Anybody shooting 24 exp. rolls?

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Normally prefer 24exp when available. 36exp are too long for me. Most of the rolls I bulk load are either 24 exp or 12 exp.


I don't usually use a roll for multiple shoot sessions, so I like to finish a roll on the same session/day. Otherwise, there is a high probability roll will remain undeveloped for a long time since I don't really know what is on the roll and not much incentive to look at the pictures.

 

[chuckroast]

Oh how I wish I could have good old 20 exposure rolls.

Roll yer own.

 

[BrianShaw]

Oh how I wish I could have good old 20 exposure rolls.

… and how!

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I sold off all my prerolled 35mm film, and 99% of them were 36 exposure because thats mostly all anyone sells anymore. However I still have 3 bulk loaders --TriX, Foma 100, and PanF+. I usually roll somewhere between 15 and 20 frames. I HATE 36 exposure rolls because they end up stuck in the camera for 9 months waiting for an opportunity to finish the roll. For when I want to take a lot of shots these days, I use 120 film and 6x4.5, so I get 15 or 16 shots--kind of perfect.

My experience the same about 6x4.5.

 

[mshchem]

Roll yer own.

I have loaders, but I also have finished films. I have been loading up Ektachrome, as I have 400' to shoot up. My main cameras are medium format, thus my preference for shorter rolls.

Early on Kodak offered 36 and 18 exposure 135 cassettes. That's what would be nice. (For me )

 

[loccdor]

Is it, though?

Kentmere 400 at B&H is 7.49 for 36 and 6.79 for 24. So you get 50% more film for 70 cents more.,

Depends on the source, sometimes the price scales more closely with the film length.

And you might occasionally even run across a film you can only find in 24 exposure.

 

[chuckroast]

This whole thread inspired me to roll up the remaining Double-X in my bulk film loader - four 12 exposure rolls now grace my shelf

 

[Don_ih]

sometimes the price scales more closely with the film length

I've never found that. There's a base price for the package the film itself comes in that is the same whether it's 12, 24, or 36 exposures. The only difference between 24 and 36 exposures is around 17" of film.

 

[wahiba]

Just curious.

I recently bought a load of 24 size Kentmere 400 cassettes. I have a number of old cameras that I want to run a film through. In the past I have found some old cameras do not always like a full 36 film as Ilford offer these at a small saving over the 36s bought a load. Not much more than buying in bulk and loading my own, and this way I get a stock of 400asa DX coded cases to maybe try some other odd 400 film in.

 

[MattKing]

I usually bulk load in 25 exposure lengths - it just seems to work for me.
I would probably buy in 24 exposure lengths if the price per frame was relatively similar.

 

[BHuij]

I almost always roll 24 when I'm shooting one of the stocks I keep on tap and bulk roll.

If I'm buying pre-rolled 35mm, I prefer 24 to 36 when possible. Every now and again there's an exception to that rule, like if I know I'll have multiple days on a trip to shoot the roll and figure I can finish 36.

But generally I find 36 exposures to be too many, and in my eagerness to see the results, I often find myself wasting the last 10 frames or whatever on stuff that I know isn't any good.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Twelve exposures only here. Either MF film or bulk loaded 35mm film. I don't have the attention span to shoot 24 exposures, much less 36.

 

[gordrob]

I bulk load either 12, 20 or 24 frames depending on what the project is. A 36 exposure roll tends to sit in the camera to long or frames get wasted trying to use the roll.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Just curious.

I do if I can get them. 36 shots per roll is often too much for one assignment, and then the film is just left in the camera. With 24 per roll, I get quicker to the negs I really want, which is ideal for test shots.

 

[brian steinberger]

I’m surprised how many say 36 frames are too many. If I’m in an interesting place I can blow through a roll easily.

 

[grahamp]

I like to use 24 exposure length in my Horizont 202 for two reasons. Firstly, I do not do that many swing lens pano shots (24x58mm) at a time, so it is economic and convenient. Secondly, the camera works better with shorter lengths. Since this is the only 35mm camera I have in operation I have no reason to go (back) to bulk loading.

 

[DWThomas]

I don't shoot much 35mm and tend to prefer the 24s. I have the remains of a 100 foot roll of Panatomic-X that I often tap for the annual Argus Day event. With that I often load 20 exposures. I find 36 exposures are quite a lot when it's just celebrating a special one day thing. Before I got into medium format I would prefer 36 exp for travel but these days I seldom use 35mm, preferring my Yashica Mat 124G or one of my folders. (The Bronica SQ-A is cool for auto tours in the US, too much "stuff" for overseas travel.)

 

[pbromaghin]

Pretty much all the 35mm I've shot for the last few years has been bulk rolled B&W. I usually stop it at around 30 exposures because I'm short and 36 is difficult for me to handle and too long for hanging to dry on the shower door frame.

 

[benderscameracorner]

Have been banging through some old Delta 400 20-exp and Kodak T-Max 24-exp rolls I found in my recently-passed grandfather's camera bag along with his old F and F2. Expired in the early 1990s, just after his retirement as a news/press photographer, but they've given very usable results despite sitting in a definitely-not-refrigerated bag for many a decade since.

Pop did mention once upon a time he'd hand-load literally 3 or 4 usable frames onto a roll if the job only required a single shot for the article. No point wasting film, chemicals or anyone's time (his or subject's) back then. 'Twos a different era...

 

[snusmumriken]

No matter what length the film, I always find the end is either too soon or too far in the future.

 

[250swb]

24 exposure film broke my new Nikon SP, well, it was 'broken' until I realised I'd loaded 24 exposure by mistake.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I just used a 24 exp. roll of Tri-X in Istanbul. It was convenient and right for the purpose. Note: this "new" Tri-X is amazingly fine grain for a 400 film. It is quite remarkable what the chemists accomplished. I scanned these at 4000dpi as 16 bit TIFF files with my Nikon Coolscan 4000ED scanner.

 

[Paul Howell]

I do buy 24ex. have bulk loaded as well, for the most part I buy 35expsoures. I still have some bulk Ultrafine Finesse which I think is Foma 400. I am going to bulk load it in 8, 12 and 20 exposures lengths, the 8 I will for crippled zone style, I can bracket a single scene then contract or expand development as needed. The 12 will for walk around with my growing list of cameras I have not shot with in a very long time, Miranda, Petri, Topcon 100, Spotmatic, Kowa RE and the like. The 20 for longer walk arounds with my newer AF gear

 

[Sirius Glass]

No matter what length the film, I always find the end is either too soon or too far in the future.

Regardless of format, the film roll size is always the wrong size.

 

[chuckroast]

Regardless of format, the film roll size is always the wrong size.

Tsk tsk, you of all people should know better. The correct size is 12 exposures (or possibly, 24 if you still have 220 around).