuous consumption of physical resources. Film stocks are plastic-based, contain silver salts, and are manufactured through energy- and resource-intensive processes.
Development requires chemicals, some of which pose ecological risks if not disposed of responsibly. However, many photographers today practice responsible darkroom management—using eco-friendlier developers (Kodak Xtol for example, which is a high quality black and white developer based in vitamin-C, instead of nastier chemicals found in more traditional developers), recycling fixer to recover silver and limiting water usage. Nothing generally gets flushed down the toiled, but chemical waste is managed responsibly. I personally store the chemical waste at home and every once in a while, I drop the load to a waste and recycling facility, where they are properly disposed of.
Importantly, the negatives themselves are often archived and valued as original artifacts, rather than being discarded. So once the negatives have been developed, they generally don’t end up in landfill, but they are kept safe instead, therefore not burdening the sanitation.
While film does create physical waste and recurring costs, these can be mitigated with thoughtful practices. Still, in raw per-image efficiency, digital is more sustainable in terms of resource use—but only if gear isn’t replaced frequently.
Waste and end-of-life impact
E-waste is one of the fastest-growing waste streams globally, and digital photography is a bigger contributor than film. Cameras, batteries, chargers, memory cards, and associated electronics often have limited repairability and are difficult to recycle. Once obsolete, they can leak harmful substances if improperly disposed of.
Film photography avoids much of this electronic waste. Since many film cameras in use are already decades old, their continued use does not introduce new materials into the waste stream. Even when discarded, mechanical cameras generally contain fewer hazardous materials than digital ones. Although film canisters, packaging, and paper create waste, this is relatively minor compared to the complex electronics in digital systems. But let’s not forget that there are very plasticy film cameras out there too, with failing circuitry etc. built somewhat similarly to digital cameras. During the 80’s and especially 90’s film cameras were still around, but filled with automation, electronics and plastic. Something like a Canon EOS film camera comes to mind, even though they are surprisingly robust for what they are. Many of them are still working today, which is infinitely more impressive compared to the performance of, let’s say my Fujifilm X-pro3, which is a very contemporary model, but already falling apart. Can you honestly believe that a five year old 2000€ camera body can already be suffering from electrical failures while something like my 70 years old Rolleicord, that has most likely never been serviced, is still working as it should?
In terms of end-of-life environmental impact, film cameras—especially reused vintage models—are generally more sustainable.
Film
Film itself is plastic-based, but many photographers keep negatives.
Enlarging paper and chemistry produce waste — though this can be minimized and managed responsibly.
Film cartridges and packaging generate landfill waste unless recycled.
Digital
E-waste is a major issue: lithium batteries, sensors, circuit boards etc.
Cameras are rarely repairable by users.
Accessories (cables, memory cards, chargers) are often discarded.
Energy use and emissions
Film photography’s energy consumption is concentrated in the manufacturing and chemical processing stages. Once film is made and the camera is in hand, energy use remains modest unless a darkroom is operated intensively.
Digital photography spreads its energy consumption over time. Charging batteries, editing on power-hungry computers, and storing massive archives on hard drives or cloud services all consume electricity. Cloud storage in particular relies on data centers with significant cooling and energy demands.
Neither medium is energy-free, but digital’s reliance on long-term electricity usage and infrastructure like cloud storage raises concerns when comparing environmental costs at scale.
Behavioral and cultural factors
Photography is not just a technical process; it's a behavioral one. Digital photography, with its virtually unlimited shutter count and immediate feedback, encourages overshooting—thousands of images captured, backed up, and often never reviewed. This excess leads to data hoarding, which increases digital storage needs and energy consumption.
Film, by contrast, naturally promotes restraint. With only an X amount (let’s say 36 if you’re shooting 35mm flim) of exposures per roll — and a financial and time cost associated with each shot—film photographers tend to be more deliberate. This encourages mindfulness, reduces unnecessary images, and may lead to fewer prints or backups overall. While not strictly a technical environmental benefit, this behavioral difference can have downstream ecological implications.
Digital encourages overshooting — thousands of photos that may never be looked at, stored indefinitely on power-hungry servers.
Film encourages deliberate shooting — fewer, more intentional shots can mean fewer unnecessary environmental costs downstream (e.g., less cloud storage, less editing time, fewer prints).
If you're buying a new digital body every two years and hoarding terabytes of RAW files on spinning drives, digital can carry a surprisingly high environmental toll. If you’re, on the other hand, shooting film thoughtfully with reused equipment, processing responsibly, and not burning through rolls weekly, it may be more eco-friendly over the long haul.
In short, the most sustainable camera is often the one you already own (or purchase from something like Kamerastore). The most ecological approach, whether digital or analog, is one rooted in restraint, repair and reuse.
Top tips for eco-conscious photography (regardless of format):
Extend the life of your gear.
Resist gear acquisition syndrome and don’t buy every new camera model.
Buy used or refurbished instead.
Limit unnecessary shooting by being intentional.
Recycle and dispose responsibly.
Use energy-efficient storage and editing practices.
