Home › By the numbers › Lab Access Index
The Lab Access Index
"Film developing near me" only works if there's a me near a lab. This is how reachable a film developer actually is across the country — not how many exist, but whether one is anywhere you can get to. Developers per person, how many towns in your state have one at all, and how many states keep every lab packed into a single city.
Thinnest coverage, per capita
The covered states with the fewest developers for their population — where a lab technically exists but "near me" is optimistic.
| State | Developers | Population | Per million |
| Mississippi | 1 | 2,943,045 | 0.3 |
| Idaho | 1 | 2,001,619 | 0.5 |
| West Virginia | 1 | 1,769,979 | 0.6 |
| Missouri | 5 | 6,245,466 | 0.8 |
| Louisiana | 4 | 4,597,740 | 0.9 |
| South Carolina | 5 | 5,478,831 | 0.9 |
| Oklahoma | 4 | 4,095,393 | 1 |
| South Dakota | 1 | 924,669 | 1.1 |
| Georgia | 15 | 11,180,878 | 1.3 |
| Wisconsin | 8 | 5,960,975 | 1.3 |
Even where labs exist, they cluster in one city
A state count hides the real access problem. Here is the share of each state's developers that sit in its single biggest hub city — among states with at least 4 developers. In 7 of them, more than half the state's developers are in one city.
| State | Developers | Towns with one | Biggest hub | Share in hub |
| District of Columbia | 4 | 1 | Washington | 100% |
| Hawaii | 4 | 1 | Honolulu | 100% |
| Kansas | 5 | 3 | Wichita | 60% |
| Kentucky | 9 | 4 | Louisville | 55.6% |
| Arizona | 11 | 5 | Phoenix | 54.5% |
| Nevada | 6 | 3 | Las Vegas | 50% |
| Oklahoma | 4 | 3 | Tulsa | 50% |
| Utah | 19 | 8 | Salt Lake City | 47.4% |
| Alabama | 7 | 4 | Montgomery | 42.9% |
| Tennessee | 12 | 7 | Nashville | 41.7% |
| Vermont | 5 | 4 | Brattleboro | 40% |
| Delaware | 5 | 4 | Wilmington | 40% |
| Maine | 5 | 3 | Kittery | 40% |
| Nebraska | 5 | 4 | Omaha | 40% |
| New Mexico | 5 | 4 | Albuquerque | 40% |
Film developers per million, every covered state
The full index. Counts normalised against US Census Vintage 2024 population estimates, across 51 states and 580 cities with coverage.
| # | State | Developers | Towns with one | Population | Per million |
| 1 | Vermont | 5 | 4 | 648,493 | 7.7 |
| 2 | District of Columbia | 4 | 1 | 702,250 | 5.7 |
| 3 | Utah | 19 | 8 | 3,503,613 | 5.4 |
| 4 | New York | 102 | 46 | 19,867,248 | 5.1 |
| 5 | Delaware | 5 | 4 | 1,051,917 | 4.8 |
| 6 | Oregon | 20 | 10 | 4,272,371 | 4.7 |
| 7 | Massachusetts | 31 | 24 | 7,136,171 | 4.3 |
| 8 | California | 143 | 88 | 39,431,263 | 3.6 |
| 9 | Maine | 5 | 3 | 1,405,012 | 3.6 |
| 10 | New Jersey | 32 | 29 | 9,500,851 | 3.4 |
| 11 | Wyoming | 2 | 2 | 587,618 | 3.4 |
| 12 | Minnesota | 19 | 17 | 5,793,151 | 3.3 |
| 13 | Pennsylvania | 43 | 31 | 13,078,751 | 3.3 |
| 14 | Florida | 69 | 44 | 23,372,215 | 3 |
| 15 | New Hampshire | 4 | 4 | 1,409,032 | 2.8 |
