Bulk loading without a bulk loader

[cliveh]

Dead Link Removed

See paragraph 11 or 12.

 

[Xmas]

The local lab on York and 71st went from handing me too many cans to carry to none in about 5 years. I then noticed recently that bulk TriX was more expensive than single roles of 36 exposure by about $30 when accounting for actual number of rolls per 100 ft. So for the first time in about 20 years I stopped bulking loading.

Try pricing HP5+ or Kentmere 400...

 

[technopoptart]

Well, its been 10 years since the last post here. I did some bulk loading in college and just ran some new numbers. The savings average about $30 for the 100 foot roll and rolling 17 X 36 exp vs buying factory loads. This goes for Ilford, Kodak, Arista / Foma. So you can pay for a loader and cartridges in 2 rolls, or you can just use arm lengths if you don't mind being a few shots short.

 

[AgX]

One does neither need a bulk loader, nor ones arm for bulk loading.

 

[Donald Qualls]

One does neither need a bulk loader, nor ones arm for bulk loading.

You can measure and roll film into cassettes with your toes?!

 

[AgX]

One does not need an arm to mesasure the film lenght (armlength, as he said).
One does not even need to measure at all, if one just wants a filled casssette.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, true, but there can be the issue of running out of developing reel before you run out of film. Most cassettes will hold 45+ exposures of modern film (a little thinner than what they sold in the 1930s when the Kodak 135 cassette was designed), and few film reels will take more than about 39. I prefer not to load so much film I'll have to tear it off in the middle of a frame to be able to close the tank (happened with my very first roll of 35mm, summer camp, 1969; photography instructor loaded too much film in the cassette to fit in the reel).

 

[AgX]

I never filled my cassettes with more than 42 frames, without any dedicated measuring means. Problem is less the cassette than the processing reel. One additional winding on the reel worked on mine.

Of course loading more than 36 frames either creates an uncertainty beyond 36 to which frame one actually has got (unless good memory or notes) or creates surplus as the camera rewinds after 36.

 

[eli griggs]

You can get a flash with the adhesive tape used on 120 film, never noticed any fogging though.

As a side note, static electricity, like you see in bed sheets when you flip them apart and they had no static remover in the wash/drying, as well as the static generated by tape being rapidly pulled apart, can generate X-Rays.

Since learning this years ago, I often wondered just how much tape, being transferred to an empty take-up rod, by a high speed camera or other motor, would it take to generate a X-Ray image onto a sheet of good photo paper.

You have to also wonder at how much protection, the rest of your films and papers, plus yourself, you would need to print a 4x5in print up to 8x10in or so paper image.

Now, back to your regular viewing.

 

[eli griggs]

If I recall correctly, Oskar Barnack, designer of the first Leica 35mm camera, simply pulled out enough film from a larger roll, tip to end in his spread apart arms, about six feet, and that is how the early Leica and later cassettes were standardized.

Doing the same, but in one two stretch pulls, would give a sic foot tall man, about 12 feet of 70mm film, and a center of chest to finger tips wide pull would give the fifteen feet needed for a Hasselblad A70 cassette.

If I did no have bulk loaders, I would take the box the film can came in, cut down the middle of one side of the box, about one or two mm wide, and lay in some good camera felt material through and over the cut sides and feed my film lead through.

I would then take my second half of that box, the top, with a similar unlined cut, about five mm wide, and put it over the top of the slit I've just made in the bottom box, and, in the dark, use that to pull out film, with one hand and stretch the film box apart, also across my chest, with both arms extended to six feet or however long someone no much taller than that could, and bring my hands together slowly, with the leader side carefully rolling around my hand in the dark. a quick snip and the loading box into a light proof bad or drawer, then a taping to a spool to finish rolling up a lenght down to cassette size and lid installed.

Lights on to make sure cassette is sealed, then repeat as often as needed.

