39 7/8 shots

[Alan W]

One sprocket hole short of 40 shots on a 36 roll of tmy with an Olympus xa2.A personal best!

 

[Simon R Galley]

Ah, this reminds me of a story I shared with some folks at the APUG conference at Bob Carneys in Toronto some years back........

As a young Area Sales Manager for ILFORD in 1991 I was at the ILFORD office in Tottenham Street in London latish one night, I was the last one in and about to leave and the phone rang....if you did not pick up after 5 rings the system rang all the phones which was annoying...briefcase in hand I picked up the phone....the noise stopped, but the next 10 minutes were fairly bizarre. The voice on the phone was very distinctive...if you have ever heard any of the early Pete and Dud ( Peter Cook and Dudley Moore ) monologues in the pub I swear to goodness it was just like Peter Cook..but was'nt and he said the following....'Good evening I have a complaint to make' I replied that this was most unfortuanate and enquired as to the complaint.... 'I have used ILFORD HP films to photograph container ships entering the port of Felixstowe for 25 years and have always been able to get 37 exposures from every film, but today I only got 36...are you making them shorter ? and what are you going to do about it young man?'

I have to say I was somewhat taken aback, my mind was saying why would you photograph container ships ?...and anyway I pointed out that 'technically' we had stumped up our part of the bargain by providing exactly what it said on the tin, ie 36 exposures...the gentleman conceded that indeed we had not sold him short, but had failed to add the value he expected from buying ILFORD film and he would be compelled to purchase a rival product in future...now I know he had been a customer for many years and had certainly spent his hard earned on our products that does give him the upper hand, and that is his prerogative to change but I have to say that did get up my nose a bit and then questioned that he may have wound on a little more than usual when loading the film..... big mistake...he pointed out this was impossible under any circumstances and that I was talking rot and only being evasive about making ILFORD films shorter..

Patently a solution was needed....I took his name ( that I still remember clearly ) and his address and said ' OK... I think I know what we can do... I am going to send you 10 36 exposure films free of charge but only if you promise not to ring me before you have purchased a further 360 films and they have all given you 'only' 36 exposures... a fairly large gap occured before I heard the following 'well well, I suppose that is satisfactory..but I will ring you, he took my name and number and as of today I have not heard anything.......so hopefully he got 37 exposures most of the time...

And the moral of the story ?... I guess its always to try and exceed your customers expectation...

We may not always succeed...but we keep trying...

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology LImited :

 

[hpulley]

Always try and exceed your customers expectations, great goal to strive for in whatever business you're in! Thanks for the story, Simon.

That's a problem with modern cameras, auto winders and all that. 36 is the most they'll give me even if I bulk load extra they stop dead at 36 and some days they decide it's a 24-roll since the cassette lacks any DX markings. With an old Canon QL body and manual winding I can load the film in the dark, shoot S, 00, 0, 1, ... all the way to 37 if I'm lucky with that final sprocket hole of winding to cock the shutter on that last shot. Shooting through a roll of 120 is much quicker of course!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ha! Funny story, Simon.

For me, I have to stop at 35 frames. I store my negatives in PrintFile sleeves. In order for them to store 'nicely' in my archival binders, I want both the PrintFile sleeves for 120 film and 35mm film to be the same size. So my 120 sleeves hold four strips of three 6x6 negs each, and the only 35m sleeve that is the same size as that holds seven strips of five frames each, 35 frames. I might seem a bit anal, but if I use the sleeves that hold six strips of six frames, they are shorter and wider, so the last bit of each six frame strips hangs out from the 120 sleeves. Doing so they collect a bit of dust and dirt, and they also don't stay flat...

Long story short, I have to stop at 35 frames every roll, or I will have one or more frames that are 'extra' and won't fit in the sleeve. So, I think Ilford should send me some free film also, because of the sacrifice I have to make every time. Especially since I'm thinking about switching to Ilford film, not knowing what's in the works for Kodak and Fuji.

- Thomas

 

[bsdunek]

Years ago (in the 50's), my Dad and his best friend (now my Father-in-Law), used to compete on who could get the most exposures on a roll. These were with Retina II's and Argus C3's. Well, the Retina could consistantly get 40, or 41. The Argus was a little longer and made 39 or 40. My Dad had the Retina, so he had the upper hand.
In about 1958 Kodak apparently shortened their length and Dad couldn't get more than 38 or 39. He was miffed too!
All his negatives are in NegaFiles with six exposure sleeves, so there are a lot of sleeves with only three or four exposures.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Thomas,

Nice try ! as my Grandmother used to say 'shy Lads get nowt.....!!!!'

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Ezzie]

Ha! Funny story, Simon.

