How many 100' bulk rolls have you used?

[Harry Stevens]

I looked at a 100ft roll of Tri-X last week......£208.
http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/kodak-tri-x-pro-30m-iso-400/p1038
Bollox to that!

And it's not the seller screwing us over.........

 

[MattKing]

I looked at a 100ft roll of Tri-X last week......£208.
http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/kodak-tri-x-pro-30m-iso-400/p1038
Bollox to that!

And it's not the seller screwing us over.........

Just as a matter of comparison - on sale for $90USD at the moment across the pond:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1280742-USA/kodak_kotx100d_tx_35mm_100_402.html
The relatively recent high cost of Kodak bulk loads most likely reflects what Eastman Kodak considers to be the costs to switch to cutting, edge printing, packaging and labeling it as compared to individual rolls. That cost plus markup gets passed on to Kodak Alaris, their cost plus markup gets passed on to the distributors, their costs plus markup gets passed on to retailers, etc., etc.

 

[Wallendo]

I have shot 3 fresh rolls as well as 2 rolls that came in bulk loaders I bought on eBay. I bought one new loader. When I found a good deal on a roll of Legacy Pro 100 I searched eBay and found a set of 4 Watson loaders for $20. When the loaders arrived, 1 contained an almost-full roll of Panatomic-X, another a half-roll of Tri-X, and I am still shooting a half-roll of Technical Pan.
Currently I have loaders loaded with HP5+, Arista EDU 200, and Tech Pan, and have a roll of UltraFine Xtreme 100 I need to load.

I doubt I save much money (although UltraFine's Xtreme films are a great bargain), but I actually enjoy rolling film - to me it's part of the analog experience. I typically load 24 exposure rolls. It wastes more film, but is a better fit for my shooting style. I also frequently load 10-12 exposure rolls when testing new equipment.

 

[ic-racer]

The most recent full file box of negatives I see here indicates "35mm 701 to 865." I can't say I have used the pre-made rolls much, other than vacation, or other times when the 100ft rolls were not available. All these years I still never kept track of how many rolls per 100ft because it varies depending on how many exposures I roll. For a few years I shot 35 exposures (7 strips of 5) but for the last 20years it has been 36 exposures (6 strips of 6) because I stopped doing proof sheets on 8x10 paper.

Sometimes I'll roll a short roll to test a camera or lens.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

My use of bulk film is mainly devoted to films that are not available in cassettes. Mostly B&W cine film with some color. I began using them in the 1950's after a friend gave me a roll of Eastman Pan XT 5220.

 

[RattyMouse]

Bulk Film Pro:
Easy to make custom lengths of film (I usually only made 36-exposure rolls)
Buying film in bulk may reduce cost per roll (especially when shooting color)
Able to load film in scratch resistant felt-free cassettes (I used Nikon AM-1 cassettes)
Able to load film in cassettes that reduced friction for better motor drive performance
Can be used when traveling to countries that limit the number of rolls brought into the country

Bulk Film Con:
Long leader wastes film
Long trailer wastes film
100 feet of desired film is not always readily available
Must decide if plastic or metal cassettes work better
Must decide of felt or felt-free cassettes work better
Must decide if snap-on or screw-on cassette tops work better
Big financial loss when a 100-feet of film is accidentally exposed to light



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

What country restricts the number of rolls of film you can cross the border with?

 

[RattyMouse]

Just as a matter of comparison - on sale for $90USD at the moment across the pond:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1280742-USA/kodak_kotx100d_tx_35mm_100_402.html
The relatively recent high cost of Kodak bulk loads most likely reflects what Eastman Kodak considers to be the costs to switch to cutting, edge printing, packaging and labeling it as compared to individual rolls. That cost plus markup gets passed on to Kodak Alaris, their cost plus markup gets passed on to the distributors, their costs plus markup gets passed on to retailers, etc., etc.

And yet Ilford can do it for half the price.

 

[railwayman3]

I looked at a 100ft roll of Tri-X last week......£208.
http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/kodak-tri-x-pro-30m-iso-400/p1038
Bollox to that!

And it's not the seller screwing us over.........

The seller actually says:- "Just a word of advice though. With Kodak's strange attitude to bulk film pricing it is now cheaper to buy fully pre-loaded 35mm cassettes of Tri-X than the bulk film. You get 19 individual 36 exposure films from one bulk 30 metre length." !!

 

[ac12]

Back in the 70s and 80s, if you shoot a LOT, it saved you a lot of $$.
It also let me make rolls of whatever length I wanted, though it was usually standard 36x.
My only bug, was that the Watson 100 would expose a length of film at the end of the roll, because of the way it was constructed, to accommodate the the frame counter mechanism. This usually resulted in the loss of the last frame that I shot :-(

I don't remember how many rolls, but it was many.
I had rolls of both Tri-X and Plus-X.

 

[Cholentpot]

I went through lets see,

Fuji Eterna 250D
Kodak Vision3 500T
Ultrafine X 400
Tmax 100 Expired
Tmax 400 Expired
Portra 160 VC Expired
and working on a roll that came with a Lloyd's Tri-x Pan from who knows when

I've not finished a single roll yet, I roll them off into cassettes and into the freezer. I reuse old cassettes I get from a local lab. Never done me any wrong. I'm always on the lookout for expired 100 foot rolls but the pickin' is slim these days.

 

[ic-racer]

The most recent full file box of negatives I see here indicates "35mm 701 to 865."

Ok, so I did the math and it comes out to about 48 rolls of 100'. Not as many as I thought seeing as how I got my bulk loader in 1974.

 

[Johnkpap]

I am not sure how many bulk rolls I have used but it is greater than 30 but less than 100, by far the best loader is the LPL DAYROLL DELUXE these are made in Japan
the only issue is if you loose the handle you have a problem.

I take care of mine and keep the handle in the box with the loader:- no problem

I have used the Watson type and didn't really like those, also the ones without a counter that you count the number of turns really suck !!!!!

I have found the best cassettes to be the solid metal ones that snap together....Ilford use to sell Fp4 in them.....if you bulk load you can put FP4 back in them

The other ones that a quite good are the German ones that has a end that unscrews, I always put a bit of tape on that edge as I have always been worried that the things can come undone....They never have I just worry too much.

Unfortunately the range of film you can buy has reduced a lot I hope that kodak makes the NEW slide film in bulk rolls


Johnkpap

 

[tokam]

Since 1980, in fits and starts, I reckon on 20+ bulk rolls.

Like John above I have an LPL Dayroll loader and a Telesar and a Konica Hi-Loader. These are all the square box shaped loaders, no felt in the light traps. I reckon that a lot of the parts are interchangeable between them.

They are all sitting empty at the moment but my fridge is full of TMax 400, Foma 200, Rollei Retro 80s and Pan F. All loaded from bulk. Then there are a dozen or so misc rolls of Tmax 100, Delta 100 / 400, Tri-X and FP4. There is one lone roll of Plus-X, (the Arista version from Freestyle), which will be going into a Canon EF very soon.

While it's true in OZ that the price of Kodak bulk rolls has gone through the roof I will be buying non-Kodak bulk rolls and loose Kodak films from B & H or Feestyle in the future.

I mainly use the plastic cartridges with screw on end cap. I bought about 50 back in 1989 or thereabouts and haven't had any problems. Clean the felt with the sticky side of a post-it note. I also have 30 or so Ilford cassettes from the 80's which are excellent. I'm not impressed with some of the modern metal reloadable cassettes as the metal guage is very thin and on a couple of occasions I have bent them out of shape when fitting the end caps.

 

[David Brown]

Not exactly a normal situation: Back in the 1980s, I managed a darkroom for a security firm. We had surveillance cameras that used 100’ rolls of 35mm film. I never actually tallied up how many cameras I maintained, but I do remember that we had 95 locations - mostly banks, a few jewelry stores. Each location had at least 2 cameras, some 3, and a few had 4 or 5. So, possibly 300 cameras!

Again, it’s been decades since I kept the records, but I would estimate that I changed film out in an average of 10-12 cameras a week. And, we tried to visit each location at least twice a year, so both of those estimates come out to about 500-600 rolls a year.

I bought 100’ TriX by the case! And, even in San Antonio, TX, this was not a problem. The local stockhouse, Southwest Photo Supply (long gone, now), always had it in stock. Those were the days.

Personally, I probably used less than 4 bulk rolls ever.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Rather a lot of bulk rolled 135 film, wheelbarrows of the stuff in fact.

I purchased my current style of bulk film loader in Germany in 1982, a Kaiser, since then I have about 6 of them. In current use my four most used are here on my enlarger table. Essentially they are the same unit, just with different branding on the outside. I have used cartons of the plastic screw type of cassette for yonks. Currently using the remnants of a 50 box carton. I usually use them for about 30 rolls of film each then discard, although I have been known to use some for lots and lots of rolls.

The other pictures are of some of the used cartons, some of the used tins (gave away about 100 of them a couple of years ago, plus, for years they were used by the smoker in the house as ashtrays with the changeover being about one new one every couple of months). In the refrigerator there are about 13 x 30m bulk films ready for whenever.

Mick.

 

[Mr_Flibble]

Just about to start my 3rd 100' bulk roll; Some Kodak Double-X.

