2 bulk loading questions

[RLangham]

So I've heard that the most you can really get into a 35mm cartridge with a bulk roller is 46 frames plus header and tail.
So my questions are:

Can I get that length minus the header into a Paterson reel? What about a Rondinax 35U daylight-loading tank?

And are there any cameras whose automatic mechanical frame counters are damaged by repeatedly advancing past 36? Specifically, what about Nikon F2? Minolta srT? Obviously anything with a manually reset counter like on a Leica is fine...

 

[Konical]

Good Evening RLangham,

Not all film is the same thickness, but generally, trying to crank more than about 40 exposures into a cassette isn't likely to be successful. While I use SS reels, I do have Pattersons too; I don't think that anything beyond 37-38 frames will fit either type of reel, unless the leader is extremely short. An additional problem is that putting more than 36 full frames on a contact sheet, even using 8½ × 11 paper, doesn't work. Whether or not a camera will wind past 36 exposures isn't really important; the other considerations make it impractical.

Konical

 

[RLangham]

Good Evening RLangham,

Not all film is the same thickness, but generally, trying to crank more than about 40 exposures into a cassette isn't likely to be successful. While I use SS reels, I do have Pattersons too; I don't think that anything beyond 37-38 frames will fit either type of reel, unless the leader is extremely short. An additional problem is that putting more than 36 full frames on a contact sheet, even using 8½ × 11 paper, doesn't work. Whether or not a camera will wind past 36 exposures isn't really important; the other considerations make it impractical.

Konical

I could have sworn the figure that people usually quote is 43 or 46 or something.

I don't care about the contact sheets. I've never made one and I don't really care to.

 

[AgX]

42 was no problem with the Jobo 1000 series, though never tried with the 1500 series. I say 42 as that was the maximum my file sheets took.


I expect no issues with mechanical frame counters. Some electronic counters start rewind after fram 36 or so.

 

[Donald Qualls]

A Paterson reel is usually good for 39-40 frames. As noted, mechanical counters will either stop incrementing (without harm), scroll past zero, or continue into blank space past about 38 on the dial. I don't know of any that will be damaged; all should accommodate at least 39 on the counter if they start count when you close the door (careful loading can usually get 39 on a "36 exposure" factory roll). Electronic counters will either just keep counting, or automatically rewind (though there might be a few that will report an error).

For Rondinax, you'd have to either test, or find a spec sheet or instruction manual original to the tank. It might well have changed over time, as well as possibly being different for different Rondinax clones.

 

[AgX]

With Jobo 1000 series I had no issue having up to one winding ouside the guides.

 

[ic-racer]

I used these reels in the 1980s for the thin film base, 72 exposure HP5 loads. Still have a few rolls in the freezer. I my cameras with this film, the counter keeps going up to 72. There was a special pressure plate, also, that had a thinner channel.

 

[Autonerd]

Can I get that length minus the header into a Paterson reel? What about a Rondinax 35U daylight-loading tank?

I use stainless steel reels and can't get much more than 39 exposures on them. Back in The Day I used to bulk roll these "super" 40+ exposure rolls until one got caught in the processing machine and ruined all the photos. That, as they say, was the end of that.

I roll my film in a dark bag without a bulk loader, but I shoot for 24-or-so exposures. I'm just too impatient.

And are there any cameras whose automatic mechanical frame counters are damaged by repeatedly advancing past 36? Specifically, what about Nikon F2? Minolta srT? Obviously anything with a manually reset counter like on a Leica is fine...

In my mega-roll days I never had any problems with this on my mechanical counters (Pentax cameras).

Aaron

 

[guangong]

I long ago ceased trying to squeeze a few more frames from a roll. Some cameras will not permit shooting more than 36 exposures. Minox 8x11 camera’s started with 50 exposures cassettes and then switched to 36. I have difficulty shooting even 36 frames with meaningful shots. Of course, for those who have rapid automatic film advance, 360 frames would be to few, but then they have moved on to digital.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I used these reels in the 1980s for the thin film base, 72 exposure HP5 loads. Still have a few rolls in the freezer. I my cameras with this film, the counter keeps going up to 72. There was a special pressure plate, also, that had a thinner channel.

How the heck do you handle a 72 exposure film strip? Sure, you never have much out of the cassette at a time when loading into the reel, but when it's processed and wet, you've got ten feet of wet film to handle and hang, preferably without dragging it on the floor...

 

[RLangham]

How the heck do you handle a 72 exposure film strip? Sure, you never have much out of the cassette at a time when loading into the reel, but when it's processed and wet, you've got ten feet of wet film to handle and hang, preferably without dragging it on the floor...

Would have to cut it coming off the reel, I think.

 

[AgX]

For hanging too long film strips, there were special pulleys with a lead weight, to form a loop.

 

[Mr Flibble]

I think one of the Kodak Retina series would stop working once the count-down on the frame-counter reached 0. You could still reset the counter by hand though and continue shooting.

Wouldn't know about the maximum load of a 135 cartridge. I usually load 40 frames with my Watson 100 bulk loader. That gives me roughly 35-36 exposures + a few inches of leader (and a lost frame at the end ) .

 

[AgX]

Type Rapid cameras block the release after the standard number of exposures as otherwise, with industrially loaded cassettes, the camera would expose on the pressure plate.

