The Upstream Cost—Film Manufacturing, Sourcing, and the Rebranding Ecosystem

Part 12 of 13 in the Sustainable Darkroom series | ← Previous: Part 11 | Next: Part 13 →

This series has focused on what happens in the darkroom—the chemicals we use, the water we consume, the waste we generate. But the environmental impact of film photography begins long before we open a box of film or a pack of paper.

Film manufacturing is an industrial process involving silver mining, chemical synthesis, petroleum-derived plastics, and animal-derived gelatin. The factories that produce our film have their own environmental footprints—some well-documented, some opaque.

This post examines what we know (and don't know) about the upstream environmental cost of the materials we use. It also explores a question that rarely gets asked: does it matter where your film comes from?

What Film Is Made Of

A roll of photographic film consists of several components:

Silver Halide Crystals

The light-sensitive component. Silver halides (typically silver bromide, sometimes silver chloride or iodide) are formed by precipitating silver nitrate with halide salts in a controlled gelatin environment.

Silver content per roll:

  • 35mm film (36 exposures): approximately 0.5–2g of silver, depending on film type and speed
  • Higher ISO films generally contain more silver (larger crystals)
  • Colour film contains more silver than B&W (multiple emulsion layers)

Environmental impact of silver:

Silver mining is environmentally significant:

  • Most silver is extracted as a byproduct of copper, lead, and zinc mining
  • Mining operations involve habitat disruption, water use, and chemical processing
  • Refining silver requires energy and produces waste streams

However, the photographic industry has historically been one of the largest recyclers of silver. The silver in your fixer can be recovered and returned to the supply chain. This circular economy partially offsets the mining impact—but only if silver recovery actually happens.

Gelatin

The binder that holds silver halide crystals in place and controls their size and distribution.

Source: Gelatin is derived from collagen in animal bones, skin, and connective tissue. Photographic gelatin is a high-purity product, typically derived from cattle or pig sources.

Environmental impact:

Gelatin production is a byproduct of the meat industry:

  • Uses materials that would otherwise be waste
  • Processing requires water, energy, and chemicals
  • The environmental footprint is entangled with meat production generally

For vegetarians/vegans, gelatin presents an ethical rather than strictly environmental concern. There's no viable synthetic alternative for photographic gelatin—the unique properties of animal-derived gelatin (bloom strength, viscosity, purity) haven't been replicated synthetically.

Film Base

The transparent substrate that supports the emulsion.

Material: Modern film uses cellulose triacetate (safety film) or polyester (PET). Historic films used cellulose nitrate (highly flammable—hence “safety film” replacing it).

Environmental impact:

Cellulose triacetate:

  • Derived from wood pulp (cellulose) treated with acetic acid
  • Biodegradable over very long timescales (centuries)
  • Manufacturing involves chemical processing with acetic acid

Polyester (PET):

  • Petroleum-derived plastic
  • Not biodegradable
  • Recyclable in principle, though film is rarely recycled in practice

35mm film cassettes and canisters: The film cassette itself—the metal shell with the felt light trap that the film winds onto—is traditionally made from pressed steel or aluminium. Kodak and Ilford continue to use metal cassettes for most of their films. The outer protective canister that the cassette ships in has transitioned from metal (screw-top aluminium, historically) to plastic (polypropylene or polystyrene) for most manufacturers. Some smaller producers use recycled cassettes.

120 film backing paper is… paper, with relatively benign environmental impact.

Dyes and Couplers (Colour Film)

Colour negative and slide films contain dye couplers that form coloured dyes during development.

Components: Various organic compounds that couple with oxidized developer to form cyan, magenta, and yellow dyes.

Environmental impact:

The chemistry of colour couplers is complex and varies by manufacturer. The compounds are synthesized chemically; their environmental profiles are not well-documented publicly. What we know:

  • CD-3 and CD-4 developers (used with colour film) have moderate aquatic toxicity
  • The dyes formed in the film remain in the film—they don't enter waste streams during processing

The Manufacturing Landscape

Film manufacturing in 2025 is concentrated in a handful of facilities worldwide. Understanding who makes what—and where—helps contextualise sourcing decisions.

The Major Manufacturers

Kodak (Rochester, New York, USA)

Still the largest manufacturer of photographic film. Produces:

  • All Kodak-branded still photography films (Portra, Ektar, Gold, Tri-X, T-Max, etc.)
  • Vision3 motion picture films (which supply much of the rebranded colour film market)
  • Super 8 and 16mm motion picture stocks

Kodak's Rochester facility (Kodak Park) was historically one of the largest chemical manufacturing sites in the world. The environmental legacy includes documented contamination—silver in the Genesee River, methylene chloride in groundwater—though modern operations are under stricter controls.

Ilford/Harman Technology (Mobberley, Cheshire, UK)

The primary manufacturer of black-and-white film and paper outside Kodak. Produces:

  • Ilford film line (HP5+, FP4+, Delta series, Pan F+, XP2 Super)
  • Kentmere films (lower-cost alternative using Ilford emulsions)
  • Ilford papers (Multigrade, Warmtone, etc.)
  • Harman-branded products (including some camera equipment)
  • Harman Phoenix colour film—their own new colour emulsion, developed from scratch

Mobberley also undertakes contract manufacturing for other brands. Fujifilm's Neopan Acros II carries “Made in UK” labelling, indicating finishing (and possibly coating) at Mobberley. The earlier Fuji Neopan 400CN was developed in cooperation with Ilford. Various other brands have used Harman's facilities for finishing or full production—the company is clear that they won't put Ilford films into other companies’ boxes, but they will manufacture or finish films to other specifications.

The Phoenix colour film is significant: it's the first genuinely new colour emulsion from a major manufacturer in years, not a rebrand or modification of existing stock. Due to licensing restrictions, Harman cannot use the Ilford name for colour products—hence the “Harman Photo” branding. It's rough around the edges (the first generation particularly so), but it represents a serious attempt to challenge Kodak's near-monopoly on colour film.

Mobberley is smaller than Rochester but operates under strict UK environmental regulations. I grew up in Greater Manchester, not far from the Mobberley factory (it's right by Manchester Airport)—there's something satisfying about using film from nearby.

Fujifilm (Japan, with UK finishing)

Has dramatically reduced its own photographic film production. Currently offers:

  • Fujifilm Neopan Acros II (black-and-white, with “Made in UK” labelling suggesting Harman finishing or production)
  • Fujicolor C200/Superia (availability varies by region; some speculation these may now be Kodak-produced)
  • Instax instant film (growing product line, produced in Japan)

Fujifilm's primary business is now healthcare and materials science. Photographic film is a legacy product line. The “Made in UK” on Acros II boxes sparked considerable speculation; the most plausible explanation is that Fujifilm develops the emulsion formula in Japan but uses Harman's facilities for coating, finishing, or both. This isn't unprecedented—Fuji's earlier Neopan 400CN was produced in cooperation with Ilford.

Foma Bohemia (Hradec Králové, Czech Republic)

Smaller European manufacturer producing:

  • Fomapan black-and-white films (100, 200, 400)
  • Foma papers (Fomabrom, Fomaspeed)
  • Retropan, Holga films

Lower-cost alternative to Ilford/Kodak. Quality is acceptable but generally considered a tier below Ilford's offerings.

ORWO (Wolfen, Germany)

Revived East German brand, now producing:

  • ORWO films in various speeds (NC500 colour negative, various B&W)
  • Some specialty stocks

Production is smaller-scale. Quality and consistency have been variable. The NC500 colour film appears to be the basis for several rebranded products, including (reportedly) Ilford Ilfocolor.

Adox (Bad Saarow, Germany / Marly, Switzerland)

A complex operation with interesting provenance. Fotoimpex acquired the Adox name in 2003 and has assembled film production capability from various sources:

  • Former Agfa machinery (from the Leverkusen closure)
  • Former Forte (Hungary) equipment
  • The Ilford/Ciba-Geigy “Machine E” coating line at Marly, Switzerland (acquired 2015)

Adox produces:

  • CMS 20 II (converted Agfa-Gevaert microfilm)
  • Silvermax 100 (their own coating)
  • HR-50 (modified Agfa-Gevaert aerial film)
  • Various papers using Agfa Multicontrast formulations
  • Rodinal developer (original Agfa formula)

They're genuinely trying to maintain European film manufacturing capability, with their own coating facilities.

