72 exposure rolls: were they ever popular, and would people actually buy them now?

MCB18 · Oct 4, 2024

Ernst-Jan said:
Is the Astrum film the same as Silberra U200 and U400?

That film is so Incredibly thin that u cut it after multiple attempts getting it in the reel.

Possibly. I don’t know enough about them to know for certain though. And actually, I’ve had minimal issues getting it steel reels honestly, other then it being slightly fiddly to get stuck to the center of the reel it goes on extremely smoothly.

xkaes said:
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

I am aware that half frame cameras can double the amount of exposures you can take on a normal roll of film, actually what I am referring to here is a double length, approximately 10 ft roll of film that allows you to take 72 full frame exposures on one roll. In a half frame camera, you might get close to 150 frames!

xkaes · Oct 4, 2024

MCB18 said:
In a half frame camera, you might get close to 150 frames!

Yet ANOTHER reason to use a half-frame!!!

ant! · Oct 4, 2024

xkaes said:
Yet ANOTHER reason to use a half-frame!!!

Are there 17m (or longer) backs for half frame? You would get maybe 850 shots! (17m/420exp was for Praktina, not sure what the usual long roll back size for Nikon F etc was...)

MCB18 · Oct 4, 2024

ant! said:
Are there 17m (or longer) backs for half frame? You would get maybe 850 shots! (17m/420exp was for Praktina, not sure what the usual long roll back size for Nikon F etc was...)

The bulk roll backs most commonly seen in the west were for 10m of film, or around 33 feet. This was approximately 250 exposures. I don’t know if any half frame camera had such a capability.

ant! · Oct 4, 2024

MCB18 said:
The bulk roll backs most commonly seen in the west were for 10m of film, or around 33 feet. This was approximately 250 exposures. I don’t know if any half frame camera had such a capability.

Of course, I was joking. Bulk film rolls (professional cameras) and halfframe were totally different target audience... And 500-800 shots wouldn't make any sense...
I know there was a Konica SLR which could switch half and fullframe, but had probably no bulk back...

MCB18 · Oct 4, 2024

ant! said:
Of course, I was joking. Bulk film rolls (professional cameras) and halfframe were totally different target audience... And 500-800 shots wouldn't make any sense...
I know there was a Konica SLR which could switch half and fullframe, but had probably no bulk back...

Well actually, 100 ft 35mm backs did exist for some cameras! The Nikon F2 had about a dozen of these 750 exposure backs made for areal recon cameras, but more commonly they were used for high-volume portraiture, like school photos and whatnot.

xkaes · Oct 4, 2024

And Leica made a half-frame -- so MAYE!?!?!?!?!

xkaes · Oct 5, 2024

Tourist Multiple
(1913) The first commercially produced half-frame camera, it took movie film (35mm film) and used it in a still camera. The camera was vertically-styled and looked like a small movie camera. It took a 50 foot spool of film for about 750 exposures. Different lenses were produced from f2.5 to f3.5.

xkaes · Oct 5, 2024

There's also the ESCO:

Ivo Stunga · Oct 5, 2024

What about the latent imagine retention when using film that holds hundred/s of frames?

MCB18 · Oct 5, 2024

Ivo Stunga said:
What about the latent imagine retention when using film that holds hundred/s of frames?

I wouldn’t worry about it, I’ve had film in cameras for months and had undeveloped film sit for just as long and it was fine

xkaes · Oct 5, 2024

Whoever uses a bulk film back wants to take a lot of pictures in a short period of time -- like a yearbook photographer -- so the film isn't going to sit around for very long. And some, like this Seagull bulk back, lets the user cut the roll at any point to allow for processing:

ic-racer · Nov 19, 2024

I recently picked up the Ilford Stainless Steel reel for 72 exposure loads.

Now just waiting for the film.

MFstooges · Nov 19, 2024

I wouldn't buy it. In the past 24 exp is the compromise between the hassle of changing film cartridge and the flexibility to change the film (bw, color, slide, iso). With today's price I think the compromise should be 12 exp.

Cholentpot · Nov 19, 2024

ic-racer said:
I recently picked up the Ilford Stainless Steel reel for 72 exposure loads.

Now just waiting for the film.
View attachment 383811

Some of the Svema stuff is super duper thin. Like mylar thin. I bet you can roll 72 into a standard cannister.

Ernst-Jan · Nov 20, 2024

MFstooges said:
I wouldn't buy it. In the past 24 exp is the compromise between the hassle of changing film cartridge and the flexibility to change the film (bw, color, slide, iso). With today's price I think the compromise should be 12 exp.

Today there isn't much price difference between 24 and 36 exposure rolls in my experience. For HP5+ the difference is just €1

koraks · Nov 20, 2024

Ernst-Jan said:
Today there isn't much price difference between 24 and 36 exposure rolls in my experience. For HP5+ the difference is just €1

Makes sense - same cassette, same CapEx for confectioning, same labor cost. It wouldn't surprise me if the relative difference in total cost for Harman would in fact be even smaller.

Ian Grant · Nov 20, 2024

MattKing said:
The 72 exposure rolls were like the 8 exposure 35mm rolls made for and sold mostly to the real estate support industry. They were essentially special purpose products that only made sense in an environment where film was so prevalent that the cost of a roll of film was actually one of the items used to make up and track the official Government Cost of Living Indices.

I think by the time HP5 Autowinder film was introduced, in 1981, nearly all real estate photography would have been colour. It was marketed here in the UK mostly for press & sports photography.

I had an account at the time and the Ilford professional dealer in Birmingham (UK) and they never stocked it. The film was discontinued because if issues with damage to motor drives/power winders.

Ian

ic-racer · Nov 20, 2024

Cholentpot said:
Some of the Svema stuff is super duper thin. Like mylar thin. I bet you can roll 72 into a standard cannister.

I'm waiting on an order from MCB18, the OP of this thread.
He indicated: "It will probably be Tasma 42L, same stuff as Santa Rae 1000."

Cholentpot · Nov 20, 2024

ic-racer said:
I'm waiting on an order from MCB18, the OP of this thread.
He indicated: "It will probably be Tasma 42L, same stuff as Santa Rae 1000."

Shot some Svema 100 or something a few years ago. Very scratch prone, very very thin but looked fine.

MattKing · Nov 20, 2024

Ian Grant said:
I think by the time HP5 Autowinder film was introduced, in 1981, nearly all real estate photography would have been colour. It was marketed here in the UK mostly for press & sports photography.

I had an account at the time and the Ilford professional dealer in Birmingham (UK) and they never stocked it. The film was discontinued because if issues with damage to motor drives/power winders.

Ian

For clarity, the only reason I referenced the old 8 exposure rolls, was to provide another example of how there once was a plethora of truly niche, special purpose products.
That availability flowed from the volumes that the industry enjoyed.

cmacd123 · Nov 20, 2024

I recall that the 72 exp rolls came up when Simon Gally was still posting, and his remarks indicated that it was NOT a popular product. the blocxk Plastic reel fits in a Stainless tank, and I seem to recall it was loaded Like a SS reel, attch in the center and the film falls into the spiral. the Ilford SS reel had a special oversize SS tank.

the film was coated on a thin Polyester base. so it did like to curl up.

of course now, I have been using Canon EOS cameras, and they automatically rewind after 36 exposures.

koraks · Nov 21, 2024

cmacd123 said:
of course now, I have been using Canon EOS cameras, and they automatically rewind after 36 exposures.

Yeah - although some get more frames from a roll. My niece's EOS300 consistently gets 37 frames, but it appears to be a "load & wind all the way, then shoot back into the cassette" camera, as opposed to "shoot frames from the cassette, then rewind". This means the camera 'knows' how many frames it will be able to get from the roll.

Ernst-Jan · Nov 21, 2024

koraks said:
Yeah - although some get more frames from a roll. My niece's EOS300 consistently gets 37 frames, but it appears to be a "load & wind all the way, then shoot back into the cassette" camera, as opposed to "shoot frames from the cassette, then rewind". This means the camera 'knows' how many frames it will be able to get from the roll.

Consumer level (like the 500N shot a few rolls with) load and wind all the way, on the pro level model you can choose yourself.

That and the ability to leave the leader out of the canister are one of the reasons I bought an Eos 3

koraks · Nov 21, 2024

Ernst-Jan said:
you can choose yourself.

Oh of course, it's probably a Cf on my EOS bodies. Forgot about that.

Ernst-Jan said:
the ability to leave the leader out of the canister

Yeah, I like that on my 30's and 50.

72 exposure rolls: were they ever popular, and would people actually buy them now?

MCB18

xkaes

ant!

MCB18

ant!

MCB18

xkaes

xkaes

Tourist Multiple

xkaes

Ivo Stunga

MCB18

xkaes

ic-racer

MFstooges

Cholentpot

Ernst-Jan

koraks

Moderator

Ian Grant

ic-racer

Cholentpot

MattKing

Moderator

cmacd123

koraks

Moderator

Ernst-Jan

koraks

Moderator

72 exposure rolls: were they ever popular, and would people actually buy them now?

Tourist Multiple​

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Tourist Multiple