How many exposures can you stuff into a cassette?

[2F/2F]

Hello,

I am curious if anyone has experimented with stuffing bulk-load film into a cassette until there is simply no more room.

I have a project in mind that would be helped to some degree by having lots of exposures available. I don't feel like springing for a 250-shot magazine for my F-1.

I was told of a thin-based 72-exp. Ilford film that is no longer made. Too bad.

Even if you can stuff some more into your cassette, you still have to worry about how much will fit on the take-up side.

I will experiment with an empty camera to see what happens with the film counter once you pass 36...

Any thoughts?

 

[Vincent Brady]

Don't do it. You risk damaging your film and ruining your shots. Don't let me be the one to say "I told you so".

Cheers
TEX

 

[Pinholemaster]

Why? There are limits.

 

[Goldfellow]

My experience.. once you hit 40, you run out of room.

 

[elekm]

Right, the film gets packed so tightly in the cassette that it either scratches when it's pulled out, or it won't pull out cleanly or at all and stretches or rips.

I ran into this problem when trying something similar years ago when I was shooting college hoops for the school paper, and it scratched the film. We were bulk loading Tri-X, and I was hoping to get more shots per roll so I wouldn't have to unload as often.

I ditched the idea and just learned to reload quicker. I was carrying two bodies. Being a small college, the paper didn't supply any gear -- just the film and darkroom. Good thing I had two bodies.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

And then how are you going to process it? I haven't seen too many of those Ilford 72-exp. tanks around. I guess if you know a lab with a roller transport processor that's an option, and then there are the Lomo movie tanks.

That said, didn't Maco or Rollei or one of the small European film producers say recently they were going to be producing some film on a thin base for this purpose? You might try a search and see if you can turn up that thread. I'm not sure what became of the idea.

 

[removed account4]

i always get at least 72 shots on a roll,
but i use a half frame

 

[kodachrome64]

I've though about this, but to me, developing would be a problem. And sending B&W to a lab wouldn't even be an option for me, unless I just didn't give a crap about the results. You could swing 40 exposures; heck, a lot of times I get 38 or so out of a regular 36 roll, so I know you can do 40. But I wouldn't know how to develop it all in one piece, even if I had a 250-exp magazine.

Nick

 

[fschifano]

And then how are you going to process it?

My thoughts exactly. Forty is the absolute practical limit. Since you're bulk loading, I'm assuming that you are also processing the film yourself. With a length longer than 40 full frame exposures, you run out of room on a standard processing reel. Then what? If the casette jams, it's likely that the camera will break before the film if you force it. Either way the scenario is not good.

 

[Chan Tran]

With normal thickness about 40 shots. But if you can get thin film and have 72 exposure, it will be OK on the take up side as well. As far as the frame counter thingy, all of my cameras will continue to shoot although they won't count up any more after 40.

 

[Polybun]

i always get at least 72 shots on a roll,
but i use a half frame

I was going to say the same thing!

Its really easy to get more than 36 exposures per roll, get a pen f!

 

[ic-racer]

I still have a few rolls of 72 exp in the freezer, though the film base has gotten pretty fogged. Since the 72 exp reels don't fit in the Jobo, I just wind 36 exposures on a reel, then cut the film and roll the rest on another reel. Usually there is a 'sacrificial frame'. I have some thin based cine film, but it is just a tad thicker than the Ilford film and I can only fit about 60 exposures on a roll. Having a film counter that goes to 72 is nice also

 

[Polybun]

I still have a few rolls of 72 exp in the freezer, though the film base has gotten pretty fogged. Since the 72 exp reels don't fit in the Jobo, I just wind 36 exposures on a reel, then cut the film and roll the rest on another reel. Usually there is a 'sacrificial frame'. I have some thin based cine film, but it is just a tad thicker than the Ilford film and I can only fit about 60 exposures on a roll. Having a film counter that goes to 72 is nice also

I was just thinking last night about a way to avoid that. Exakta be thy name. They have that built in cut off knife. usefull if you can add a changing bag and spool and tank to your kit i suppose.

