It's all Oskar Barnack's fault. 
However his design for the first Leica revolutionized photography.
However his design for the first Leica revolutionized photography.
35mm film and how much we are required to waste
-
A
- Thread starter David Lyga
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Color by Beseler Print Processing Drums
- Started by logan2z
-
Want to Buy Jobo 3005 expert tank for 5 sheets of 8x10
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale FS: One of a kind Canonet QL17 GIII, PANDA
- Started by dirkfletcher
Forum statistics
MattKing
Moderator
Sprockets and nice thick, strong film base make for film that advances easily and quickly, is easy to handle, and sits very flat, allowing for precise focusing.
I think 120 film would be great if it was made the same way, instead of with a paper backing.
I think 120 film would be great if it was made the same way, instead of with a paper backing.
Interesting analysis David. Thanks for sharing.
Still better than using digital. And, if you are really worried about waste, many of the elements of film and analogue photography (including 35mm) are easily recyclable or cheaply reclaimed using existing infrastructure.
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
You forgot to include the something like 5-mile leader and trailer used in the manufacturing process. I think this leader can be reused, but I'm not sure how many times, and the length of the leader depends on the size of the manufacturing line. Of course all film requires this, but it's even more unused film area.
David, interesting analysis. I like the hard numbers. Though I appreciate the data, I wonder what if anything can be done? Art has lots of waste inherent in its nature. I am sure one who works in stained glass might have waste inherent to the process. I personally try to do the most to minimize my waste without compromising on vision/quality, etc. (eg I bulk load my 35mm), and do think it a nice discussion on consumption. Thankfully I dont consume much (from a hobby standpoint), though I could spend my hobby watching TV; I would rather 'waste' some film here or there than the alternative of watching TV and only consuming power!
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,817
- Format
- 35mm
Agreed...the strong base and margins allow easy handling and filing, and there is obviously a saving in area of emulsion compared with larger formats (not starting a format war!). And cassettes and plastic spools are easily recyclable.
In another world, Barnak might have made his Leica for 70mm movie film, and we might never have had 120.
As it was, 70mm for still work never really took off except for specialist uses.
A digital camera has a functional life of probably 20 years before a fatal, catastrophic electronic failure renders it unusable. This is required in order for the product line to endure the median stress levels the average consumer is expected to present, and keep remedial maintenance costs under control.
Yet, these camera will typically be obsolete, abandoned, or shelved permanently within an average of two years.
By my extensive calculations, it appears that digital technology has about 90% built in waste!
Yet, these camera will typically be obsolete, abandoned, or shelved permanently within an average of two years.
By my extensive calculations, it appears that digital technology has about 90% built in waste!
OP
OP
PentaxBronica said: "As for wastage, this annoys me with later bodies. My Super A insists on winding and shooting three times at the start of a roll before it will meter properly or allow you to select a shutter speed..."
This is the primary reason I really dislike the later bodies like the Maxxum or EOS: you are not allowed to deviate from the 'required' loading. Give me an SRT or Spotmatic or even an AE-1 any day. I waste little as far as leaders go.
MattKing: you bring up a valid point with your assessment that all is not bad with this waste. In fact, I would wager that a 35mm frame is probably going to pass a critical lab test as far as flatness in the camera is concerned. (i.e., The percentage of film that 'supports' the flatness outside of the picture area is a large percentage of the whole.) Not so with medium format: In fact, size 120 can begin to 'bow' inward if left in the 'taking' position too long (days, weeks?) before actually snapping the shutter. The size of the negative usually makes up for it but, in fact, (and this is very important here) this 'historical tolerance of waste' is testament to the extreme precision that has been dedicated to this tiny format. Truly, it is compelling to realize just how large careful 35mm work can be made and still look great. Indeed, with Technical Pan, '4 x 5 quality' was often spoken of with careful 35mm work.
zsas: No, waste is not necessarily inherent in nature, but only sometimes, as with the overkill of a Peacock's feathers which serve to attract a mate (but hinder much of its other aspects of living). As a rule, nature is rather efficient, zsas.
And, finally, blockend, yes there is a bit of hypocrisy here with being a vegetarian and using gelatin. I also wear shoes but those I get from thrift stores (and you would be surprised with the quality I am able to obtain, with patience!). I know, fully, that David Lyga would be happier not using this animal by-product but also animals are killed (indirectly) when we grow and harvest vegetables. I try to minimize this onslaught. But your point is fairly stated. (I refuse to refuse pasta, as I am half Sardinian.) - David Lyga
This is the primary reason I really dislike the later bodies like the Maxxum or EOS: you are not allowed to deviate from the 'required' loading. Give me an SRT or Spotmatic or even an AE-1 any day. I waste little as far as leaders go.
