24 vs 36 exposure

[benjiboy]

I've seen very few 24 exposure 35mm films in the shops these days, and certainly the Kodak and Fuji professional films I tend to use are only manufactured in 36 exposures and I in fact never shoot more than 34 exposures on 36 exposure film because it avoids pulling the attached film end out of the cassette because of a bad experience I had many years ago when the film was pulled out in the middle of shooting a wedding.

 

[trythis]

I bought a bunch of that wallmart cheap fuji 200 speed stuff and its all 24 exp. I rarely use it because developing it is 50% more than 36 exp rolls. My lab went from $3.50 to $5 just after I bought it.


Typos made on a tiny phone...

 

[Jeff Bradford]

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.

I've been buying Tri-X. No price break even for a 100' spool. I recall getting about 18 to 20 rolls of around 36 exposures each from a 100' spool.

I haven't shot any Arista in a while. Your argument compels me to give it another go.

 

[zanxion72]

Anything shorter than 36 exp is a waste of money especially for color. The only case I use shorter film is to test a new 100ft roll I had just bought.