38 Frames Per Roll? How about 39?

[BetterSense]

If you load your own film, you can attach the spool to the bulk film roll in the dark, assemble the catridge and put it into place, shut the lid, and turn the lights on (optional)

Why use cartridge at all? You could probably get at least a couple more frames with the space taken up by the cartridge metal. Has anyone actually loaded using only the spool?

 

[degruyl]

Agree, I like the RB67's 10 pictures per roll. Load it, shoot it, lick it, stick it, done. I can shoot it all in one short session instead of thinking of things to do for the rest of a 135-36 roll.

For me it is the Mamiya 7, but the same rules apply. I can run through several rolls of 120 and end up with more pictures taken than with 35mm. Not really sure why that is, but it is.

 

[Morinaka]

Best i've managed so far was 40 shots from a roll of 36 with my Olympus 35RC.

 

[perkeleellinen]

40 in an Oly 35RC, eh? There's a challenge, I wonder if I can squeeze 41...

 

[blockend]

Depends how conservative you are with the film leader when loading. I tend to insert, wind on until flat and taught, close the back, then wind on two and the third for taking. Still get 37 or so.
Didn't film leaders become shorter once the industry stopped favouring rangefinders for SLRs, maybe early 80s? Seem to remember very long leaders when I started out mid 70s. The gears on an old Zenit could pull film out the cassette no problem, that should make 40 frames so long as you have a changing bag!

 

[damienm]

I get 39 frames no problem on all of the M's I've owned (M3, M4, M6 classic). I shoot on frames 0 to 38 inclusive, and thus get 39 images from a roll. Not sure what the M7 film counter dial looks like, if it differs from previous M's, where the frame counter stopped at 38.

Only thing to watch out for I've found, is that you cannot wind on after you shoot frame the last frame. I have to credit Ken Rockwell for discovering 39 frames were possible on an M. I doubt I would have tried it otherwise. Now I shoot 39 frames on all rolls put through my M3 and M4 (M6 sold), and contact sheet the rolls on 9.5x12 paper.

 

[bsdunek]

I only want 24 or 36 because I put my negatives in six-frame glassine envelopes. I hate that little piece left over. Otherwise, I too like my Mamiya with ten exposures or my Rollie with twelve.

An alternative would be a continuous loop. Each time around you expose it for a different speed, say 50, 100, 200, 400 and 800. Then you develop for 50 and print the photos. Go back and develop for 100 and print those, etc. That way the loop could be go around five times. Of course the previous photos are lost when developing for higher speeds. Nothings perfect.

 

[ic-racer]

Rollei 3000 series counters go to 72. To get that many shots one needs thin film. Ilford made some back in the 80s (as in post #38, .0035" thick). I have found some 35mm cine negative film that is also quite thin. Not thin enough to get 72 in a cartridge, but it will load around 60 shots.

 

[perkeleellinen]

An alternative would be a continuous loop.

Just thinking, imagine if a camera had an auto-reverse feature like a tape deck and film was double thick so it could be shot on both sides. Then, in some sort of process, the film is split length ways in the lab and becomes a 72exp film.

 

[benjiboy]

Why risk detaching the film from the core of cassette for the sake of couple of frames of film ?, I never shoot more than 34 frames on a film.

 

[jakyamuni]

My Bolsey will get 40, but that's because of the ridiculously small amount of leader necessary in the tiny little box. Of course, the other advantage of that is it makes the camera small enough- and cute enough- to take anywhere.

 

[j-dogg]

I got 38 exposures from a roll of Kodachrome recently in my Nikkormat.

What I find interesting is I managed to do the same thing twice with two rolls of Kodak Portra 160vc and Ektar 100, got 38 on the Portra and 37 on the Ektar, except these were in a Minolta Maxxum 4 with auto-rewind and auto-film take up, you just put the film in pull out a little bit and close the door the camera does the rest.

 

[damienm]

Why risk detaching the film from the core of cassette for the sake of couple of frames of film ?, I never shoot more than 34 frames on a film.

I can see the benefit of 35 frames and contacting them on a sheet of 8x10, but 34 seems an arbitrary number to stop at.

I've had no problem getting 38 frames (in my Leica M's) from any of the Ilford, Fuji or Kodak b&w films I've shot, but if worried, you could always wind gently from say frame 34 or so, and if you feel any resistance, stop there.

 

[benjiboy]

I can see the benefit of 35 frames and contacting them on a sheet of 8x10, but 34 seems an arbitrary number to stop at.

