4 ms·

Nice! Ilford is obviously an old company, but it does also feel like a contemporary idea - responding to the collapse of film for general use by becoming a com

by cannam 7y ago

Nice! Ilford is obviously an old company, but it does also feel like a contemporary idea - responding to the collapse of film for general use by becoming a company with a very clear, singular niche: black-and-white photographic film and processing materials and nothing else, with simple distinctive branding and a focus on quality and continuity. I do hope they can keep it going, as nobody else quite compares from the customer's point of view. In a different field, there's a French company that has been restarting production of classic formula audio tape, both reel-to-reel and cassette - related I think to the old Pyral tape company - see https://www.recordingthemasters.com/ https://www.recordingthemasters.com/. Both these things have an appealing physical quality, although in both cases it's striking how much more manual work and chemical/plastic waste is involved than in the typical digital replacement.

jacobush 7y ago
I am pretty certain Ilford will keep going. By all accounts, the industry is over a hump and sales are picking up. Regarding waste, I'm not entirely convinced it's as bad as it looks. Per image taken, certainly. But the typical film shooter is not taking very many images per year. And digital cameras have their own quite large environmental footprint, although it's mostly a one time event, while the environmental footprint from film is incremental.
- ghaff 7y ago
  >By all accounts, the industry is over a hump and sales are picking up. At some level, that's true. Film sales have been modestly up the past few years to the degree that some emulsions have even been put back into production. So presumably any company that still has a viable business that includes film will be able to keep on doing so for the time being. But for context, film is at something like 2% of its peak before digital started grabbing meaningful share.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Which when you think about it in absolute numbers, is still quite a bit. Kodak made a billion rolls of film a year and Fujifilm about the same. So that means today about 50 million rolls of film are made each year. It's not as it was, but it's not at artisan levels either. Edit: peak film was 2004. That feels strangely close to me. I would have guessed on gut instinct 1999. But when I really think about it, it checks out - I held out on photography between 2004 and 2008 because I didn't have a camera then. But I didn't want to buy a film camera, that felt weird. On the other hand the digital cameras were total crap. In 2008 I bought a compact digital camera which was... passable. And not exactly cheap, $300 equivalent or so. Today these images are potato quality. All mobile cameras are better. Most film cameras are better.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      I didn't get a point and shoot camera until sometime in the early 2000s and didn't transition fully off of film until I got my full-frame EOS in 2006. (And didn't get a smartphone until about 2009 when I got an iPhone 3GS which was sort of their real breakout model.) So, if anything, I'm a little surprised peak was as early as 2004 or so. But I guess that was the point where casual snapshooters were really starting to switch over to P&S digital in droves--which of course is where a lot of the market volume is.
      - jacobush 7y ago
        And now (through the grapevine) I hear the opposite is true - pro (and semi-pro, as the momtographers) photographers make up the bulk market volume. But the resurgence among happy amateurs, new-comers and those coming back to film, has GOT to be a large chunk. I see 20 somethings go around with film cameras this year! Yep, I too count the 3GS as the first well-rounded (hehe) iPhone. A full frame EOS digital body in 2006 was incredibly expensive to me, which I would never have seriously considered. I mean, I could have afforded it, skip on vacation or buy a cheaper car - but the price seemed completely alien and outlandish to me. On the other hand I splurged on three 32gb 3GS-s for family members, because they seemed like the future.
- lm28469 7y ago
  Waste isn't that bad if you dispose of the chemicals. ie don't dump them in the drain. Plus most of the material isn't wasted, my dad still has all his developed films from the 80s and 90s. Load them in a scanner and you get images which are about as good as the one you'd get from a modern dslr. Lomography is also thriving in the film market: https://shop.lomography.com/en https://shop.lomography.com/en
throw0101a 7y ago
I think most of the fixed costs are fairly static, so if they can make a profit, it will be fairly predictable. The video does mention some R&D, so they're not entirely resting on their laurels, but film is probably at the end of its evolutionary road. I would think it hard to find any new break throughs. Also, a lot of the folks featured seemed to be older ("we have lots of experience"), so I hope that they have some foresight in knowledge transfer and young/er workers.

by cannam 7y ago

jacobush 7y ago

I am pretty certain Ilford will keep going. By all accounts, the industry is over a hump and sales are picking up. Regarding waste, I'm not entirely convinced it's as bad as it looks. Per image taken, certainly. But the typical film shooter is not taking very many images per year. And digital cameras have their own quite large environmental footprint, although it's mostly a one time event, while the environmental footprint from film is incremental.

ghaff 7y ago
>By all accounts, the industry is over a hump and sales are picking up. At some level, that's true. Film sales have been modestly up the past few years to the degree that some emulsions have even been put back into production. So presumably any company that still has a viable business that includes film will be able to keep on doing so for the time being. But for context, film is at something like 2% of its peak before digital started grabbing meaningful share.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Which when you think about it in absolute numbers, is still quite a bit. Kodak made a billion rolls of film a year and Fujifilm about the same. So that means today about 50 million rolls of film are made each year. It's not as it was, but it's not at artisan levels either. Edit: peak film was 2004. That feels strangely close to me. I would have guessed on gut instinct 1999. But when I really think about it, it checks out - I held out on photography between 2004 and 2008 because I didn't have a camera then. But I didn't want to buy a film camera, that felt weird. On the other hand the digital cameras were total crap. In 2008 I bought a compact digital camera which was... passable. And not exactly cheap, $300 equivalent or so. Today these images are potato quality. All mobile cameras are better. Most film cameras are better.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I didn't get a point and shoot camera until sometime in the early 2000s and didn't transition fully off of film until I got my full-frame EOS in 2006. (And didn't get a smartphone until about 2009 when I got an iPhone 3GS which was sort of their real breakout model.) So, if anything, I'm a little surprised peak was as early as 2004 or so. But I guess that was the point where casual snapshooters were really starting to switch over to P&S digital in droves--which of course is where a lot of the market volume is.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      And now (through the grapevine) I hear the opposite is true - pro (and semi-pro, as the momtographers) photographers make up the bulk market volume. But the resurgence among happy amateurs, new-comers and those coming back to film, has GOT to be a large chunk. I see 20 somethings go around with film cameras this year! Yep, I too count the 3GS as the first well-rounded (hehe) iPhone. A full frame EOS digital body in 2006 was incredibly expensive to me, which I would never have seriously considered. I mean, I could have afforded it, skip on vacation or buy a cheaper car - but the price seemed completely alien and outlandish to me. On the other hand I splurged on three 32gb 3GS-s for family members, because they seemed like the future.
lm28469 7y ago
Waste isn't that bad if you dispose of the chemicals. ie don't dump them in the drain. Plus most of the material isn't wasted, my dad still has all his developed films from the 80s and 90s. Load them in a scanner and you get images which are about as good as the one you'd get from a modern dslr. Lomography is also thriving in the film market: https://shop.lomography.com/en https://shop.lomography.com/en

throw0101a 7y ago

I think most of the fixed costs are fairly static, so if they can make a profit, it will be fairly predictable. The video does mention some R&D, so they're not entirely resting on their laurels, but film is probably at the end of its evolutionary road. I would think it hard to find any new break throughs. Also, a lot of the folks featured seemed to be older ("we have lots of experience"), so I hope that they have some foresight in knowledge transfer and young/er workers.