Does it make sense to buy a film loader for bulk film?

[summicron1]

I don't know about Nikon, but on any Leica RF normal reloadable cassette is just less hassle.

well, yeah, but you are forgetting the coolness factor!

(grin)

 

[summicron1]

Wasn't it Exacta that had a film cutter built into the camera?-----------------Eh! Just another piece of useless information

Yup. Right to the bitter end, although one wonders how often they actually got used. For pros who wanted to shoot cassette-to-cassette and cut off a shot roll without the hassle of rewinding they would be useful, I guess.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

well, yeah, but you are forgetting the coolness factor!

(grin)

It is collectible for sure

 

[Jim Jones]

Lloyds style bulk loaders saved lots of money a few decades ago when I was shooting lots of 35mm B&W. As others have noted, loading in the dark saved those last few frames. Reloadable cassettes lasted indefinitely if handled carefully and the felt traps cleaned often. Better yet were the expensive all-metal cassettes made specifically for Leica or Nikon. Counting the turns on the crank was more convenient than using the counter.

 

[darkroommike]

You speak for the USA or Canada.

In West-Germany I doubt 70mm film was used aside of aerial photography. And there was no single-portrait schoolphotography done, at least there was no respectiv camera.
(In all my schooldays I only once saw a photographer, doing a group portrait of us.)

Hasselblad, Linhof, and ALPA made 70mm cameras. All using 70mm perforated film. Hasselblad also madea a 500 exposure back for unperforated 70mm film.

 

[AgX]

You quoted me out of context.
I referred to West-Germany and to the none-existance of special school-portrait cameras, as the Camerz.

And as the example of 70mm cameras shows, the sheer existance of special cameras, does not necessarily mean they were widely spread and used for general purpose and the resp. films thus being easyily available.

In West-Germany I doubt 70mm film was used aside of aerial photography.

I likely overlooked catalog photography, were masses of photos are taken.
Agfa offered in 70mm Agfapan 100 and Agfachrome 50, but next to the S-version also the L-version (tungsten).

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In New York there were labs that made medium format copy transparencies on 70mm film.

 

[AgX]

Was that not 61.5mm bulk film (copy-reversal) instead ?
(As in West-Germany where no 70mm copy-films were used.)

 

[narsuitus]

Decades ago, I used Lloyd bulk film loaders and I used Burke & James Watson bulk film loaders for 100-foot 35mm black & white film (primarily Kodak Tri-X) and 100-foot E-4 and E-6 color slide film (primarily Kodak Extachrome). I processed my own film.

Lloyd pros:
Smaller size than Watson
Does not wastes film by producing a long leader
Does not waste film by producing a long trailer
Harder to accidentally expose 100-feet of film

Lloyd cons:
No frame counter; must count winder rotations for frame count
Uses felt for light trap; felt may trap particles that scratch film
Cannot load Nikon AM-1 film cassettes for Nikon F2 camera

Watson pros:
Has frame counter
Does not use felt for light trap; therefore, film is less susceptible to scratching
Can load Nikon AM-1 film cassettes for Nikon F2 camera

Watson cons:
Larger size than Lloyd
Wastes film by producing a long leader
Wastes film by producing a long trailer
Easier to accidentally expose 100-feet of film (I have done this once)



Burke & James Watson model 100 bulk film loader by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[narsuitus]

Decades ago, it was more cost-effective for me to bulk load 35mm film.

Today ...
1. It is harder to find a reliable supply of the 35mm film I want to shoot.
2. I do not shoot as much 35mm film as I did decades ago.
3. The difference in cost between bulk film rolls and individual rolls is not as great as it once was.

 

[narsuitus]

I used the reusable and durable Nikon film cassettes. These cassettes did not have the felt light traps that were found in the less expensive film cassettes. As a result, film could move faster and smoother as the motor drive pulled the film out of the cassette. Also, thin emulsion films were less likely to get scratched as they were pulled out of the cassette.

The cassette in the center of this image is a reloadable Nikon F film cassette that only works in the Nikon F camera.

The eight reloadable Nikon AM-1 film cassettes seen in this image only work in the Nikon F2 camera.

Nikon also made a reloadable film cassette that worked only in its rangefinder cameras.

I was able to load twenty-two 30-exposure rolls in my cassettes from a 100-foot roll.



Nikon Film Cassettes by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Clarimort]

Hey friends,


thanks again for all your replies and for moving my thread to the correct subforum.

I did some math for film prices in Germany.
You would save around 1-2€ per film if you make 18 rolls of film (for 36 exposures) out of 30m bulk film.
So I would say the difference could be worth it if you really use a lot film or especially if you are using one type of film only.

I think I'll try to buy a cheaper roll of bulk film like Foma or Agfa APX (which I use the most anyway at the moment since it is the only B/W film I can get in stores) and try to do it without a film loader.
I could cut several pieces of string, one as long as 10 exposures, one for 20 and one for 36 for example. And then just use those for measuring the film in the dark so I know how many exposures I got.
If this seems to work fine, great, I won't buy a bulk loader.
If it works good enough but is a bit annoying but I like the self loading in general, I'll get a bulk loader.
If I don't hink self loading is worth it... Well, then I'll go back to buying normal rolls of film.


Thanks again for all you replies and ideas and stories! You have helped me a lot.

Keep on the conversation if you want to, I'll keep reading.

 

[MattKing]

Don't forget to include extra length for the leader and the trailer!

 

[Skeeterfx20]

I just like loading my own film. Sometimes I load short rolls when I know I don't need 24 exposures let alone 36. I have a very old Lloyd. Heck it was beyond old when I got it. I never once scratched a negative, I guess if you try hard enough you can. I just keep using the same old cassettes. Some are plastic others are metal and even some are saved from store bought film.

I can't say if I saved money because I just shot more rolls.

Look I like the hands on part of photography. So loading film made sense. My wife tells me I take photos just for an excuse to develop them.

What I say is try it and see if you like it. Will it save you money? It should. Don't worry about the type of loader, you probably will like the first one you buy. Also it is really cool loading your own film. Just don't put the film on the table, your kid might come along and open it to see what's inside. Lol yeah it happened.

 

[AgX]

I think I'll try to buy a cheaper roll of bulk film like Foma or Agfa APX (which I use the most anyway at the moment since it is the only B/W film I can get in stores)

You mean AgfaPhoto APX.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have used bulk film in the past but always without exception I have had problems with scratches. Unless the film is inserted into the loader in a completely dust free atmosphere which would be difficult to find except in a lab, so you risk dust contamination. Then the cassettes used, Plastic being the most common, but plastic creates static electricity which attracts dust! Metal cassettes are harder to find but will be better, but even these the felt light traps can be a home for all sorts of scratchy bits and pieces especially if they are used time and time again.

The only ones almost 100% safe are the metal ones that did not have a felt light trap as used by the early Leica cameras and I believe some Nikon models too

For me anyway it is new cassettes every time, that way any physical defects are reduced to an absolute minimum.

 

[AgX]

Dust does not necessarly result in scratches. Such for a great part depends on material and size and mechanical stress (as tightening a roll). Dust though is an issue of emulsion obstruction. But concerning this the film is wiped clear before exposure by the velvet of the cassette.


The velvet of a used cassette can be easily tested by means of a virgin strip op film.

 

[BMbikerider]

I only speak as I find.

The worst film ever for scratching I found was Ilford XP2 - you only had to breath on it to create marks.

 

[ProgramPlus]

"Watson cons:
Larger size than Lloyd
Wastes film by producing a long leader
Wastes film by producing a long trailer
Easier to accidentally expose 100-feet of film (I have done this once)"

I just got a Watson loader and my first roll of film for it. Got Kentmere 400. I've literally had multiple dreams/nightmares about leaving the gate open and fogging the whole roll.

 

[BMbikerider]

When I gave up on bulk loaders I still had a lot of film left so I created a smooth steel measure to get the film the right length. At its full extent the measure was enough to measure for a 36 exp film but could be adjusted to whatever length you wished, the shortest being 24 inches which is enough for 12 exposures. In complete darkness and wearing surgical gloves I would measure the film against two markers on the device and clip it off. Then wind it onto a prepared spool OUTSIDE the cassette and insert the loaded spool it into the cassette itself. This was better than the bulk loader with regard to scratches, as the film only passed over the felt light traps twice not four. My preferred number of exposures was almost always 24.

The formula for working out the length required - Number of exposures x 1.5 + 6". So for a 36 exp film it is 60". Quite easy really

The downside was it obviously had to be done in total darkness by feel only, so I had to have everything placed beforehand so I knew it was before I started. I used to attach the end cap and the cassette body to a magnet which fixed to the measuring strip by it's own magnetic hold. My darkroom is 99% light tight but as an extra precaution I always used to load at night when it was complete blackout. I got used to it and after that 30m roll (Ilford Delta 100) was used I never went back to using bulk film again.

When you think about it, it is little different than loading a developing spiral after exposure and in one respect easier because you don't get the film 'hanging up and jamming in the grooves.

If you do go down the bulk loading route, as a tip, I learned by my mistakes and that was to always attach a lable with the type of film you had loaded. It is so easy to get different films mixed up

 

[AgX]

When I gave up on bulk loaders I still had a lot of film left so I created a smooth steel measure to get the film the right length. At its full extent the measure was enough to measure for a 36 exp film but could be adjusted to whatever length you wished, the shortest being 24 inches which is enough for 12 exposures.

So you made a kind of slider to go on that steel measure?

I think the easiest way would be to use a rolled steel strip measure with an arrest at its housing.

 

[Pioneer]

You can make it as simple or as complicated as you want.

Henri Bresson used to load his film the night before in a dark bag by feel.

Tom Abrahamsson advocated advocated just pulling the film out as wide as you could stretch both arms, clip it and then load it. Like I mentioned, I did that for a long time before buying a bulk loader and my arm spread worked out to about 34 frames.

The only real advantage to the bulk loader is that I can load film in the daylight.

Like anything else in life, if you practice something for long enough you can get pretty good at it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

When I’ve used bulk film without a bulk loader, it’s been sufficient to put two pieces of masking tape on the wall of a room that could be darkened. Tape the end of the film to the wall next to the top piece of tape used as a marker, and cut the film at the bottom of the marker. The tape that holds the film to the wall at the top becomes the tape that attaches the film to the spool. The leader can be cut in the light after the film is loaded. It’s way faster than using a loader, though the loader has its own conveniences.

 

[BMbikerider]

So you made a kind of slider to go on that steel measure?

I think the easiest way would be to use a rolled steel strip measure with an arrest at its housing.

To clarify. The measure was a strip of stainless steel about 1" wide by 62" long. 1" from one end I drilled the steel and screwed in a 1.5mm x 25mm bolt and did the same at the other end which gave me the correct measurement for a full 36 exp cassette of film. This bol is thin enough to fit through one of the sprocket holes in 35mm film.

At other intervals, one at 24" and another at 43" I drilled two more holes which gave me the correct length for a 12 and 24 exp respectively. So if I wanted shorter lengths all I did was insert other 1.5mm bolts as and when I needed them and remove them afterwards. The only ones that were permenant were the two at either end.

With the light still on, the fixing tape was attached to an empty spool(s) and this spool was fitted over another 1.5mm screw embedded in a piece of plastic coated board and the outer case and end-cap held by the magnet. The light was switched off and a dry run to make sure that I knew where the bits and pieces were. The film can was opened and the length measured then snipped off with scissors and then the film was wound onto the spool and into the cassette.

This is not really dificult after the 1st 2-3 reloads. The film is returned to the can and the process started again. It sounds a bit cumbersome, but after a bit of practice I could load several full cassettes (36 exp) in about 10 minutes. I almost completely elimnated scratches, but did get a little bit bit of dust, but not much, but this was easily spotted out after printing.

 

[KN4SMF]

Good Lord I just looked on eBay for Lloyd's loader. Unbelievable prices. I still have the price tag on mine when I bought it in 1973. $5.95