- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,743
- Format
- 35mm
Good points. Why would there have been made these 200 exposure backs if '12 is really all you need sonny'? I like options.
72 exposures would have its use in wildlife, sports, event photography, stuff where you're constantly shooting and expect to have to take many to get very few "keepers", usually because your subject is moving a lot and you have a shallow depth of field.
I frequently shoot a whole 36 roll on my dog to get a couple good ones. Because he's not a model that listens to photographic instruction
But, I believe there are setups for 35mm cameras that already can handle hundreds of shots without a reload. They look bulky but that might be the way to go if you needed it and were already working on a tripod.
Another option is carrying multiple loaded cameras.
So, would I shoot 72 exposures if they needed a special reel, were hard to load, not supported by many auto-wind cameras? Honestly no, because a typical 90s/2000s film SLR loads film in 2 or 3 seconds.
Medium format regarding 120/220 is a different story since you could be spending a minute or two to load 8-15 shots, plus those rolls are more prone to letting in light during the reload process. Also, when you're taking a film bag on a long trip and don't want it to be bulky.
Maybe if somebody had an underwater camera and needed to dive for a while would be one exception. Or shooting in an intense storm.
I wonder how people developed film from those giant 200+ exposure magazines!
seems like those asking for 72 exp are coming from digital era and can’t put their head around 36 limitation. I agree fewer would be more welcomed, 20/24 maybe even 30. But I doubt that would lower price per roll. Just the convenience of not looking for 36 ways before it can be developed.
I think the industry has answered this. There is a reason the DX coding only goes up to 42 exposures.
Interestingly, I have found PET films to behave better than regular films I have shot in regards to curling. Sheets cut from near the center of a 5” roll that was about 12 years old dried almost perfectly flat, and the 220 roll film made from rolls of 70mm 2 years older than that have minimal, if any, curling. I would be curious to know what makes our experiences so different. Have the materials changed? Does Agfa do something different than Kodak? Might me an interesting question to answer.
My Foto 200 and 400 is curly and harder to handle when processing, but it lies flat in Plustek film carrier or slide mount. Plustek scans hyperfocally - so small curls don't matter really.Getting PET film to lay flat in a scanner or enlarger gate may not be possible.
Agreed: Adox HR50/Scala 50; Rollei RPX25, Retro 80S, Retro 400S, Superpan 200, IR 400 - all are Aviphot on thicker PET and behaves absolutely beautiful, dries absolutely flat. It's just the thinnest stuff that causes problems.Interestingly, I have found PET films to behave better than regular films I have shot in regards to curling
I don't do this much, but if you take mosaiced panoramas on film rotating the camera (using a panorama head such as the Nikon, or Rolleiflex), you start to go through film pretty quickly. A panorama may have from 3 to 10 or even more frames depending on the total angle covered, and the lens field of view.
Edit: relatedly, you can eat up film fast with the Lomo spinner panoramic camera (I think 4 equivalent frames per exposure) or a Spinshot (maybe 7 frames?) Of course, "owners of a Spinshot" might be the definition of a niche within a niche market.
But doesn't that sum up film photography these days? We're all a niche within a niche now.
Then some of us are in a niche within a niche within a niche. Dead film format club unite!
Yes, 0.06mm film is fun
72 exposure, rolls of 35mm.
And that's why I use in my Canon Demi EE17 only 24exp rolls (and when those are out of my freezer, probably bulk). Even 24exp x2 (which is mathematically incorrect more like 50ish) is way too long for me...Photographers use this every day. It's called a half-frame camera. There are over a dozen new half-frame cameras in the last year or two -- and there are COUNTLESS older half-frame cameras out there too, even SLRs. It's far from DEAD.
http://www.subclub.org/shop/halframe.htm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?