| 16 | Hawaii | 4 | 1 | 1,446,146 | 2.8 |
| 17 | Rhode Island | 3 | 2 | 1,112,308 | 2.7 |
| 18 | Washington | 21 | 14 | 7,958,180 | 2.6 |
| 19 | Colorado | 15 | 7 | 5,957,493 | 2.5 |
| 20 | Nebraska | 5 | 4 | 2,005,465 | 2.5 |
| 21 | North Dakota | 2 | 2 | 796,568 | 2.5 |
| 22 | Virginia | 21 | 17 | 8,811,195 | 2.4 |
| 23 | New Mexico | 5 | 4 | 2,130,256 | 2.3 |
| 24 | Michigan | 21 | 17 | 10,140,459 | 2.1 |
| 25 | Kentucky | 9 | 4 | 4,588,372 | 2 |
| 26 | Maryland | 12 | 8 | 6,263,220 | 1.9 |
| 27 | Illinois | 23 | 15 | 12,710,158 | 1.8 |
| 28 | Nevada | 6 | 3 | 3,267,467 | 1.8 |
| 29 | Montana | 2 | 2 | 1,137,233 | 1.8 |
| 30 | Kansas | 5 | 3 | 2,970,606 | 1.7 |
| 31 | Tennessee | 12 | 7 | 7,227,750 | 1.7 |
| 32 | Ohio | 19 | 14 | 11,883,304 | 1.6 |
| 33 | Arkansas | 5 | 5 | 3,088,354 | 1.6 |
| 34 | Texas | 48 | 25 | 31,290,831 | 1.5 |
| 35 | North Carolina | 17 | 8 | 11,046,024 | 1.5 |
| 36 | Arizona | 11 | 5 | 7,582,384 | 1.5 |
| 37 | Iowa | 5 | 4 | 3,241,488 | 1.5 |
| 38 | Indiana | 10 | 9 | 6,924,275 | 1.4 |
| 39 | Connecticut | 5 | 5 | 3,675,069 | 1.4 |
| 40 | Alaska | 1 | 1 | 740,133 | 1.4 |
| 41 | Alabama | 7 | 4 | 5,157,699 | 1.4 |
| 42 | Wisconsin | 8 | 5 | 5,960,975 | 1.3 |
| 43 | Georgia | 15 | 10 | 11,180,878 | 1.3 |
| 44 | South Dakota | 1 | 1 | 924,669 | 1.1 |
| 45 | Oklahoma | 4 | 3 | 4,095,393 | 1 |
| 46 | South Carolina | 5 | 5 | 5,478,831 | 0.9 |
| 47 | Louisiana | 4 | 4 | 4,597,740 | 0.9 |
| 48 | Missouri | 5 | 4 | 6,245,466 | 0.8 |
| 49 | West Virginia | 1 | 1 | 1,769,979 | 0.6 |
| 50 | Idaho | 1 | 1 | 2,001,619 | 0.5 |
| 51 | Mississippi | 1 | 1 | 2,943,045 | 0.3 |
No lab near you? That's what mail-in is for
The honest conclusion of this whole index is that for a large share of the country, the nearest good lab is not local — and that's fine. Mailing a roll to a reputable lab beats the drugstore on price, scan quality, turnaround and, above all, getting your negatives back. It has been the default for rural film shooters for decades.
186 developers in this directory are known to accept mail-in film. See the trusted mail-in film labs and how mailing your film works, or check whether a developer is closer than you think.
Method & reuse
Free to cite under CC BY 4.0 with a link to this page.
A "developer" is any listing that actually processes film — a dedicated film lab, a camera store with a developing counter, or a community darkroom. Scan-only services, which digitize film you have already had developed, are not counted. "Towns with one" counts distinct cities in a state that have at least one developer; hub concentration is the share of a state's developers located in its single largest such city.
Population is US Census Bureau Vintage 2024 (POPESTIMATE2024). Counts are a census of publicly findable developers, so treat every figure as a floor — a lab with no web presence is undercounted. Data compiled 2026-07-25.