Rollei/Maco (Stapelfeld, Germany)

The Rollei film brand is licensed to Maco (Hans O. Mahn GmbH & Co. KG). They source from multiple manufacturers:

  • Rollei Retro 80S, 400S: Agfa-Gevaert aerial photography films from Belgium, converted by Maco
  • Rollei RPX 100, RPX 400: Made by Harman Technology (essentially Kentmere-class films)
  • Rollei Digibase CR200: Agfa-Gevaert colour reversal aerial film

So “Rollei” films come from at least two different manufacturers (Agfa-Gevaert Belgium and Harman UK), converted and packaged by Maco in Germany.

Agfa-Gevaert (Mortsel, Belgium)

The Belgian industrial arm of the old Agfa survives, producing aerial photography films—B&W, colour negative, and colour reversal—for government and commercial clients. These are the source materials for Rollei Retro films, some Adox products, and various other rebranded stocks. They don't sell directly to consumers, but their aerial films keep appearing in 35mm and 120 formats through converters like Maco.

Lomography (headquarters Vienna, production in China)

Produces a range of experimental and specialty films:

  • Lomography colour negative films (various)
  • LomoChrome Purple, Metropolis, and other effect films
  • Rebranded/modified versions of various base stocks

Manufacturing is primarily in China. The company is known for creative, experimental films rather than consistency or archival quality.

Film Washi (Brittany, France)

The “world's smallest film company”—a one-person operation run by Lomig Perrotin. Produces:

  • Hand-coated films on Japanese washi paper
  • Repurposed specialty films (X-ray, surveillance, motion picture leader)
  • Converted industrial films in 35mm and 120 formats

Uses recycled cartridges and backing paper. Genuinely artisanal production with an environmental consciousness built in.

Santa/Kamerastore (Finland → Germany)

A notable case study in the tension between ecological and business sustainability.

Santa started as a Finnish operation based at Kamerastore's facilities, hand-spooling film into recycled cartridges. They produced:

  • SantaColor 100 (Kodak AeroColor IV aerial surveillance film)
  • Previously: Santa Rae B&W films (discontinued when Russian sourcing became untenable)

The recent transition: In late 2025, Santa announced that production would move to Germany, where Optik Oldschool has invested in a custom-built professional spooling machine. The hand-spooling operation in Finland—which employed Ukrainian refugees—is winding down. The workers have moved on to other skilled work (camera repair, VALOI scanning tool assembly).

Why the change matters for this discussion:

Hand-spooling into recycled cartridges was ecologically sustainable—reusing materials, minimal packaging waste. But it created problems:

  • Japanese retailers and labs wouldn't accept hand-spooled film
  • Automated labs struggled with the non-standard orange mask
  • The recycled cartridges added complexity and potential quality variability
  • It was difficult to scale

The new German operation uses fresh metal cassettes and professional spooling machinery. This generates more waste (new cartridges are largely single-use) but produces a more consistent product that's acceptable to labs worldwide.

This is the uncomfortable reality of business sustainability: practices that are ecologically optimal may not be commercially viable. Kamerastore made the business decision to prioritise market reach and product consistency over material reuse. Whether this is the “right” choice depends on what you're optimising for.

The Rebranding Ecosystem

Here's where it gets complicated. Many “new” films on the market aren't new emulsions at all—they're repackaged versions of existing stocks, particularly Kodak's Vision3 motion picture films.

The Vision3 Supply Chain

Kodak's Vision3 motion picture films (50D, 250D, 500T) are the workhorses of Hollywood. They're manufactured in large quantities—far more than Kodak's still photography films—which makes them relatively affordable in bulk.

These films are designed for the ECN-2 process and have a “remjet” backing layer that prevents halation and protects against scratches during high-speed camera transport. This remjet layer is incompatible with standard C-41 processing—it leaves black residue in the chemistry.

CineStill pioneered the practice of removing the remjet layer and repackaging Vision3 for still photographers. Their 50D and 800T films are (or were) essentially modified Vision3 stocks. The remjet removal causes the distinctive halation (“red glow” around bright light sources) that's become CineStill's signature look.

However, recent developments suggest CineStill may now be receiving film from Kodak without remjet already—possibly a custom coating run rather than post-production removal. This would explain how they can offer 120 format (which would be difficult to remjet-remove at scale) and why their film doesn't show the same edge markings as genuine Vision3.

Other Vision3 Derivatives:

The success of CineStill spawned many imitators:

  • Various “250D” and “500T” branded films from smaller companies
  • Films marketed under names like “Cine”, “Cinema”, or with “D” and “T” designations
  • Some honestly marketed as Vision3; others more opaque about their origins

If you see a colour film with “D” (daylight) or “T” (tungsten) in the name, and it's not from Kodak, it's probably Vision3 or claims to be.

The Leica Connection

This rebranding ecosystem has a certain historical appropriateness. The 35mm format itself exists because of motion picture film.

Oskar Barnack, developing the Ur-Leica in 1913, chose to use standard 35mm cinema film because it was readily available and already had established manufacturing. The double-frame format (24×36mm) was his innovation—using two cinema frames’ worth of film per still exposure.

So 35mm photography was, from the beginning, a creative repurposing of motion picture stock. CineStill and its imitators are continuing a tradition that's older than the Leica itself.

Kodak's Response

In a notable development, Kodak has announced plans to produce Vision3 films without the remjet layer. This would allow motion picture films to be processed in standard C-41 chemistry without modification, potentially legitimising and expanding the market that CineStill created.

Whether this helps or hurts the rebranding ecosystem remains to be seen. It might make the base stock more accessible; it might also allow Kodak to compete directly with the rebranders.

Sourcing Considerations: Does Location Matter?

For a European photographer concerned about sustainability, does it matter where film comes from?

The Transport Question

Film manufactured in:

  • Rochester (Kodak): Ships across the Atlantic
  • Mobberley (Ilford): Ships within Europe (for European customers)
  • Czech Republic (Foma): Ships within Europe
  • Japan (Fuji): Ships globally
  • China (Lomography): Ships globally

The carbon footprint of shipping is real but relatively small per unit. A roll of film weighs perhaps 30g packaged; the transport emissions per roll are negligible compared to, say, driving to the camera shop to buy it.

My approach: I'm based in Europe, so I lean toward Ilford/Harman for black-and-white work. This isn't primarily an environmental decision—Ilford films are simply excellent—but the shorter supply chain is a minor bonus.

Quality vs. Geography

Here's the honest reality: film quality doesn't correlate perfectly with geography, but manufacturer capability does.

My experience with European films:

Ilford (UK): Excellent. HP5+, FP4+, and the Delta series are my standard stocks for 35mm and 120. Kentmere (Ilford's budget line) is also very good—better than you'd expect for the price. The hierarchy is clear: FP4/HP5/Delta series, then Kentmere, then everything else.

I chose Ilford partly because I'm from the UK—I grew up in Greater Manchester, very close to the Mobberley factory. There's something meaningful about using film made nearby, even if the environmental benefit of the shorter transport is marginal.

I'm also growing to appreciate Harman Phoenix colour film. It's rough around the edges, with quirks that take getting used to. But I appreciate what Harman is trying to do—challenge Kodak's near-monopoly in the colour space. They're perhaps the only manufacturer at that scale who can. The second generation (Phoenix II) shows improvement, and I'm curious to see where this goes.

Foma (Czech Republic): The films and papers tell different stories.

For paper: Foma is genuinely good value. Their standard Fomaspeed line is a tier below Ilford, but the Fomatone and Fomabrom papers are interesting—and importantly, Foma is one of the few manufacturers actively supporting the experimental community. They test their papers with lith developers and adjust formulations to ensure compatibility. This matters if you do alternative processes.

For film: Different story. Fomapan 400 was the first film I ever bought—a bulk roll—and I haven't bought any since. Fomapan 100 and 200 are acceptable but strictly worse than anything Ilford offers. For 4×5 large format, I use Foma 100, but that's primarily due to price and availability rather than preference.