MattKing: you bring up a valid point with your assessment that all is not bad with this waste. In fact, I would wager that a 35mm frame is probably going to pass a critical lab test as far as flatness in the camera is concerned. (i.e., The percentage of film that 'supports' the flatness outside of the picture area is a large percentage of the whole.) Not so with medium format: In fact, size 120 can begin to 'bow' inward if left in the 'taking' position too long (days, weeks?) before actually snapping the shutter. The size of the negative usually makes up for it but, in fact, (and this is very important here) this 'historical tolerance of waste' is testament to the extreme precision that has been dedicated to this tiny format. Truly, it is compelling to realize just how large careful 35mm work can be made and still look great. Indeed, with Technical Pan, '4 x 5 quality' was often spoken of with careful 35mm work.
zsas: No, waste is not necessarily inherent in nature, but only sometimes, as with the overkill of a Peacock's feathers which serve to attract a mate (but hinder much of its other aspects of living). As a rule, nature is rather efficient, zsas.
And, finally, blockend, yes there is a bit of hypocrisy here with being a vegetarian and using gelatin. I also wear shoes but those I get from thrift stores (and you would be surprised with the quality I am able to obtain, with patience!). I know, fully, that David Lyga would be happier not using this animal by-product but also animals are killed (indirectly) when we grow and harvest vegetables. I try to minimize this onslaught. But your point is fairly stated. (I refuse to refuse pasta, as I am half Sardinian.) - David Lyga
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi David - Re read my statement. I never said nature doesn't have waste, I said the nature of art produces waste.
OP
OP
So you did, zsas. I am very angry that I missed that! - David Lyga
Ahh np David. Funny you should "pick on 35mm film", what about all the waste in printing traditionally b/w and color? On a volume level it is probably more waste! Look at all those borders with no images....yikes! My bin of waste is huge! Btw I use my leaders for fixer strength testing too
Last edited by a moderator:
I say this not to insult OP but to offer my thought on the subject.
I think OP is seeing only the negative side of the design. The 35mm film, obviously, is the most successful format ever created in film photography. It is also the longest living. (other than sheet films) As far as I am concerned, it owes its popularity to its efficient and practical design. Yes, efficient. The film base acts as not only an image recording surface, but also transportation mechanism. Loading is just by hooking the leading end of the same film. Other than canister and spool, there is no other components, such as backing paper and tape. It offers reasonable compromise between image quality, size, and cost. It's hard shell provides level of protection in rough handling in consumer environment. It wastes film surface but saves by not using backing paper and gummed tape.
I am not sure what it is to gain by having this analysis and discussion about 35mm film. Its an established design widely adopted by the industry and consumers. I'd rather be pleased about this implementation than complain about its inefficiency. To me, this is truly a matter of seeing glass half-full or half-empty. I try (sometimes) hard to see the former in my everyday experience.
I think OP is seeing only the negative side of the design. The 35mm film, obviously, is the most successful format ever created in film photography. It is also the longest living. (other than sheet films) As far as I am concerned, it owes its popularity to its efficient and practical design. Yes, efficient. The film base acts as not only an image recording surface, but also transportation mechanism. Loading is just by hooking the leading end of the same film. Other than canister and spool, there is no other components, such as backing paper and tape. It offers reasonable compromise between image quality, size, and cost. It's hard shell provides level of protection in rough handling in consumer environment. It wastes film surface but saves by not using backing paper and gummed tape.
I am not sure what it is to gain by having this analysis and discussion about 35mm film. Its an established design widely adopted by the industry and consumers. I'd rather be pleased about this implementation than complain about its inefficiency. To me, this is truly a matter of seeing glass half-full or half-empty. I try (sometimes) hard to see the former in my everyday experience.
MattKing
Moderator
It occurs to me that there is an amazing irony about David's question.
Until recently, the vast majority of all 35mm film made was used to make projection prints for movie theatres.
In order that they could be projected a limited number of times, and then quite promptly discarded.
Until recently, the vast majority of all 35mm film made was used to make projection prints for movie theatres.
In order that they could be projected a limited number of times, and then quite promptly discarded.
OP
OP
tkamiya: yes, your points are valid and I brushed upon these by confirming that there were advantages such as ultra flatness.
Still, I think you might err when you infer that it is not a topic for discussion. YOU make valid points here so this discussion is confirmed, in essence, as being 'valid'. However, you do not have to agree. But, judging from the comments and viewings, I think that the topic has merit and that merit does not have to concur with David Lyga's 'take' on the matter in order to matter to sensible people.
Certainly, I started by stating the negatives about the 'negatives'(!) but your list of advantages I think are interesting and, more importantly, correct and thorough. There is a good side to this waste. I do not know if that good side completely supplants all the negatives but they should also be stated in such a post.
Yes, MattKing, there is an inherent irony but, remember, those theatres have to keep showing and showing the films without getting booed for stopping the projector. - David Lyga
Still, I think you might err when you infer that it is not a topic for discussion. YOU make valid points here so this discussion is confirmed, in essence, as being 'valid'. However, you do not have to agree. But, judging from the comments and viewings, I think that the topic has merit and that merit does not have to concur with David Lyga's 'take' on the matter in order to matter to sensible people.
Certainly, I started by stating the negatives about the 'negatives'(!) but your list of advantages I think are interesting and, more importantly, correct and thorough. There is a good side to this waste. I do not know if that good side completely supplants all the negatives but they should also be stated in such a post.
Yes, MattKing, there is an inherent irony but, remember, those theatres have to keep showing and showing the films without getting booed for stopping the projector. - David Lyga
God provides. Remember the story of the loaves of bread.
BTW, I don't believe "waste" is the intended word as there is no part of the roll of film not used and that includes the leader, the trailer and the area used by the sprocket. Obviously may not be used directly for the image capture but certainly performs an intended function - it was designed that way. Possibly inefficient when compared to other sprocketless films but even those have other "wasted" parts that still serve an intended function.
OP
OP
Yes, Les Sarile and ic-racer: you are correct: 'waste' here is imparted largely theoretically, as all parts of the film are used to at least some good purpose and the 'waste' with 16mm is profound. But this waste with still cameras could have been lessened. That is all I am driving at.
I think that this thread dichotomizes and illustrates the theory of waste versus the sometimes 'necessity' of such. It is good to look at all angles of a problem and to not only comfortably resign oneself with what 'is'. However, if 35mm film were to have been specially made for still cameras (remember Bantam, as one already mentioned?), negating the need for such overkill protection, I think that we could have easily ended up with a 32 x 36 format using the same lenses that we now have. Single sided perforations, and smaller at that, would have readily sufficed to attain the same, or virtually the same, precision. Think of how nice that would have been: image quality coming ever closer to medium format's 4.5 x 6 with no need for different lenses. Why, for some people, is that so bad to imagine or consider worthy of mention?
Folks, here I simply bring up possibilities of 'what could have been'. This does not translate into 'complaining' or becoming 'depressed over what cannot be resurected'. Some, and not only here on this forum, cannot deal with such 'brainstorming' and that should be one benefit of a multi-faceted forum such as this: elucidating possibilities that might have been errors of the past for the purpose of going forward in life and identifying similarities that could now benefit from such hindsight. 'Waste' is something worthy of being at least mentioned and, even if nothing can be done to rectify the past, analyzed for future benefit.
And tkamiya, as you said: "Its an established design widely adopted by the industry and consumers". My dear, so was slavery, until analyzed thoughtfully and thoroughly, without consideration for how 'efficient' it was.
I think that that assessment is both fair and necessary. - David Lyga
I think that this thread dichotomizes and illustrates the theory of waste versus the sometimes 'necessity' of such. It is good to look at all angles of a problem and to not only comfortably resign oneself with what 'is'. However, if 35mm film were to have been specially made for still cameras (remember Bantam, as one already mentioned?), negating the need for such overkill protection, I think that we could have easily ended up with a 32 x 36 format using the same lenses that we now have. Single sided perforations, and smaller at that, would have readily sufficed to attain the same, or virtually the same, precision. Think of how nice that would have been: image quality coming ever closer to medium format's 4.5 x 6 with no need for different lenses. Why, for some people, is that so bad to imagine or consider worthy of mention?
Folks, here I simply bring up possibilities of 'what could have been'. This does not translate into 'complaining' or becoming 'depressed over what cannot be resurected'. Some, and not only here on this forum, cannot deal with such 'brainstorming' and that should be one benefit of a multi-faceted forum such as this: elucidating possibilities that might have been errors of the past for the purpose of going forward in life and identifying similarities that could now benefit from such hindsight. 'Waste' is something worthy of being at least mentioned and, even if nothing can be done to rectify the past, analyzed for future benefit.
And tkamiya, as you said: "Its an established design widely adopted by the industry and consumers". My dear, so was slavery, until analyzed thoughtfully and thoroughly, without consideration for how 'efficient' it was.