 

[Pentode]

I have used some thicker films (I can't remember which) that got pretty darned tight in the cassette once I got past about 38 exposures. Stainless steel reels (I use Nikor, Hewes and Kindermann) will only hold about 38 frames as well (with leader). I suspect Paterson reels would hold a little more. Most of my cameras, if not all, will happily go past the end of the counter without causing any damage.

I've found 34 exposure rolls to work well with the way I do things in terms of loading, developing and filing but that's just one person's preference.

 

[eli griggs]

Loading more than the 36 - 40 frames of film is, IMO, a misadventure waiting to happen, especially if that excess, trackless film ends up against another frame's image.

I use both SS and Paterson reels, but the SS seems to handle any extra frames best.

I'll add, that, if you shoot brackets on each set-up/image or on most, 36 frames can move alone quickly enough into the 12 - 24 image zone, so consider this when loading spools for an outing.

IMO.

 

[RLangham]

I think one of the Kodak Retina series would stop working once the count-down on the frame-counter reached 0. You could still reset the counter by hand though and continue shooting.

Wouldn't know about the maximum load of a 135 cartridge. I usually load 40 frames with my Watson 100 bulk loader. That gives me roughly 35-36 exposures + a few inches of leader (and a lost frame at the end ) .

I'm also using a Watson 100. I set the dial to 35 to start so that once it passes zero it indicates the approximate actual number of usable frames being wound.

I remember when I had a fixed lens rigid Retina (IIF I think) that it was a manual exposure counter. I was meaning to exclude that when I said "automatic", actually, since it's not actually that much different than a "dead wheel" rotary counter like on a Leica or copy, practically speaking.

I've just encountered so many SLR's specifically where the automatic counters are stuck either at 0 or just past 36... my original Minolta sr-T 201, my Nikkormat, several cheaper cameras... that I tend to assume it's a delicate mechanism. I do know that one of then was dropped before I got it, as it has a dent on the corner immediately adjacent to the counter. So I don't really know if they're generally delicate or not.

FWIW I accidentally misloaded my Nikon F2 the other day and somehow got the counter past 40 on a 36-exposure roll (commercial, not bulk)-- obviously I lost several frames at the beginning and came out with 36 or 37 but at least I know that that one could handle 40 frames. And then of course with my Nikkormat or my Praktica TL3 it doesn't matter: already broken!

 

[ic-racer]

How the heck do you handle a 72 exposure film strip? Sure, you never have much out of the cassette at a time when loading into the reel, but when it's processed and wet, you've got ten feet of wet film to handle and hang, preferably without dragging it on the floor...

I cut it at the half-way point after an in-tank wash. I use the Ilford clips that have two small needles to grab the film. The 1980s were a long time ago, but as I recall the frames were numbered to find that half-way point.
Later, when I moved to Jobo processing, I did the cut in the dark and fed the film on two standard reels. Usually one frame will be cut in the process.

 

[ic-racer]

About ten years ago I had some thin-based cine 35mm film. It was a little thicker than the Ilford 72 exposure film but it would still fit about 50 exposures in a standard 35mm cassette. I'd split it into a short and long roll in the dark while loading it onto standard Jobo 35mm reels. Again, this cut in the dark destroys one frame.

 

[AgX]

Loading more than the 36 - 40 frames of film is, IMO, a misadventure waiting to happen, especially if that excess, trackless film ends up against another frame's image.

A one-winding excess of film would not really be trackless, there still would be the guide between two windings. But the excess winding would not get lateral guide and thus might get scratched itself. One woud have to test ones set-up and handling on this. If one spools the film with the enmulsion inside, then at lest the regular film length is proteced from being scratched.

 

[MattKing]

Clearly the OP needs a 250 frame back - this one is perfect for an OM-1!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Clearly the OP needs a 250 frame back - this one is perfect for an OM-1!

And don't forget a reel-to-reel cine tank for processing the film...

 

[eli griggs]

If one spools the film with the enmulsion inside, then at lest the regular film length is proteced from being scratched.

Yes, but the frames with the real treasures are almost always the ones that end up on the outer limit. ;-)

IMO.

 

[Wallendo]

A one-winding excess of film would not really be trackless, there still would be the guide between two windings. But the excess winding would not get lateral guide and thus might get scratched itself. One woud have to test ones set-up and handling on this. If one spools the film with the enmulsion inside, then at lest the regular film length is proteced from being scratched.

Recently, I lost track of the count while rolling a 36-exposure roll with a Lloyd-type loader. When the film was processed with steel reels, there was excess film which wrapped twice around the outside of the reel. Interestingly, the out film suffered several incidents or lightning type static, but all the frames otherwise developed well. Scratching wasn't an issue, but apparently the film rubbing against itself was an issue.

 

[RLangham]

Recently, I lost track of the count while rolling a 36-exposure roll with a Lloyd-type loader. When the film was processed with steel reels, there was excess film which wrapped twice around the outside of the reel. Interestingly, the out film suffered several incidents or lightning type static, but all the frames otherwise developed well. Scratching wasn't an issue, but apparently the film rubbing against itself was an issue.

That's incredible. I once struggled to get a commercial 36 exposure roll fully into a slightly wet paterson reel, to where it had only 3 or 4 inches outside the guides. It somehow came in contact with and stuck to the film on the outermost layer within the guide and there were undeveloped regions on both.