30 Exposure rolls

[George Collier]

After graduation, in the mid 70's, I taught photography at a state university for a few years. There were many students with various projects using different film and developer combinations, and I made arrangements to order 100ft rolls and we started bulk loading, running short 10 exp rolls for testing, etc. We had three loaders for different films - Tri-x, FP4 (before the "+" version arrived), and a third alternate, which varied over time.
100ft rolls were about $8 a the time (remember that?) , we used cheap reloadables, and I think some factory cassettes were still re-loadable.
Over time we gravitated to rolls of 30 exposures - a nice compromise, no one missed the 6 exposures (no sports photographers) and we got an extra few rolls per 100 footer, a nice benefit for students.
Since most of the commercial work today is probably digital, I wonder if it would make sense to adopt a 30 exposure roll as standard? Simplify manufacturing? I recently ordered some Tri-x and one supplier had 36's but no 24's.
Would that be crazy?

 

[BrianShaw]

I'd rather see 20 frame rolls again. That would make loading a Kodak Retina a bit easier since the countdown counter is marked for 20 and 36.

 

[otto.f]

Reminds me of this joke:
"Oh Bob the gasoline prices are going up again!"
"Oh I don't mind, I always tank for 30 dollars"

 

[Chan Tran]

After graduation, in the mid 70's, I taught photography at a state university for a few years. There were many students with various projects using different film and developer combinations, and I made arrangements to order 100ft rolls and we started bulk loading, running short 10 exp rolls for testing, etc. We had three loaders for different films - Tri-x, FP4 (before the "+" version arrived), and a third alternate, which varied over time.
100ft rolls were about $8 a the time (remember that?) , we used cheap reloadables, and I think some factory cassettes were still re-loadable.
Over time we gravitated to rolls of 30 exposures - a nice compromise, no one missed the 6 exposures (no sports photographers) and we got an extra few rolls per 100 footer, a nice benefit for students.
Since most of the commercial work today is probably digital, I wonder if it would make sense to adopt a 30 exposure roll as standard? Simplify manufacturing? I recently ordered some Tri-x and one supplier had 36's but no 24's.
Would that be crazy?

In today expensive film it makes sense to have the longest roll and 36 is it. Longer than 36 may cause some problem due to the size of the cassette. The extra length of film doesn't cost the manufacturer much.

 

[Moose22]

In today expensive film it makes sense to have the longest roll and 36 is it. Longer than 36 may cause some problem due to the size of the cassette. The extra length of film doesn't cost the manufacturer much.

I agree. Especially for people who use a lab rather than developing at home, charges tend to be per roll, not per shot. I pay the same to scan 12 medium format as 36 35mm, I pay the same for 24 or 36 shot rolls... I'm going 36 shots.

I tend to roll about 24-25 when I reload for dev at home. Last 3 or 4 shots have danger of fog, so I get 20-22 good shots per roll and it is a good number for me. But I wouldn't want short rolls for anything I send out to get processed.

 

[faberryman]

I think 30 exposure rolls is a good compromise between those who have been clamoring for 29 exposure rolls and those who have been clamoring for 31 exposure rolls, though both sides remain unhappy. Of course, this is just another reason you would be better off shooting digital. SD cards come in a wide variety of sizes so you can tailor your use of them to the job at hand.

Like a lot of posters here, I bulk load black and white film. It saves about 30% and you can make the rolls any length you want. I usually roll 36 exposures. After exposure and development, I try to find which frame can be eliminated and still leave me with seven 5 exposure strips so they fit in my file pages. Given my keeper rate, it isn't as difficult as it sounds.

One idiosyncrasy of bulk film is that the frames are numbered 1-40 instead of 1-36, so you will regularly get your first or last strip numbered 39, 40, 1, 2, 3, and unless you are paying attention you won't know whether to put it in the first row or last row of your file page. Film manufacturers like to mess with your mind. I guess if I had to run one of those machines all day I would try to think up something to amuse myself too.

This is why it is important for young film enthusiasts to participate on a forum like Photrio. Where else are you going to learn essential information like this. Young film enthusiasts obviously will be standing on the shoulders of giants.

 

[NB23]

Reminds me of this joke:
"Oh Bob the gasoline prices are going up again!"
"Oh I don't mind, I always tank for 30 dollars"

Damn, even that old joke has been updated for inflation. It used to be 20$ LOL

 

[MattKing]

I use 35 exposure rolls, because that is what fits in my Printfile sheets.
The factors that determine this all interact with each other. There are lots of people around who prefer much shorter rolls.
One thing for sure though - customized roll lengths are oone of the big advantages of bulk loading.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use 36 exposure rolls but sometimes I get 37 or 38 exposures, it makes me use more PrintFile sheets but I just chalk that up to the cost of photography.

 

[ic-racer]

Like Matt posted above, I roll 36 exposures to fit in the printfile 6x6 pages.

