ANTIQUATED FILM LEADER

David Lyga · Aug 14, 2020

The curved film leader had its origin, and necessity, derived from the original Leica, which had to be difficultly loaded from the bottom. (Within this genre was also the early FED from USSR.)

Why is this curvature still needed? Those tiny few who must still load that way could, instead, carve their own curve from the film leader. Am I being too strict with pining for the removal of this anachronism? - David Lyga

Cholentpot · Aug 14, 2020

Tradition.

Why not, makes me feel an attachment to the olde dayse. Same reason my maple syrup has a little handle. Skeuomorphs.

David Lyga · Aug 14, 2020

Cholentpot said:
Tradition.

Why not, makes me feel an attachment to the olde dayse. Same reason my maple syrup has a little handle. Skeuomorphs.

That little handle on the maple syrup is pretty cool!

However, I guess that my angst stems from the fact that I load film in the dark, using bulk loads which do not have a light struck leader. I use about 2 inches of tape which I wind around the take-up spool, anchor the film on that tape (sticky side facing upward and film being pressed onto it from above), so that I am ready to shoot my first frame immediately, without having to waste preliminary frames, as my shutter is already cocked. (Auto advance SLRs have to be modified in order to be able do this, usually by using a dummy roll to get my Nikon N8008 to the first frame, then removing the dummy and loading good film.)

In this way, I am able to waste only about one frame with each loading. This has the decided advantage of being able to cut film (in the dark) from the spool when you want to process, without having to use up the whole roll. That, I find, is quite an economic advantage with wasting only about one frame with each loading. (David Lyga is a frugal character.)

Thus, I wonder how necessary it is to have a five inch leader, already light struck. I do remember, decades ago, that film leaders were even longer than they are today. So, apparently, nothing is sacrosanct. - David Lyga

George Collier · Aug 14, 2020

Maybe there is a die in the production machine that includes this tongue cut-out, and it's expensive enough to replace that they leave it alone.
Although I like the tradition idea.

Sirius Glass · Aug 14, 2020

The curl is needed for several of my 35mm cameras, besides making it stay straight would require a lot of useless R&D.

Cholentpot · Aug 14, 2020

David Lyga said:
That little handle on the maple syrup is pretty cool!

However, I guess that my angst stems from the fact that I load film in the dark, using bulk loads which do not have a light stuck leader. I use about 2 inches of tape which I wind around the take-up spool, anchor the film on that tape (sticky side facing upward and film being pressed onto it from above), so that I am ready to shoot my first frame immediately, without having to waste preliminary frames, as my shutter is already cocked. (Auto advance SLRs have to be modified in order to be able do this, usually by using a dummy roll to get my Nikon N8008 to the first frame, then removing the dummy and loading good film.)

In this way, I am able to waste only about one frame with each loading. This has the decided advantage of being able to cut film (in the dark) from the spool when you want to process, without having to use up the whole roll. That, I find, is quite an economic advantage with wasting only about one frame with each loading. (David Lyga is a frugal character.)

Thus, I wonder how necessary it is to have a five inch leader, already light struck. I do remember, decades ago, that film leaders were even longer than they are today. So, apparently, nothing is sacrosanct. - David Lyga

All that work to save a frame or two.

David Lyga is my kind of guy.

Do you also push C-41 kits to 30+ rolls?

David Lyga · Aug 14, 2020

Cholentpot said:
All that work to save a frame or two.

David Lyga is my kind of guy.

Do you also push C-41 kits to 30+ rolls?

With dilution, using one shot ... YES!

And the savings with loading the way I do is about THREE frames. The added benefit is that you get to use only the film you need, hence, you are able to treat a 36-exposure roll as a mini 'bulk roll'! Now, THAT is prudence and efficiency and frugality all melded into one unified, thrilling event.

And I still think that that little handle on the maple syrup bottle is all too cool! - David Lyga

Cholentpot · Aug 14, 2020

David Lyga said:
With dilution, using one shot ... YES!

And the savings with loading the way I do is about THREE frames. The added benefit is that you get to use only the film you need, hence, you are able to treat a 36-exposure roll as a mini 'bulk roll'! Now, THAT is prudence and efficiency and frugality all melded into one unified, thrilling event.

And I still think that that little handle on the maple syrup bottle is all too cool! - David Lyga

And here I thought I was Mr Thrifty by getting 3 rolls of 110 out of a roll of 70mm.

I can get my pinky through the little handle so it's not all useless.

abruzzi · Aug 14, 2020

if 35mm didn't have the tongue (which is what I assume you're talking about) it wouldn't work on a lot of Pentax cameras like my SuperProgram. It uses what I call the bundle of toothpicks. It looks like a lot of toothpick sized plastic rods all the way around the takeup spool. You just slip the tongue between any of the rods, and friction does the rest. They woudn't work with a flat end on the film roll because the overall width of the rods isn't wide enough.