I think that that assessment is both fair and necessary. - David Lyga
Last edited by a moderator:
I think your "what could have been" brainstorm is interesting but I don't think you are promoting artists to affect change in wasting less, for eg., you cite all this waste in the evolution of 35mm as the basis of reflection for analysis of future benefit, but when presented with much more wasted media in analog photography (eg 20% or so of a analog printed photo generally contains a white border i.e. WASTE), yet I don't hear you caring about that. You seem to be reveling in the fact that yes 35mm might have waste when compared with say 120 film, but you don't seem to be genuinely promoting this revelation of the concept of waste-in-artistic-process to waste less. You seem to be pointing towards history as the cause of excess waste and throwing your hands up in the air with distaste for how the 35mm camera evolved to be so wasteful.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,844
- Format
- Hybrid
i don't think it is wasted film at all david i think it serves a purpose.
how could something with a use be a waste ?
its like saying that because care tire treads are only on the surface that touches the roadway
it is a waste of rubber + materials to make the sidewalls out of rubber, or because the tire makes a seal
on the rim, all tires should be tubeless, and it is a waste to have an innertube.
time and effort have created things to be as they currently are because other ways did not work as well.
they might have worked in some applications and situations but the benefit outweighed the cost.
im just glad that kodak didn't have a proprietary 35mm design specifically for their 35mm cameras .. a different
drive / transport mechanism, a different type of sprocket holes and canister size &c. they stopped making 35mm cameras in the 60s? 70s?
and they would have had to retool their machinery to work with the other 35m formats. what a pain!
almost as much of a hassle as it is to deal with proprietary sizes for their 80 years with box cameras + roll film.
what a drag it is now to find spools and film and processing equipment / methodology when using an old folder.
at least 35mm is an accepted format, and a free for all ...
how could something with a use be a waste ?
its like saying that because care tire treads are only on the surface that touches the roadway
it is a waste of rubber + materials to make the sidewalls out of rubber, or because the tire makes a seal
on the rim, all tires should be tubeless, and it is a waste to have an innertube.
time and effort have created things to be as they currently are because other ways did not work as well.
they might have worked in some applications and situations but the benefit outweighed the cost.
im just glad that kodak didn't have a proprietary 35mm design specifically for their 35mm cameras .. a different
drive / transport mechanism, a different type of sprocket holes and canister size &c. they stopped making 35mm cameras in the 60s? 70s?
and they would have had to retool their machinery to work with the other 35m formats. what a pain!
almost as much of a hassle as it is to deal with proprietary sizes for their 80 years with box cameras + roll film.
what a drag it is now to find spools and film and processing equipment / methodology when using an old folder.
at least 35mm is an accepted format, and a free for all ...
I kinda like that in cinema, the film between the perforations on one side is used for sound info. Seems like a pretty decent attempt at making use of the area available! Shame our cameras couldn't record exposure details in that area or something cool like that! Or are the camera's that can?
OP
OP
Certainly, here I am guilty of focusing upon ONLY 35mm film and you are correct when you state that there are other 'wastes' that I am not zeroing in on. Nevertheless, I wanted to make a point that we use for recording purposes only about half of the film and I though that that 'fact' was interesting to parse. In fact, many were rather amazed at that revelation.
OK, Jnanian, 35mm film's sensational success is surely at least partly due to the fact that it is, as you rightly state, a 'free for all'. That's probably a primary reason why it never 'died' like the other formats.It HAD to be kept in stock because of the movie industry. And, both Jnanian and zsas, as you, again, correctly assert, this 'waste' does serve a purpose: my point is that the SAME purpose could have been served with LESS waste. Let's not present this thread in polarized absolutes. I think that my original point is valid but at the same time the counteraction to my singular focus is not only just and fair, but necessary. There are many angles to this idea and it is best to expose them all.
Andrewf: Point well made about the salvation of much of this waste through the audio track built right into the film for absolute synchronization.
- David Lyga
OK, Jnanian, 35mm film's sensational success is surely at least partly due to the fact that it is, as you rightly state, a 'free for all'. That's probably a primary reason why it never 'died' like the other formats.It HAD to be kept in stock because of the movie industry. And, both Jnanian and zsas, as you, again, correctly assert, this 'waste' does serve a purpose: my point is that the SAME purpose could have been served with LESS waste. Let's not present this thread in polarized absolutes. I think that my original point is valid but at the same time the counteraction to my singular focus is not only just and fair, but necessary. There are many angles to this idea and it is best to expose them all.
Andrewf: Point well made about the salvation of much of this waste through the audio track built right into the film for absolute synchronization.
- David Lyga
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,844
- Format
- Hybrid
hi andrewf
you can add whatever information you want to the film rebate area. it just takes a sharpie
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |