24 vs 36 exposure

mehguy · Apr 26, 2015

Which one is better for 35mm film? ive never shot 36 exposure film. Is it better value to get 36 than 24?

bluez · Apr 26, 2015

The cost of developing a 35mm is usually the same for a 24 or a 36 exposure, so the film economy is better. 36 is also better, because you don't have to change film so often, it's an advantage if you are shooting sports, wildlife or something.

Jeff Bradford · Apr 26, 2015

24 is cheaper per roll. Most 135 films are approximately the same price per frame whether packaged as 24, 36, or 100 foot roll. It is more a matter of convenience. How many pictures do you want to take before you develop the film? If you find yourself taking seven pictures of your cat just to finish off your 24 roll so you can develop it, a 36 roll may not be your best option. On the other hand, you have a better selection of available films with 36 rolls.

480sparky · Apr 26, 2015

Neither one is 'overall' better. Each has their purposes.

darkosaric · Apr 26, 2015

If you don't shoot much and you can't wait - then 24 exp. is better. Also shorter film handles better in the darkroom. But better value for money (specially if you don't develop yourself) is 36 exp.

Alan W · Apr 26, 2015

After a great amount of research,and much pulling of hair,I have discovered that 30 frames is exactly the right amount.You'll have to roll them yourself,though.

Sirius Glass · Apr 26, 2015

I use 36 exposure rolls and wait if necessary to finish the roll. If you cannot wait then use 24 exposure rolls.

removed account4 · Apr 26, 2015

it is a personal preference.
i used to like 36 exposures, and when i bulk loaded my own i always made 36 my target length.
but then when i started to work for a newspaper, and used 1 roll / assignment ( or more than 1 roll ) i found that
36 was a few exposures too much so i started shooting 24.
i use a half frame camera a lot of the time now, and 72 frames is a bit much, 48 is Ok ..

Jim Jones · Apr 26, 2015

I rarely bother with less than 36 exposures. After the last photo expedition there were 80 rolls of 36 exposure B&W film to develop. That was a lot better than 120 rolls of 24 exposure. There are also valid reasons for shooting shorter rolls.

Paul Howell · Apr 26, 2015

I usually shoot 35 on a 36 roll so all the frames will fit a negative file page. I also bulk roll as few a 8 frames so I can shoot zone, one scene cut into three sections, sacrifice 2 frames in the process but can then develop N + 1 or -1.

OptiKen · Apr 26, 2015

But which gives more color, THAT'S the question.

Sirius Glass · Apr 26, 2015

OptiKen said:
But which gives more color, THAT'S the question.

Even for black & white?

RalphLambrecht · Apr 26, 2015

Jeff Bradford said:
24 is cheaper per roll. Most 135 films are approximately the same price per frame whether packaged as 24, 36, or 100 foot roll. It is more a matter of convenience. How many pictures do you want to take before you develop the film? If you find yourself taking seven pictures of your cat just to finish off your 24 roll so you can develop it, a 36 roll may not be your best option. On the other hand, you have a better selection of available films with 36 rolls.

I shoot 16-bit B&W and 24-bit color

480sparky · Apr 26, 2015

OptiKen said:
But which gives more color, THAT'S the question.

Well, 36x rolls.... duh!

But if you want LOTS of color, pop on a bulk-film back and buy 100' roll to put in it. Then you'll have tons of color.

kb3lms · Apr 26, 2015

36 seems right for me. I think 36 is usually a better deal.

For bulk loading I usually pull as much as I think I will need off the roll and into the cassette, so it could be just about anything.

fotch · Apr 27, 2015

Use to be the 36x was less expensive per shot and I rarely ran out of subject matter. Exception was in real estate where a 12x roll was used for quick pics.

RattyMouse · Apr 27, 2015

Fuji has rolls of 27 exposures. Sorta weird.

Greg Heath · Apr 27, 2015

All of the vintage cameras I use 24 max. It just works better for me and I use steel developing reels. With 36, I have trouble winding the film onto the rolls. 24 is perfect, and sometimes I will do even less than that.. like 12 to 15. I mostly shoot 6x6, so I try to treat it like I do the MF, and try not to waste shots.

Paul Howell · Apr 27, 2015

RattyMouse said:
Fuji has rolls of 27 exposures. Sorta weird.

27 is the standard load for single use cameras, I don't know how 27 became standard.

Jeff Bradford · Apr 27, 2015

27 in the disposable cameras is a 24 roll, but since it is factory-loaded, the leader doesn't go to waste in the loading process.

film_man · Apr 27, 2015

I get 38-39 shots on my R8. I think that's best.

Ap507b · Apr 27, 2015

I find myself shooting a lot of 24 exposure lately where years ago I only shot 36. 2 reasons.

Firstly, I can get a 24 exposure roll of Agfa Vista 200, which is rebranded Fuji from my local Poundland for £1. A couple of years back they did 36 exp rolls, but now all they do is 24. Better films out there I accept, but it is great for general photography.

Secondly, I have around a dozen cameras loaded at any one time & flit between them. A shorter roll means I get it finished quicker which suits me now.

Alan Gales · Apr 27, 2015

I used to favor the 12 exposure rolls most of the time. If on vacation or shooting sports I liked the 36.

randyB · Apr 27, 2015

Jeff Bradford said:
24 is cheaper per roll. Most 135 films are approximately the same price per frame whether packaged as 24, 36, or 100 foot roll. It is more a matter of convenience. How many pictures do you want to take before you develop the film? If you find yourself taking seven pictures of your cat just to finish off your 24 roll so you can develop it, a 36 roll may not be your best option. On the other hand, you have a better selection of available films with 36 rolls.

Really?

Let's do some price checking.

Freestyle sales film Arista EDU Ultra, a film many people here use.

24 exp= $3.19 = .133 per frame
36 exp= $3.59 = .099 per frame
100 ft.= $40.99 = .046 per frame

36 is 40 cents more than 24 and you get 12 more frames

100ft should give appx 25 rolls of 36 exp for a cost of appx $1.64 per 36 roll

How can the cost per frame be the same?

Other brands have simular price structures.

johnha · Apr 27, 2015

As processing seems to cost the same these days, 36exp seems more economic (I usually get 38-39). However, as I've been shooting 120 roll film much more recently, anything more than 20exp takes me ages to shoot.

24 vs 36 exposure

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency