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

[cmacd123]

the ones sold as "rebel" in North America, and with 3 digit model numbers elsewhere, (like 300V for example AKA Rebel Ti and also Kiss 5) wind to the end, and will shoot more than 36. my Elan 7 (30 or 33 in europe) willstop at the end of the film, or after 36 shots. the EOS 1 will read the DX code and if loaded with a 24 exp load will not try for shot #25.

(I personaly have always wanted the leader to fully rewind, as it would be way to easy to absent-mindedly shoot a roll twice otherwise. I got into that habbit when the idea to splicing new bulk film to the tail of a previous roll wuld have not occurred.)

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

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

Now just waiting for the film.
View attachment 383811

They are nice reels( Hewes) that can be used for 36 exposure rolls too.
I have one plus the plastic version.
72 exposures was a good but imperfect idea that needed work !
It was useful in the days of fast motor drives and cheaper film costs.
My Nikon MD12 has not been used for years.

 

[koraks]

my Elan 7 (30 or 33 in europe) willstop at the end of the film, or after 36 shots.

AFAIK it also reads DX and stops at 24 if a 24-frame roll is loaded. As does the ESO 50 (Elan II?).

 

[Laurent]

If that's of interest, I purchased a 72 exposures reel and tank which is useless for me. I've put an Ebay ad.

 

[xkaes]

Do the new Pentax 17, Kodak H35, etc. have counters that go to 72 on regular 36 exposure rolls????

 

[Sirius Glass]

All the film counters on my Nikon AF cameras have a maximum limit of 36 exposures and they rewind after that. Of the rest of my 35mm cameras I too find the maximum number of exposures is limited to 36 with not automatic rewind.

 

[xkaes]

I don't know of any full-frame 35mm camera that goes passed 36, but all of the half-frame 35mm cameras that I have run to 72 -- like the Pen F. I suspect that the new half-frame do as well -- how could they not?? They might take the approach of some of the "oldies" by not having all of the numbers appear in the counter window -- just intermediate DOTS -- there's just not enough space on the small wheel for all of them. Other subminiature cameras do the same thing.

 

[MattKing]

I’ll have to ask my friend who has one of the original Konica Autoreflex cameras - the one that was switchable between full frame and half frame - how that camera handles the frame counter issues.

 

[Disconnekt]

I don't know of any full-frame 35mm camera that goes passed 36, but all of the half-frame 35mm cameras that I have run to 72 -- like the Pen F. I suspect that the new half-frame do as well -- how could they not?? They might take the approach of some of the "oldies" by not having all of the numbers appear in the counter window -- just intermediate DOTS -- there's just not enough space on the small wheel for all of them. Other subminiature cameras do the same thing.

My manual cameras (Sears TLS & Kalimar K90) both stop at 36 exposures, but the Pentax ZX-L (af slr) I had went past 36 exposures, happened a few times with some bulk rolled films I had shot in it (went up to ~43)

 

[xkaes]

I’ll have to ask my friend who has one of the original Konica Autoreflex cameras - the one that was switchable between full frame and half frame - how that camera handles the frame counter issues.

There are several other cameras that do the same sort of thing -- mid-roll -- like the Mini Diana (half-frame or 24x24mm). It might vary from camera to camera. It looks like some of these camera advance the full amount, and simply mask the film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't know of any full-frame 35mm camera that goes passed 36, but all of the half-frame 35mm cameras that I have run to 72 -- like the Pen F. I suspect that the new half-frame do as well -- how could they not?? They might take the approach of some of the "oldies" by not having all of the numbers appear in the counter window -- just intermediate DOTS -- there's just not enough space on the small wheel for all of them. Other subminiature cameras do the same thing.

I would expect that for half frame/single frame cameras but what about with a 72 shot 35mm roll in such cameras, will they go to 144?

 

[xkaes]

That's nothing new for submini camera users. For example, Minox made different cassettes that held different amount of film. If their 50 exposure cassette is filled with super-thin film, like microfilm, getting over 100 exposures in no problem. Similarly, Kiev Vega 2 16mm cameras can take several dozens of shots on one roll.

Processing these long rolls is another issue.

And with most cameras, if you reach the max number of shots, you can reset the counter by opening the film door -- in the dark of course.

 

[snusmumriken]

Anyone remember 120-minute tape cassettes? The thinner tape was very prone to jamming the player. Used to see it festooned along roadsides where maddened drivers had hurled it out of their cars.

 

[xkaes]

Microfilm does present a similar challenge, so the timid should stay away.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Ever since doing the Astrum group buy in May, I have been asked several times if I could offer double length, or 72 exposure, rolls of 35mm. I have answered that yes, with the thinner film I can, but I didn’t plan on it because I thought it was kind of dumb.

The next thing that most folks said was something like “Oh I bet if you offered it people would probably buy it. You could get 144 shots in the new Pentax!”. I have always assumed that this probably isn’t the case. It seemed niche at the time and it most certainly hasn’t gotten any more popular since! And anyway, who would want to go out of their way to develop them? You would have to cut the roll in half anyway, and you would definitely lose a frame!

But, someone pointed out that making a development spiral for a 10 ft roll wouldn’t be terribly difficult with 3D printing, and you could probably make it small enough to fit in a Jobo 2500 series tank. It may also be possible to process the film in black and white minilabs and dip and dunk machines. So technically you could develop the entire thing at once.

