9 ms·

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

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

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