Either way I think it is important to keep negatives organized and it is not unreasonable to to use a film length in the camera that fits the filing system.

 

[AgX]

When possible I use 42exp rolls.
Concerning readymade rolls, to me it makes no sense introducing yet another type 135 cassette. Or was this meant as 30 instead of 36?

We can be happy to still have films at all, and in case of choice I always would chose the largest numbers of exposures. In cases where I know in advance that I would take only a small number of exposures I can with self-loaded rolls load shorter strips. But I also may instead just cut off the exposed strip and leave in the cassette the rest, for uses where a low number cassette does not matter.

 

[pentaxuser]

There are lots of people around who prefer much shorter rolls.
One thing for sure though - customized roll lengths are oone of the big advantages of bulk loading.

Typical of a moderator. Killing a thread stone dead by providing in one sentence the equivalent of the "General Theory of catering for all needs" in everyone's ideal sizes of cassettes

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

I usually have at least one roll of bulk film so I can shoot short rolls, when in a Zone frame of mind sometime as short as 8 or 10, most often 20 for a day trip.

 

[Huss]

I use the printfile sheets that take 7 rows of 6 strips of 35mm.
Either way I want as much film as possible so would not want less than 36exp. Especially since labs charge the same amount to develop.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I have 12-exposure rolls of 35mm in three cameras as I type this.

 

[gone]

I use 35 exposure rolls, because that is what fits in my Printfile sheets.

This is kind of thing drove Steve Martin over the bend in a movie. He was in a grocery store ripping open packages of hot dogs buns and making them match up, because of the Big Shots in The wiener factory getting together with the Big Shots in the bun factory......

it's exactly like this w/ the print files. Maybe we should march into B&H or Adorama (not Freestyle, I like them) and straighten things out ourselves. I suspect they have dozens of people in their stores that look exactly like the guy below.

 

[cmacd123]

I use 36 exposure rolls but sometimes I get 37 or 38 exposures, it makes me use more PrintFile sheets but I just chalk that up to the cost of photography.

I have been using the 7 rows of 6 shots print file sheets. covers me off for all rolls, and the bottom strip is just left empty if teh roll is under 36 shots.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have the 5x7 and 6x6 negative PrintFile sheets. I have never found a 37 or 38 negative sheet.

 

[cmacd123]

when I started, film came in 20 or 36 exposure rolls, although I understand that that Hard to process slide film originally came in 18 exp lengths.
the 126 and 110 film came in 12 and 20 exposures....
in all three formats the 20 was extended to 24, and 12 exp rolls started turning up in 135
At the peak of the realestate market, Kodak made some 5 exposure rolls aimed at Real estate agents so they could get some shots of new listings and have prints quickly. (there was apperently also some marketing of short rolls as "evidence film", as the custody of the negatives had to be documented.
The only longer rolls I remember were the Ilford Motor winder film, which had 72 shots on a thin base. (and was discontinued shortly after it came out.)

the trend is to cut down on items thathave to be stocked, and so 36 exposures seems to be the standard length to stand alone rolls.

the one time use cameras started with 24 exposure rolls, BUT marketing them sometimes as 27 exposure rolls, (as the film was preloaded, they could push te number of shots) and the film was started to be made as 27 exposures. I also recall seeing some 27 exp sold as "Bonus Lenth" promotional packs.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Nobody is stopping you from making 20 exposures on 24 or 30 on 36. Eugene Smith suggested that 30 on 36 was a good idea as it would reduce your chances of ripping the film out of the cartridge in scenes of intense action. 35-on is useful largely because it'll just fit an 8x10 proof.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Nobody is stopping you from making 20 exposures on 24 or 30 on 36. Eugene Smith suggested that 30 on 36 was a good idea as it would reduce your chances of ripping the film out of the cartridge in scenes of intense action. 35-on is useful largely because it'll just fit an 8x10 proof.

If one does yank the film advance lever but moves it slowly, the film will not rip off the spool.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If one does yank the film advance lever but moves it slowly, the film will not rip off the spool.

Given that Eugene Smith had a well documented brandy & Benzedrine habit, I'll leave you to judge how gentle he was with winding film on.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The last time I pulled off the film was decades ago when I was bulk loading. Then I started wrapping the tape around the spool and attaching to the other side of the film.

 

[cmacd123]

I have the 5x7 and 6x6 negative PrintFile sheets. I have never found a 37 or 38 negative sheet.

Print File 010-0115 Specs
Item Type 100 x Hole-Punched Sleeve
Capacity 42 x 35mm Frame (7 Strips of 6)
Loading Method Side (with Hole Punch Pattern on the Left)

 

[MattKing]

The sheets that Charles describes require over-sized binders, which is why they don't work for me.
You also can't squeeze them on to an 8x10 contact sheet - you need 8.5"x 11" photo paper.
But they certainly work well.