 

[TheToadMen]

For any bulk roll film users how many feet have you gone through in your life? What's your biggest take-away from your experience using bulk film (pros or cons).

None, whatsoever (does that mean I loose my APUG membership?) but I do have a bulk loader somewhere and a tin of veeeery old Tri-X from 1966 in the fridge.

And Chris: welcome to APUG

 

[Agulliver]

I currently have four bulk loaders as follows:

Watson 100 currently loaded with about 70 feet of Kentmere 400
Prinz 66 (Watson 66 "copy") currently loaded with 50 feet of Fomapan 100

Those are my staple films, my "go to" films for most of my shooting.

"The Daylight Bulk Loader" (Lloyds type) with 100 feet of expired HP5+ motion picture film
Watson 66 with about 80 feet of a mystery film I just recently bought off the Bay...it may well be expired HP4 or HP4+ motion picture film

I generally like to have a fair amount of 100 and 400 speed B&W film ready to go. The other two loaders are for weird & wonderful stuff, and if any E6 film becomes available I might just go for a 50 or 100' roll at some point.

Kodak's prices for bulk loads of Tri-X are just simply ridiculous. The best I've seen in the UK is about £180 for a 100' roll. individual cassettes are certainly cheaper and I can get 100' of HP5+ for under £70

I use plastic cassettes with felt and have never had any issues. I've got about 20 cassettes which I usually divide so that I have 7 rolls available each of 100 and 400 ISO B&W film with 6 left over for the "other" stuff...currently outdated motion picture film which works well for non-critical shooting, testing cameras or lenses etc...just burning film in a small camera while I am out and about. Surprisingly that HP5+ MP film that expired 20 years ago still gives pretty good results...a bit of base fog but the detail is still there...I shoot at 200 or even 320ISO on reasonably well lit days and it does the job.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I can get 100' of HP5+ for under £70

And I can get it under £60 delivered to my door. PM me if you want to know more. ;-)

Like you my most used film is Kentmere 400 for most of the time. In Summer I'll use Fomapan or Kentmere 100.
BTW, Foma prices had 2 increases last year. The first one was due to Pound crashing out.
Now, Fomapan 400 which was the cheapest 400 ISO film is more expensive than Kentmere 400.
I still buy F400 from time to time as I really like it.

 

[cooltouch]

I had a brief fling with bulk loading back in the 80s. I bought a roll of Kodak low-contrast slide film for shooting duplicates of slides and probably shot maybe a hundred slide dupes with it. I dunno whatever happened with the rest of that roll. Currently I have a roll of Kodak 5072 Vericolor Slide Film in the freezer, unopened, which isn't really slide film. I don't have a bulk loader anymore, so I don't have any way to use it. Need to get another bulk loader. And some more cassettes. I wouldn't mind getting a bulk roll of some good, relatively slow ISO (say about 100) B&W film. I could use that stuff. I used to have a bunch of Plus-X Pan but I've used it all up. I miss Plus-X. I hear FP4 is a good replacement for it.

 

[Harry Stevens]

Trouble with the Tri X is the stupid price pionts to Kodak wanting to discontinue the bulk rolls,personally I wish they would let Ilford buy the rights and formula for Tri-X and then Ilford could manufacturer Ilford Tri-X...................Wishfull thinking on my part but the name as a ring to it or an X.

 

[Agulliver]

Does anyone have a definitive reason for why pricing of Tri-X in bulk is so high?

 

[TheToadMen]

Trouble with the Tri X is the stupid price pionts to Kodak wanting to discontinue the bulk rolls,personally I wish they would let Ilford buy the rights and formula for Tri-X and then Ilford could manufacturer Ilford Tri-X...................Wishfull thinking on my part but the name as a ring to it or an X.

Or Adox Tri-X, would be nice too!

 

[MattKing]

Does anyone have a definitive reason for why pricing of Tri-X in bulk is so high?

You would have to have input from either or both of Kodak Alaris and Eastman Kodak and the various distributors and the retailers to have an answer for this.
I'm sure though that Eastman Kodak charges a significant amount to switch the production line over to bulk film from single rolls, so if the volumes are low, the costs to Kodak Alaris will be high.
The other film manufacturers use much smaller equipment, that is probably a lot easier and cheaper to switch.

 

[LeftCoastKid]

When I first started out, I bulk-rolled (with a Watson device, if memory serves) both Tri-X and HP5, films that I used (and still use) in large quantities. Ilford's canisters - those with the snap off tops - were ideal; far better, I felt, than either the plastic or metal canisters then available. When HP5 became HP5+, and the design of the canisters changed, I stopped bulk-loading, and began buying my film in multi-brick orders.