I've had no problem getting 38 frames (in my Leica M's) from any of the Ilford, Fuji or Kodak b&w films I've shot, but if worried, you could always wind gently from say frame 34 or so, and if you feel any resistance, stop there.

It's because many moons ago on important shoot I tried to get the maximum shots out of the film and pulled the end out of the cassette I only had the one camera body with me and no changing bag or light tight film container, fortunately I wasn't far from home and was able to dash back there for another body, I'd much rather waste a couple of frames than go through the experience again.

 

[damienm]

It's because many moons ago on important shoot I tried to get the maximum shots out of the film and pulled the end out of the cassette I only had the one camera body with me and no changing bag or light tight film container, fortunately I wasn't far from home and was able to dash back there for another body, I'd much rather waste a couple of frames than go through the experience again.

Fair enough, that sounds pretty rough. If I was using a new film, I would probably be the same, or test a roll first. Pretty much all I shoot is TriX, and know from experience how many frames I can squeeze out of a roll.

 

[2F/2F]

Am I the only person who prefers shorter rolls? (from both a developing and shooting perspective, I find it annoying to deal with 36 frame rolls).

I am one who holds the opposite view. I find short rolls of 35mm annoying for most things. If I only wanted to shoot a few frames, I'd probably not shoot 35mm at all. I shoot 35 when I am going to be shooting a lot, and I shoot a lot when I am shooting 35. If I need to take just a few frames of something with a 35mm camera (usually when copying something), I put the camera in a changing bag and tear off the frames I have shot to be developed piggyback on another roll. I don't like changing film 1.5 times as often with a 24 exposure roll, nor do I like the difference in price per shot between 24 and 36 exposure rolls (with pre-rolled cassettes). I also do not like how short rolls make less efficient use of chemistry and increase lab costs per shot, when a lab is used. I find that filling a 36 exposure roll is easy, even if I have fewer shots that I need to take. Try subtle variations in composition. Try a horizontal and a vertical and a left and right view of each subject. Etc. One of the advantages of 35 is that its cheap. Burn some film. You might get something good.

OTOH, I do not like to go beyond 35 or 36, as proofing is annoying.

 

[2F/2F]

One trick for cheating exposures would be to load your camera in complete darkness, and shoot onto the area that you normally use to prime the takeup mechanism of your camera.

Another would be to use an old Leica. The frames are dangerously close on them (I would take off a sliver of a frame from time to time when cutting the negs), and I always got at least 38 frames from my IIIc and IIIa. 39 was not uncommon, and 40 was not unheard of.

I only heard Leica, Nikon, and Olympus mentioned for the 250 shot backs. There is a Canon F-1 version as well, which I have along with the loader, the interval timer, and the motor drive, and all original boxes and instructions. It all came together. It was quite a find. Obviously never once used. Each 250 shot cartridge uses about 1/3 of a 100 foot bulk roll. But how to develop the stuff without a slice through every 36th frame? Roller transport is the only way, I guess.

 

[mhcfires]

he Topcon RE-Super also had a 250 shot back.

 

[Gingerjoe]

Ive got 40 frames from my olympus Xa

 

[elekm]

I don't try to push it. An extra frame or two per roll probably adds up over the years, but who cares?

 

[hpulley]

I'm usually wondering how I'm going to finish off my 35mm rolls... 36 or 24 seems like too much some days!

 

[23mjm]

Since my Printfile negative holder only holds 35 shots, I try to stop at 35 shots when shooting B&W! I hate having those 2 or 3 extra shots to find a place for them. For color I will shoot till it stops--usually 37 to 39 shots.

 

[stevebrot]

Since my Printfile negative holder only holds 35 shots, I try to stop at 35 shots when shooting B&W! I hate having those 2 or 3 extra shots to find a place for them. For color I will shoot till it stops--usually 37 to 39 shots.

Same here. An additional issue if you process your own is that the "bonus" shots are hanging off the end of the reel (if using SS reels) and might receive compromised develop/fix/wash.


Steve

 

[Prest_400]

I'm usually wondering how I'm going to finish off my 35mm rolls... 36 or 24 seems like too much some days!

I agree. I don't shoot that often and I've had rolls lasting up to 9 months (Kodachrome) - but that's just an extreme. I do find 36 frames to be endless at times.

 

[fschifano]

What is this?????? Is this legit? Me want!!

It is legit, or at least it was. At one time Ilford was making film with an ultra thin support that allowed for more film in a standard 35 mm cassette. Didn't work out too well, and it was discontinued long ago.