So, my question to you all is: was this actually a thing people used regularly when Ilford did it? And if I did it now, would anyone be interested?

No.

No.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

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.

For what it’s worth, this is what the entire 70mm “ecosystem” is built around.

Most of the major medium format SLR systems had the ability to take a 70mm back. 70mm film typically was daylight-loaded in metal cassettes that look like overgrown 35mm cassettes. For conventional thicknesss film, a standard load is 15ft, which translates to about 70 6x6 exposures. You can actually squeeze in about 20ft of aerial surveillance films(which are also common in 70mm) but I’ve never tried to load that much. My developing reels only hold 13 ft so that’s usually the most I will load. I normally target around 6 ft, or ~30 frames.

Kodak offered a few emulsions pre-loaded in factory cassettes. A bunch of the cassettes I have are stickered for Tri-X or Vericolor III. I’d dare say most 70mm was sold on 100ft rolls. Hasselblad made a somewhat uncommon back that was designed to be dark loaded without the canisters and could take 100 frames, and there’s a rare one that could take an entire 100ft roll.

The whole system around 70mm is sort of its own beast as at any given time with a back in use you should have two cartridges, a supply and a take up. Since the cartridges are light tight(they have a felt trap just like 35mm) only a short length of film is out at any given time. On a Hasselblad A70, it’s about 4” of film-one full frame and two halves. That means that if you inadvertently open it or pull the dark slide, you’ve only killed a few frames. Not long ago I bought a back that I knew had film in it thanks to the seller showing it open. Once I’d IDes the film(Tri-X) I shot it. If you want to develop before you’ve shot the entire roll, just take a few unimportant frames to make sure the ones you care about are safely in the take up canister then open the back and cut the film. I just ended up with 400ft of Plus-X Aero, and have a 15ft roll of it loaded up. I’m planning on shooting it tomorrow and will cut it mid roll at least three times, possibly more, to figure out EI and development for using it.

BTW, I have some 70mm on the way from the OP of this thread.

 

[Sanug]

Anyone remember 120-minute tape cassettes? The thinner tape was very prone to jamming the player. Used to see it festooned along roadsides where maddened drivers had hurled it out of their cars.

There were even C-180 cassettes on the market for a short time. It was TDK D for special purpose, like recording a long conference without interruption. People were warned not to use them in car players.

 

[loccdor]

BTW, I have some 70mm on the way from the OP of this thread.

Sounds fun! I've bought a lot of hand rolled 220 from MCB. Never used a "system camera" with interchangeable backs - just prefer to keep it simple.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

Sounds fun! I've bought a lot of hand rolled 220 from MCB. Never used a "system camera" with interchangeable backs - just prefer to keep it simple.

I’ve honestly kind of jumped in the last couple of months. I’m definitely one who often considers 8-16 exposures on 120 to be a benefit and not a drawback. I do like 220 film, but when the major makers still offered it, as much as anything it was an economy decision. When 120 Velvia was $40/box(those were the days) it was $60/box or so for 220, even though a few years ago when I could still get it I had to order it from Japan. My lab charged $10 to process 120 E6 and $15 for 220. That meant my total cost was $90 to shoot a box of 120 and $145 for 220. That’s a decent savings for double the film. In a lot of systems, too, 220 backs are nearly give away items.

70mm like I said is a whole other ball game, and to me the ability to make mid-roll cuts and shoot partial rolls is a game changer in medium format. The other side of it, though, is that for someone who has shot conventional 120/220 for years, none of your “infrastructure” works. My enlargers are all in storage, but I don’t have any 70mm holders. I’m sure they’re out there for my Beselers(I have a 23 and a 45) but I’ve not looked for them. For now I’m using the fluid bed(dry) on my Epson V700. I have a custom made fluid mount for my Coolscan 9000 on the way from Germany.

For color too the only real current option(outside the 160NC and VPS I have in the freezer) is Vision3 65mm. It’s great, but also at least on Hasselblads you lose some image area to the sprocket holes. I hope to be getting a 70mm insert for my Pentax 645N soon, but 65mm in that I expect will actually lose a bit of image area off the edge.

 

[MCB18]

Well, I did it! I made the meme roll, lol. ≈72 exposures. Idk how many exactly because the film doesn’t play nicely with my bulk loader’s frame counting mechanism. But the can is basically full, I could feel it get slightly harder to turn when I made the last wind.

 

[Cholentpot]

Well, I did it! I made the meme roll, lol. ≈72 exposures. Idk how many exactly because the film doesn’t play nicely with my bulk loader’s frame counting mechanism. But the can is basically full, I could feel it get slightly harder to turn when I made the last wind.

Now run it through a half-frame

 

[ic-racer]

The circular counter on my loader counts to 50 then keeps spinning. So I'll load to about 28 on the second revolution. That would be 78, which should give 72 exposures.

 

[ic-racer]

I received my film today.

I wound 80 frames into this cassette. That should give about 72 exposures. Ready for testing. Notice this film back has a special pressureplate just for the thin 72 exposure film.

 

[ic-racer]

If indeed the film is fast, it should go well with this Carl Zeiss 35/1.4 lens.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

If indeed the film is fast, it should go well with this Carl Zeiss 35/1.4 lens.

View attachment 389639

Nice! Is that a 3003? Is everything working correctly? These late Rolleis were rare in the US market. I've seen maybe 2 or 3 in decades.