ORWO and other East German heritage stocks: I haven't been a fan. The quality tends to be inconsistent, and the look (saturation, grain structure) doesn't appeal to me. Your mileage may vary—aesthetic preferences are personal—but I've found these stocks don't reward the effort.

Adox/Rollei: I haven't tried much of their range. Probably I should. They have interesting specialty stocks (the Retro infrared-extended films, the ultra-high-resolution CMS 20) that might be worth exploring.

Film Washi (France): I have a stash of Washi films I haven't tried yet. The concept appeals—hand-spooled specialty films, recycled packaging, artisanal production in Brittany. Looking forward to experimenting with these.

Colour Film: The Harder Question

Colour film sourcing is more constrained. There are essentially three sources:

  1. Kodak (USA): Portra, Ektar, Gold, ColorPlus, Vision3 derivatives
  2. Fuji (Japan): Limited availability, primarily Superia/C200
  3. Everyone else: Mostly repackaged or modified Kodak stocks

SantaColor: I've been using SantaColor 100, which is interesting. It's Kodak AeroColor (aerial surveillance film) hand-spooled in Europe—originally Finland, now reportedly Germany. The film is manufactured in the USA, so you're not avoiding transatlantic shipping, but the hand-spooling operation is local. The results are distinctive—punchy reds, fine grain, a look different from Portra or Ektar.

Lomography: I enjoy the colour twists of Lomography's experimental films—LomoChrome Purple, the various cross-processing-friendly stocks. They're fun for specific projects. But the Chinese manufacturing gives me pause from a sustainability perspective. Labour practices, environmental regulations, and supply chain transparency are all harder to assess. I use these occasionally rather than routinely.

The Honest Assessment

Does sourcing locally meaningfully reduce environmental impact? Probably marginally. The manufacturing process itself—wherever it occurs—dominates the environmental footprint. Transport is a rounding error.

The stronger argument for European sourcing (for European photographers) is:

  • Supporting local(ish) manufacturing capacity
  • Shorter supply chains are more resilient
  • European environmental regulations are generally stricter than alternatives

But the decisive factors remain quality and results. I use Ilford because it's excellent, not just because it's British. I use Kodak Tri-X and Double-X despite the Atlantic crossing because nothing else looks quite like them. I use Foma large format film because it's affordable and available, accepting the quality trade-off.

Business Sustainability vs. Ecological Sustainability

This series has focused on ecological sustainability—chemical impacts, silver recovery, water use. But there's another sustainability that matters: business sustainability.

Film manufacturers face constraints we don't see as consumers:

  • Raw material costs and availability
  • Minimum order quantities from suppliers
  • Equipment maintenance and replacement
  • Labour costs and expertise retention
  • Market size and price sensitivity

Ecological optimisation often conflicts with business viability.

The SantaColor transition illustrates this perfectly. Hand-spooling into recycled cartridges was ecologically superior—material reuse, minimal packaging waste. But it limited market reach (Japanese labs wouldn't accept it), created quality variability, and couldn't scale efficiently. The move to professional spooling with fresh cartridges generates more waste but enables a sustainable business.

Similarly, Foma could probably make higher-quality films if they charged more. But their market position is as the affordable option—raising prices would lose their customer base. They optimise for the market they serve, not for absolute quality.

Even Kodak and Ilford make trade-offs. Packaging could be reduced, but film needs light protection. Plastic cartridges could be eliminated, but metal is more expensive. Cold-chain shipping for professional films adds environmental cost, but it ensures quality.

What this means for us:

When we buy film, we're supporting not just the environmental impact of that roll, but the business model that produces it. Buying from manufacturers with good environmental practices (to the extent we can assess them) matters. But buying at all matters too—without sufficient demand, manufacturers can't justify continued production.

The film photography ecosystem needs both ecological responsibility and commercial viability. Perfect ecological sustainability with no market isn't sustainable at all.

The Rochester Question

The history of film manufacturing includes environmental cautionary tales worth knowing.