For me, I have to stop at 35 frames. I store my negatives in PrintFile sleeves. In order for them to store 'nicely' in my archival binders, I want both the PrintFile sleeves for 120 film and 35mm film to be the same size. So my 120 sleeves hold four strips of three 6x6 negs each, and the only 35m sleeve that is the same size as that holds seven strips of five frames each, 35 frames. I might seem a bit anal, but if I use the sleeves that hold six strips of six frames, they are shorter and wider, so the last bit of each six frame strips hangs out from the 120 sleeves. Doing so they collect a bit of dust and dirt, and they also don't stay flat...

Long story short, I have to stop at 35 frames every roll, or I will have one or more frames that are 'extra' and won't fit in the sleeve. So, I think Ilford should send me some free film also, because of the sacrifice I have to make every time. Especially since I'm thinking about switching to Ilford film, not knowing what's in the works for Kodak and Fuji.

- Thomas

Same here, for exactly the same reasons. The135 films I'd exposed prior to this need alternative storing, as most are over 36 frames.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I believe that Ilford had a few rolls at 72 expourses at one time.
Jeff

 

[ic-racer]

I don't always watch the camera's counter, so frequently I have to decide on the cutting table which extra frame(s) to throw out. Maybe some day I'll save those clippings and print them all.

 

[BrianL]

Nice story. I'd have thought of a different approach and sent him a half frame camera so he got 72 shots out of a 36 shot roll. The you could have sold him rolls long enough for 19 frames at the 36 frame price and he'd been able to get 38 frames form it and you'd have gotten pay back. He'd have a new camera (or a used one), he'd have even gotten one more frame than before and it would not have cost him any money while Ilford's cost per roll would have been reduced. Everyone wins.

Now that is a thought, how about shorter rolls for 12, 24, 36 shots in half frame cameras rather than 48 and 72 that actually is a disadvantage for many occaisional shooters.

 

[cmacd123]

Gee, What do I have to do to get free film?

As for the half frames, some colour film comes as 12 exp rolls which should give about 26 exposures. At ome point there was a "commercial" Kodacolor, which was aimed at folks like real estate people and the like which was a 5 exposure roll. The theory was they could take a cople of shots of the house and get prints back without waiting for the end of the roll.

I think under 24 exp, the cost of the packaging and the work of developing "A" roll would make it more expensive to make smaller rolls.

 

[youngrichard]

I never watch the counter, though I try to because I only want 36 frames from a cassette. That way I get all the frames on a standard contact sheet. 37 is hopeless, I have an orphan frame and don't know what to do with it, and it may be that elusive winner. How do I stop my Nikon F80 bodies taking that 37th frame that I don't want? Presumably re-wind kicks in when resistance to winding is sensed by the camera. Why can't I have a custom setting that says rewind when 36 frames have been taken, or resistance to winding is felt.
Richard

 

[MattKing]

I never watch the counter, though I try to because I only want 36 frames from a cassette. That way I get all the frames on a standard contact sheet. 37 is hopeless, I have an orphan frame and don't know what to do with it, and it may be that elusive winner. How do I stop my Nikon F80 bodies taking that 37th frame that I don't want? Presumably re-wind kicks in when resistance to winding is sensed by the camera. Why can't I have a custom setting that says rewind when 36 frames have been taken, or resistance to winding is felt.
Richard

Just waste your first two shots.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

(drum roll) ... and the winner of the Ebenezer Scrooge Award for 2011 is ...

 

[hpulley]

You can press the early rewind button... I know I rarely do unless I haven't started the roll but we can do it

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Is it bad etiquette to just slide the extra few frames behind another roll? Because thats what I have been doing lol

 

[cmacd123]

I never watch the counter, though I try to because I only want 36 frames from a cassette. That way I get all the frames on a standard contact sheet.

Switch to Canon? Almost all of the EOS film cameras will auto rewind at 36. (darn annoying as I end up with 6 inches of perfectly good unused film at the end of most rolls.)

Previously when I used a Pentax MX and A Ricoh KR-5, I got in the habbit of using the contact sheet holders that have 7 strips of 6 negatives. These DO require a bigger sheet to contact, but that is ok if you keep the sheets in a binder. I still use them and normally just have a empty channel when I use the Canon.

 

[MattKing]

Switch to Canon? Almost all of the EOS film cameras will auto rewind at 36. (darn annoying as I end up with 6 inches of perfectly good unused film at the end of most rolls.)

Previously when I used a Pentax MX and A Ricoh KR-5, I got in the habbit of using the contact sheet holders that have 7 strips of 6 negatives. These DO require a bigger sheet to contact, but that is ok if you keep the sheets in a binder. I still use them and normally just have a empty channel when I use the Canon.

If you buy one of the Canon EOS cameras that winds to the end first, and then rewinds the film one shot length each time you shoot, I believe you can achieve what you want by just wasting shots at the beginning until you reach 36.

The Rebel 2000 is one example.

 

[cmacd123]

If you buy one of the Canon EOS cameras that winds to the end first, and then rewinds the film one shot length each time you shoot,.

The Higher end ones (the ones that don't have "rebel" in the name) in general shoot form the start of the roll, but will stop at 36 exposures no mater what.