<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>








































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Digital or film: Which is greener?
    
      by Shanae Auguste</title>
      <link>http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/digital-or-film-which-is-greener/Content?oid=1216290</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/Rss.xml?oid=1216290&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Digital or film: Which is greener?
    
      by Shanae Auguste</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2013 Indy Week. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Indy Week readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Indy Week.</copyright>
      <webMaster>pweber@indyweek.com (Indy Week Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:01 -0400</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 15:00:00 -0400</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Digital or film: Which is greener?]]></title>

    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/digital-or-film-which-is-greener/Content?oid=1216290&show=comments#1248888]]></link>

    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/digital-or-film-which-is-greener/Content?oid=1216290&show=comments#1248888]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[MarkP]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[These comparisons are pretty bogus. <p>
    One charge on my 4 year old Canon digital SLR lasts for about 1,000 pics, many more than my old Canon film SLR since advancing film requires a fair amount of energy.
        
        <br />
        Posted by 
        
          <a href="http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/Profile?oid=1225735">MarkP</a>]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:29:52 -0400</pubDate>
    <source url="http://www.indyweek.com">Indy Week</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Digital or film: Which is greener?]]></title>

    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/digital-or-film-which-is-greener/Content?oid=1216290&show=comments#1248765]]></link>

    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/digital-or-film-which-is-greener/Content?oid=1216290&show=comments#1248765]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[bvanevery]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Surely, you don't think the toxins for producing the microchips in the camera are anywhere near the quantity of toxins used for chemical film development? As for lasting longer, anybody's camera can be broken, lost, or stolen.
        
        <br />
        Posted by 
        
          <a href="http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/Profile?oid=1227257">bvanevery</a>]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:59:40 -0400</pubDate>
    <source url="http://www.indyweek.com">Indy Week</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>