Kodak Park was for decades the world's largest film manufacturing site—and one of the largest chemical manufacturing facilities in the world. The environmental legacy includes:

  • Silver contamination: Significant silver deposits in the Genesee River sediments downstream from Kodak Park. While silver was recovered from fixer in the manufacturing process, not all silver was captured over decades of operation.

  • Methylene chloride contamination: A solvent used in film base manufacturing. Groundwater contamination was documented and remediation undertaken.

  • Air emissions: Historic emissions of solvents and chemical compounds from manufacturing processes. Rochester residents of certain generations remember the smell.

Kodak has undertaken significant environmental remediation, and modern manufacturing operates under much stricter controls. But the history is a reminder: film manufacturing at industrial scale has real environmental impacts. The beautiful images we make have a shadow.

Other manufacturers have less public documentation of environmental impacts. This may reflect smaller scale, stricter regulations, or simply less scrutiny. Ilford's Mobberley facility operates under UK environmental law; Foma under Czech/EU regulations; Fuji under Japanese standards. None of these are unregulated, but none are as thoroughly documented as Kodak's Rochester legacy.

What We Don't Know

Transparency about environmental impact in film manufacturing is limited. Manufacturers don't routinely publish:

  • Total energy consumption per roll of film
  • Water usage in manufacturing
  • Chemical emissions and waste streams
  • Silver recovery rates in manufacturing
  • Supply chain impacts (gelatin sourcing, chemical synthesis)

This makes precise environmental accounting impossible. We can estimate based on composition, but the manufacturing process itself is largely a black box.

The small-scale producers (Film Washi, Santa) are more transparent about their processes—hand-spooling, recycled cartridges, local operations—but they're working with film manufactured elsewhere. The emulsion coating, which is the environmentally significant step, still happens in industrial facilities.

A Rough Estimate: Film vs. Other Activities

Despite the uncertainties, we can make rough comparisons.

A roll of 35mm film contains:

  • ~1g silver (conservatively)
  • ~5g gelatin
  • ~5g cellulose triacetate
  • ~3g plastic (canister)
  • Various chemical additives

The silver is the dominant environmental factor. Silver mining produces roughly 1.5–4 kg CO₂ equivalent per gram of silver (depending on extraction method and accounting). So the silver in one roll of film represents perhaps 1.5–4 kg CO₂ equivalent—comparable to driving 5–15 km in a typical car.

But this overstates the impact because:

  • Much photographic silver is recycled (circular economy)
  • The film itself is a durable good that produces lasting images
  • Per-image, the impact decreases with how many frames you expose

Comparison to digital:

  • A digital camera body contains rare earth elements, complex electronics, batteries
  • Manufacturing impact of a DSLR is estimated at 70–100 kg CO₂ equivalent
  • But a digital camera takes unlimited images with no per-image material cost

The comparison is genuinely difficult because the usage patterns differ so much. A film shooter using 20 rolls per year has very different impact than one using 200 rolls. A digital shooter who upgrades cameras every two years has different impact than one who uses the same body for a decade.

Paper Manufacturing

Photographic paper has similar components to film:

  • Silver halide emulsion
  • Gelatin binder
  • Paper base (fibre) or resin-coated paper base

Silver content in paper:

  • Fibre paper: 2–4 g/m²
  • RC paper: 1–2 g/m²

An 8×10 inch print (0.05 m²) contains roughly 0.1–0.2g silver (fibre) or 0.05–0.1g silver (RC). Much less than a roll of film, but paper is consumed in larger quantities if you're printing regularly.

Paper base:

  • Fibre paper: High-quality paper pulp, potentially from sustainable forestry
  • RC paper: Paper base coated with polyethylene (petroleum-derived)

My paper sourcing: I use Foma paper extensively. Unlike Foma films, Foma papers are genuinely good—competitive with Ilford at a lower price point. The Czech manufacturing means shorter European supply chains. For premium work, Ilford Multigrade FB remains the standard, but Foma handles most of my printing.

What Can We Do?

The upstream impacts are largely outside individual control—we can't change how Kodak manufactures Portra. But some choices matter:

Reduce waste:

  • Expose film thoughtfully (every wasted frame has manufacturing impact)
  • Don't over-order and let film expire
  • Bulk loading reduces packaging, though the cost savings are often marginal (10–20% at best, sometimes nothing)—do it for the waste reduction and convenience, not primarily for savings

Extend the useful life:

  • Store film properly (cool and dry extends life)
  • Develop promptly or freeze for long-term storage
  • Use what you buy

Close the loop:

  • Recover silver from fixer (returns silver to the supply chain)
  • Recycle what can be recycled (canisters, packaging)

Consider sourcing:

  • European manufacturers for European photographers (marginal transport benefit)
  • Quality over geography (don't sacrifice results for sourcing ideology)
  • Support small producers where their products fit your needs

Maintain perspective:

  • The upstream impact of film is real but not dominant
  • Processing impacts (especially silver in fixer) are more controllable
  • A year of film shooting has less environmental impact than a single long-haul flight

Perspective

Film manufacturing has environmental costs. So does digital camera manufacturing. So does almost every activity in modern life.

The question isn't whether photography has an environmental impact—it does. The question is whether that impact is proportionate to what we get from it, and whether we're managing the controllable parts responsibly.

What we control:

  • How we process (silver recovery, chemical disposal)
  • How much we waste (thoughtful shooting, proper storage)
  • How we dispose of materials (recycling, hazardous waste)

What we don't control:

  • How film is manufactured
  • The global supply chain
  • Corporate environmental practices

I focus this series on what we control because that's where individual action makes a difference. The upstream impacts are real but diffuse—they're part of participating in any manufactured supply chain.

The film photography ecosystem in 2025 is more diverse than it's been in decades. Kodak and Ilford anchor the market; Foma provides budget options; CineStill and its imitators repurpose motion picture stock; artisanal producers like Film Washi offer genuinely unique products. We have choices. Those choices have environmental implications, but they're not the dominant factor.

If the upstream costs of film manufacturing trouble you, the most effective response isn't to stop shooting film—it's to shoot thoughtfully, process responsibly, and recover silver. Those actions have more impact per unit of effort than agonizing over which continent your film was coated on.

Appendix: Film Composition by Type

Black & White Negative Film

Components:

  • Silver halide (primarily silver bromide): 0.5–1.5g per 36-exposure roll
  • Gelatin: 4–6g per roll
  • Base: Cellulose triacetate or polyester
  • Anti-halation layer (dye, washes out during processing)
  • Hardeners, stabilizers, anti-static agents

Environmental notes:

  • Simplest composition
  • Single emulsion layer (least silver per frame)
  • Processing chemistry is well-understood

Colour Negative Film (C-41)

Components:

  • Silver halide: 1–2g per roll (multiple layers)
  • Dye couplers: Cyan, magenta, yellow coupler compounds
  • Gelatin: 5–8g per roll
  • Base: Polyester typical
  • Orange mask (for colour correction in printing)

Environmental notes:

  • More silver than B&W (multiple emulsion layers)
  • Dye couplers remain in film after processing
  • Bleach-fix silver recovery particularly important

Colour Reversal Film (E-6)

Components:

  • Similar to colour negative but different dye couplers
  • No orange mask
  • Silver content comparable to colour negative

Environmental notes:

  • Processing more complex (reversal step)
  • Similar silver concerns to C-41

Motion Picture Film (ECN-2)

Components:

  • Similar to colour negative
  • Remjet backing layer (carbon-based anti-halation and anti-static layer)
  • Often on thinner base for high-speed camera transport

Environmental notes:

  • Remjet must be removed before C-41 processing (or use ECN-2)
  • Removal process adds a step but doesn't significantly change environmental profile
  • The base stock for many “new” still photography films

References

Silver content estimates vary by source. 0.5–2g per 36-exposure roll is a commonly cited range. Higher ISO films and colour films tend toward the higher end.

CO₂ equivalent estimates for silver mining vary widely depending on ore grade, extraction method, and whether silver is primary product or byproduct. 1.5–4 kg CO₂/g is a rough estimate based on various lifecycle analyses.

Information on CineStill, Film Washi, Santa, and other small producers drawn from company websites, interviews, and industry reporting (Kosmo Foto, 35mmc, Casual Photophile, Emulsive).