Longer to describe than do, i suss out about it'll be about two minutes, tops to load a '36' exposure cassette this way, and maybe less if a electric screwdriver or drill (cordless) with a split dowel is used to spin the taped film spool tight with fresh film, each time.

Your mileage will vari.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Of course, you'll want to make sure your cordless winding tool doesn't have an LED status light (as most do), and that the brushes (if it has them -- many newer ones are brushless) aren't arcing -- a brush arc will fog film.

 

[AgX]

Bulk loaders are so cheap! And bulk loaders help to store and protect film from dust...dust is chief hazard for bulk loading.

But they also can introduce scratches themselves, at least the samples I got.. And thus the question how to bulk-load without a bulk loader is a valifd.
(I gave answer to this in other threads.)

 

[DWThomas]

What I did way back when as a kid, handling film in my bedroom closet:

Install a 4-penny finish nail in the door frame up near the top.
Place some markers along the door frame -- shown here are ball head thumbtacks.
Tape end of film to spool (I use more tape than shown here!)
Hang the spool on the nail and gently unroll the supply to the desired length marker.
Snip the film with scissors.
Roll the film onto the spool.
Place it in the cassette.
(Note that in real life I try to avoid dragging or contacting anything against the film.)

I resurrected the method in the current darkroom several years back when I found myself the recipient of a 100 foot roll of Panatomic-X.
I have since acquired a Watson-type bulk loader because I could, but as mentioned up-thread, the current economics of bulk loading in general are not that compelling. The main plus is being able to produce short rolls for special projects or tests.

 

[Donald Qualls]

About the economics being "not compelling" -- I recently bought a 100' roll of .EDU Ultra 400; I paid $52 plus $8 or so shipping (that's several bucks less than the same film with the Fomapan name on the tin). That's 17 or so 36 exposure rolls, so about $3.50 a roll. Prerolled, the same film is $4.50 a roll, give or take a few cents. Given I don't count my time for hobby pursuits, I'm saving more than 20%. Seems compelling to me, especially given that film is the single largest expense before I switch on the enlarger -- I can develop and fix B&W for under 25 cents a roll (and as low as half that, depending on the developer).

Sure, short rolls are good, but saving 20% over the same film stock seems fairly compelling to me. Just wish I could get color stocks this way. Maybe if I try some cine stock I can make that worthwhile (Vision3 in 400 foot rolls is a lot cheaper than anything prepackaged in 35mm cassettes).

 

[eli griggs]

Of course, you'll want to make sure your cordless winding tool doesn't have an LED status light (as most do), and that the brushes (if it has them -- many newer ones are brushless) aren't arcing -- a brush arc will fog film.

You are right, Thank You for mentioning that.

The electric screwdriver I have is sealed, no vents so I did no have that thought in mind when I offered my suggestion.

Cheers.

 

[AndyH]

I may be missing something, but are bulk loaders really all that expensive? I've seen the old fashioned ones for less than $20, and changing bags are even less than that. I used to use a Watson, and measured the length by counting the revolutions of the crank. Even the high tech "all daylight" models seem to go for less than $100.

Andy

 

[eli griggs]

I may be missing something, but are bulk loaders really all that expensive? I've seen the old fashioned ones for less than $20, and changing bags are even less than that. I used to use a Watson, and measured the length by counting the revolutions of the crank. Even the high tech "all daylight" models seem to go for less than $100.

Andy

Those of us that do pinch pennies, do so in different areas, for different reasons, or simply like to build, so you can never really tell what the reasons for these choices are.

I personally, because of my very shallow pockets, would no want to buy a $100 loader, and would find a simple way to do a simple job, before considering otherwise.

I do know my 70mm loader is somewhat pricey, and I believe at least one or two of my loaders are 'collectable', plus, some people just do have issues using a typical loaders.

I one watched several doctors going through a basic training camp, spend more than an hour, trying to replace a broken glass panel in the door of their old wooden barrack, and it is clear, some very smart folks can also have issues with simple tasks.

Also, some folks just want to keep kit down to a minimum, as everything brought into the home/office, has to have a good storage space of it's own, and so they resort to a kind of "Appalachian Trail Hikers mentality, shaving kit down to the barest minimum (and their toothbrush too!).

Whatever the case, it's easier to help someone accomplish their goal, than decipher their reasons why.

IMO.

 

[DWThomas]

I may be missing something, but are bulk loaders really all that expensive? I've seen the old fashioned ones for less than $20, and changing bags are even less than that. I used to use a Watson, and measured the length by counting the revolutions of the crank. Even the high tech "all daylight" models seem to go for less than $100.

Andy

I bought my B&J Watson via ePrey in 2017 for less than $29 including shipping, seemed cheap enough to me.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I figure a bulk loader has paid for itself by the time I've loaded two 100' rolls with it -- and that's based on .EDU Ultra prices. If you shoot Kodak or Ilford (or Fuji -- does Acros II even come in bulk rolls?) you'll save more per roll and the loader pays for itself faster.

Third roll through pays for all the cassettes.

 

[AndyH]

Those of us that do pinch pennies, do so in different areas, for different reasons, or simply like to build, so you can never really tell what the reasons for these choices are.


Whatever the case, it's easier to help someone accomplish their goal, than decipher their reasons why.

IMO.

Ain't that the truth! I've seen them for under $20 on eBay, and my local film-oriented shop had a couple Watsons for less than $2-. I think you'd save that in less than half of your first bulk roll.

I'm at a point in my life where the convenience of buying single rolls outweighs the savings, but for those on a budget, I think that $20 investment is recouped quickly. As to lightness of kit, I don't think it's really a factor for gear that doesn't leave the house, although a strict minimalist approach does have its attractions.

Andy

 

[eli griggs]

I figure a bulk loader has paid for itself by the time I've loaded two 100' rolls with it -- and that's based on .EDU Ultra prices. If you shoot Kodak or Ilford (or Fuji -- does Acros II even come in bulk rolls?) you'll save more per roll and the loader pays for itself faster.

Third roll through pays for all the cassettes.

That's about that, and the reason I and so many others buy and use these things.

I forget what a box of 100 new re-loadable metal , much less plastic, cassettes sell for but those and a film pick-up tool for pulling out leaders, for whatever reason do make life easier when it comes to reloading.

IMO.

 

[eli griggs]

[QUOTE="AndyH, post: 2303407, As to lightness of kit, I don't think it's really a factor for gear that doesn't leave the house, although a strict minimalist approach does have its attractions.
Andy[/QUOTE]

Yes, I was thinking Minimalist Lifestyle when I refereed to light kit, as in example, "light Infantry" vs "heavy infantry".

I'm a pack rat, where as, long ago, I lived as a minimalist and boy, do I miss the ability no to over-stuff my 'den'.

$2 bulk loaders, boy, I'd like to walk into that store on a rainy day.

Cheers

 

[AndyH]

$2 bulk loaders, boy, I'd like to walk into that store on a rainy day.

Cheers

You can often find bargains like that at estate sales, thrift shops, and even antique stores. Last summer I saw a darkroom outfit in an antique mall for $10, including an enlarger, bulk loader, tanks, and reels. The seller had no idea what it was but knew it was some kind of darkroom gear. It had been there for months, he said.

Patience is a major virtue when you're building or rebuilding a film era outfit.

Andy

 

[Donald Qualls]

That's about that, and the reason I and so many others buy and use these things.

I forget what a box of 100 new re-loadable metal , much less plastic, cassettes sell for but those and a film pick-up tool for pulling out leaders, for whatever reason do make life easier when it comes to reloading.

IMO.

I prefer the plastic reload cassettes. Easy open, easy close, with a quarter turn. These days, they're cheaper than the metal ones, too. I think; haven't bought any in years.

 

[eli griggs]

I use both, and, when I have the camera to use them with, Leica cassettes, but IuI a small piece of tape to keep the plastic lids on, since having one or two twist off in my pockets.