 

[2F/2F]

Just curious. Thanks for the info. Looks like I will be using (GASP!) digital, or possibly a motion camera at a slow frame rate. For processing, I planned to either cut through a frame or find a place that does roller transport b/w processing.

 

[Shelly Grimson]

Its difficult to do contact sheets on standard 8x10 with more than 36 so why bother. What are you going to do-save up all the small film remainders for enough to do a separate contact sheet. Guaranteed you'll lose some before you get them done and or everything will be so out of sequence it will be a nightmare later trying to find them years later. Believe me I've driven myself crazy with these cheap habits over the years. Better to bulk load and do 36's or 24's...Must my two cents.

 

[srmcnamara]

Its difficult to do contact sheets on standard 8x10 with more than 36 so why bother. What are you going to do-save up all the small film remainders for enough to do a separate contact sheet. Guaranteed you'll lose some before you get them done and or everything will be so out of sequence it will be a nightmare later trying to find them years later. Believe me I've driven myself crazy with these cheap habits over the years. Better to bulk load and do 36's or 24's...Must my two cents.

I've yet to figure out how to get that 36th frame safely into the sleeves so I always end up putting 33 or 34 on one sheet and 2 or 3 on a separate sheet full of all my other orphans. I don't leave just one negative for obvious reasons. I tend to not get around to making contact sheets as well.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I was just thinking last night about a way to avoid that. Exakta be thy name. They have that built in cut off knife. usefull if you can add a changing bag and spool and tank to your kit i suppose.

In the Exakta's case, you can use an empty cassette instead of the take up spool. No need for a changing bag...

If you do find some thin film and a practical way of developing it, then invest in a Rolleiflex SL200F or SL3003: Interchangeable magazine that count up to 72 frames!
(You also get to play with Zeiss lenses as a side benefit)
;-)

 

[Anon Ymous]

I've yet to figure out how to get that 36th frame safely into the sleeves so I always end up putting 33 or 34 on one sheet and 2 or 3 on a separate sheet full of all my other orphans...

That means that you use sheets with 7 sleeves for 5 exposures each. Buy yourself the ones with 7 sleeves for 6 exposures and problem solved. You will need a bigger binder though; these sheets are a tad wider that an A4. I got mine from the same store where I bought the sheets.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Ilford HP5 72 exp film.

i always get at least 72 shots on a roll,
but i use a half frame

With the Ilford HP5 72 exp thin base film, you would have 144 frames !

I have about 5 rolls sitting in a fridge.
I was saving it for underwater use in a Nikonos.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Ilford HP5 72 exp film developing rule.

In the Exakta's case, you can use an empty cassette instead of the take up spool. No need for a changing bag...

If you do find some thin film and a practical way of developing it, then invest in a Rolleiflex SL200F or SL3003: Interchangeable magazine that count up to 72 frames!
(You also get to play with Zeiss lenses as a side benefit)
;-)

Ilford had made a plastic developing reel, that loads the 72 exp film.
It loads like a Nikkor one. I got a couple from Freestyle, when I had the chance.

 

[Peter C]

I still have the Ilford developing reel from the days when I used HP5 autowinder film. It wasn't quite as good as regular HP5, but the film base was strong and didn't shatter in extreme cold when using a motor drive.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

My main memory of the one(?) 72 exposure roll (Ilford, either FP4 or HP5) I tried long long ago, apart from the agonizing moment I had to cut the roll in half when the developing reel filled up, is that the dried negatives curled like crazy.
No matter what I did to them.
I never managed to make a contact sheet from that roll (always only used a heavy glass plate).

That same roll, much more recently, made me curse a lot trying to get it into my scanner's carrier....

 

[stealthman_1]

Because of the thinner base of Tech Pan, you can get 45-50 into a cassette, but again, unless you are indeed using an Exakta (which I wish more makers would have copied the film knife), you are either going to have to sacrifice an unknown frame to cut it down for the developing reel or you're going to have to cut it at some point mid-roll in a changing bag. Seems it's far less hassle to just load 36 frame cassettes and change them. But alas, I asked this question too (that's how I know how much TP will fit), it just doesn't work in practice.

 

[Pumal]

I stick to 40 frames per roll.