I wouldn't care about Leica people though, because they already have to trim the tongue because its not long enough.

David Lyga · Aug 14, 2020

abruzzi said:
if 35mm didn't have the tongue (which is what I assume you're talking about) it wouldn't work on a lot of Pentax cameras like my SuperProgram. It uses what I call the bundle of toothpicks. It looks like a lot of toothpick sized plastic rods all the way around the takeup spool. You just slip the tongue between any of the rods, and friction does the rest. They woudn't work with a flat end on the film roll because the overall width of the rods isn't wide enough.

I wouldn't care about Leica people though, because they already have to trim the tongue because its not long enough.

It USED to be long enough. I remember that that was the case when I was little (a LONG time ago). Film, back then, was CHEAP. But for the toothpick Pentax (of which I am all too aware) would it not be so difficult to trim each side of the leader's very end in order to be able to load? - David Lyga

reddesert · Aug 14, 2020

IME the vast majority of cameras made before quick loading have a slot that doesn't run the full height of the takeup spool - compatible with the "Leica" leader but not with a full width leader.

The extra film that is cut away to make the leader shape is not wasted, the film companies collect it and wind it into very small canisters to donate to children in developing countries, who can only use very small cameras due to poor nutrition and prenatal care. Every time you cut a leader in the darkroom and throw away the excess, you are taking film from babies!

Cholentpot · Aug 14, 2020

David Lyga said:
It USED to be long enough. I remember that that was the case when I was little (a LONG time ago). Film, back then, was CHEAP. But for the toothpick Pentax (of which I am all too aware) would it not be so difficult to trim each side of the leader's very end in order to be able to load? - David Lyga

I got some fresh eastern European film this summer Svema Astrum I think, and it had the loooong tail.

reddesert said:
IME the vast majority of cameras made before quick loading have a slot that doesn't run the full height of the takeup spool - compatible with the "Leica" leader but not with a full width leader.

The extra film that is cut away to make the leader shape is not wasted, the film companies collect it and wind it into very small canisters to donate to children in developing countries, who can only use very small cameras due to poor nutrition and prenatal care. Every time you cut a leader in the darkroom and throw away the excess, you are taking film from babies!

I worked on the Kodak campus a few years back. You have it wrong, the leader shape gets pasted together for oddball sizes like 616 and 128. The perfs from 135 go to developing countries. They load in each dot for each photo. This saves them money on developer.

David Lyga · Aug 14, 2020

reddesert said:
Every time you cut a leader in the darkroom and throw away the excess, you are taking film from babies!

I will not tolerate this material falsehood! The leader that one cuts in the darkroom has ALREADY been exposed to light, thus useless for image capture; (thus, far from an epiphany segueing into image enrapture.) - David Lyga

MattKing · Aug 14, 2020

Don't discard that cut-away leader - it is perfect for fixer clip tests!

cmacd123 · Aug 14, 2020

when I got started in the 1960s in 35mm photography, the leader had a very long tail. film manufacturers started to shoten the tail with note on the data sheet promising that the overall length of the film was not reduced. Many 35mm cameras (I would guess 90% of those before instant loading) only have a long enough slot to take a cut down leader.

I never count on the first couple of frames in any case, as sometimes the felt light trap is not 100% effective and there is fog on frame -1 or -2.

grahamp · Aug 14, 2020

When I used to use enough 35mm to bulk load, I used to cut a short tongue. All my cameras required a less than full width tongue to fit the take-up spool. The reason in part for the narrow tongue is for bottom load cameras like the Leicas, and also because it avoids the risk of skewed loading if two sprockets are involved. The single sprocket run on the leader helps center the film across the gate.

Since new 35mm cameras are uncommon, I don't think there is much pressure on the film manufacturers to change their cutters

Huss · Aug 15, 2020

David Lyga said:
It USED to be long enough. I remember that that was the case when I was little (a LONG time ago). Film, back then, was CHEAP. But for the toothpick Pentax (of which I am all too aware) would it not be so difficult to trim each side of the leader's very end in order to be able to load? - David Lyga

Film was never cheap. Just plug in those long ago prices into an inflation calculator.

Huss · Aug 15, 2020

MattKing said:
Don't discard that cut-away leader - it is perfect for fixer clip tests!

It's also great to see if DF96 still has any life left in it!

Throwing away film leaders is as bad as juggling kittens.

bdial · Aug 15, 2020

MattKing said:
Don't discard that cut-away leader - it is perfect for fixer clip tests!

Indeed, consider the plight of the poor MF camera user, he has no leader to test his fixer with, and must rely on Hypo-check. More stuff to buy, more stuff to store, it never ends.

Sirius Glass · Aug 15, 2020

bdial said:
Indeed, consider the plight of the poor MF camera user, he has no leader to test his fixer with, and must rely on Hypo-check. More stuff to buy, more stuff to store, it never ends.

I keep exposed leaders in the plastic 35mm film cans for just that purpose.

David Lyga · Aug 16, 2020

Huss said:
Film was never cheap. Just plug in those long ago prices into an inflation calculator.

Huss, I am an accountant and know what I am talking about with regard to constant dollars. In the late 60s, when the average low wage earner was making $1.75 per hour, a roll of size 120 Verichrome Pan was $.43 at major discount department stores. In other words, that translated into four rolls for one hour's work. I know; I was there.

Do I have to take you by the hand in order to demonstrate to you that a low wage worker in 2020 is NOT going to be able to buy four rolls of ANY size 120 B&W film for one hour of his or her work? Calculators are fine, but when it has become so embedded into one's head, that calculator becomes not so necessary. Logic is logic, Huss.

I will concede this, however: for the most part, color film is not more expensive (in constant dollars) than it was in the 60s. Back then, and largely unlike today, it sold for a substantial premium over B&W.

Some may posit that the rise in silver prices has necessitated this B&W film price rise. In practical terns that rise becomes more of an excuse than a tangible reason, as the amount of silver used is so relatively small. - David Lyga

Cholentpot · Aug 16, 2020

David Lyga said:
Huss, I am an accountant and know what I am talking about with regard to constant dollars. In the late 60s, when the average low wage earner was making $1.75 per hour, a roll of size 120 Verichrome Pan was $.43 at major discount department stores. In other words, that translated into four rolls for one hour's work. I know; I was there.

Do I have to take you by the hand in order to demonstrate to you that a low wage worker in 2020 is NOT going to be able to buy four rolls of ANY size 120 B&W film for one hour of his or her work? Calculators are fine, but when it has become so embedded into one's head, that calculator becomes not so necessary. Logic is logic, Huss.

I will concede this, however: for the most part, color film is not more expensive (in constant dollars) than it was in the 60s. Back then, and largely unlike today, it sold for a substantial premium over B&W.

Some may posit that the rise in silver prices has necessitated this B&W film price rise. In practical terns that rise becomes more of an excuse than a tangible reason, as the amount of silver used is so relatively small. - David Lyga

There are still deals to be had, granted not for mainstream film. I can get recans at something like .40 a foot but then I don't mind processing ECN-2 cross processed at home and dealing with remjet.

Film is expensive.

pentaxuser · Aug 16, 2020

Before we good friends fallout over David's suggestion, here's a constructive one from me. David there is a new Yashica film soon to be followed by two new cameras, one which uses 35mm film

It may be that Yashica in its modern revival mode will welcome your suggestion that the old shaped leader can be eliminated

Away with all vestiges of fartitude I say

pentaxuser

Pentode · Aug 16, 2020

grahamp said:
When I used to use enough 35mm to bulk load, I used to cut a short tongue. All my cameras required a less than full width tongue to fit the take-up spool. The reason in part for the narrow tongue is for bottom load cameras like the Leicas, and also because it avoids the risk of skewed loading if two sprockets are involved. The single sprocket run on the leader helps center the film across the gate.

I still do and this is exactly what I do as well. Some of my cameras are much easier to load with a short tongue. Most of the time my tongue only consists of a 30-degree, diagonal cut, which works fine for a vast majority of my cameras. If I'm feeling especially frisky I'll cut the fancy s-curve but most of the time I don't bother.

Andrew O'Neill · Aug 16, 2020

pentaxuser said:
Before we good friends fallout over David's suggestion, here's a constructive one from me. David there is a new Yashica film soon to be followed by two new cameras, one which uses 35mm film

It may be that Yashica in its modern revival mode will welcome your suggestion that the old shaped leader can be eliminated

Away with all vestiges of fartitude I say

pentaxuser

I like the old shaped leader...I always cut one for my students. I've gotten really good at that...Anyways Peter, is this what you are talking about? https://petapixel.com/2019/04/27/yashica-unveils-three-film-cameras-and-two-new-films/

ANTIQUATED FILM LEADER

David Lyga

Cholentpot

David Lyga

George Collier

Sirius Glass

Cholentpot

David Lyga

Cholentpot

abruzzi

David Lyga

reddesert

Cholentpot

David Lyga

MattKing

Moderator

cmacd123

grahamp

Huss

Huss

bdial

Sirius Glass

David Lyga

Cholentpot

pentaxuser

Pentode

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

ANTIQUATED FILM LEADER

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency