After watching the documentary, "Manufactured Landscapes" by Edward Burtynsky and seeing all his work on the changing landscapes around us by industrialization, I do have a couple of thoughts in regards to analog versus digital photography in environmental-friendliness. Mind you, this isn't a analog is better than digital or vice versa post, but I've been hearing for close to a decade now on how environmentally-unfriendly the chemicals used by the film manufacturing and development industry. But has anyone thought about how environmentally-unfriendly digital photography is? The chips inside every digital camera aren't biodegradable, and since companies like Canon and Nikon releases practically a new DSLR or P&S every 6 to 12 months and digital photographers jump at the newest digital offering, there's going to be an almost unlimited supply of "e-waste" coming from the digital photography revolution. The same thing goes for things like ipods, cellular phones, laptops, big screen plasma/LCD TVs, etc. I've never been much of an environmental person, but after watching documentaries like War Photographer where James Nachtwey documents children in Indonesia picking through mountains of garbage, or watching the residents of a small town in China not being able to get safe drinking water due to the high levels of heavy metal from old computer parts in Manufactured Landscapes, I think I'm going to start doing my part for the environment.