Is bulk loading worth it?

JBrunner · Dec 27, 2008

So I got this new old F3. Helluva camera. When I did shoot a lot of 135 in the day, the client was always buying, so I just bought however many rolls were in the budget. This usually left me with a few rolls for me and so working kept me in good supply. Now I find myself wanting to shoot this thing for me, and I don't get the client supplied film like I used to. I think it would be nice to have a lot of stock on hand, but how much money could I really save rolling my own FP4? Is the savings worth the time and effort to you? What are your experiences? Besides time and effort are there any other downsides?

J

jmcd · Dec 27, 2008

I think I save around half by bulk loading, and that buys a lot more film, paper, or food. For me it is definitely worth it to bulk load, and I enjoy it besides, just like I enjoy loading 4x5 into holders. If you roll freehand in the dark or use a Bobinquick Junior (Freestyle Sales) roller you will have fresh film all the way to the end of the roll.

I keep my cartridges in their containers when not in use, and the loader in a plastic bag, and have had no problem associated with bulk loading in over 15 years.

If I had a very busy professional workload the bulk loading might seem like a big waste of time and concentration. But as it is, I really enjoy it.

Claire Senft · Dec 27, 2008

If you shoot a fair amount of 35mm you should be able to save enough to buy yourself a respectable looking hat within a year.

2F/2F · Dec 27, 2008

It may vary depending on the exact film you want. You get about 18-20 rolls per 100 feet, so that should help you figure it out. You also have to periodically trash and replace the cassettes as they get more and more wonky with re use. The plastic ones have a screw top, on which you can place a little piece of tape to keep it securely fastened. Another thing you can do is to leave your factory cassettes intact, and reuse them by taping the bulk film to a leader that you have left on the spool. You just need to get a leader retrieval tool to do this, and make sure you don't make the felt all raggedy.

The biggest downside is the possibility of human error causing light leaks.

Eric Rose · Dec 27, 2008

I bulk load for several reasons, the least of which is cost savings. For me it's the ability to load up whatever film I want to use that day. I have TMAX 100, XP2, FP4, HP5 and NC160 in 100 foot lengths. If I need just 12 shots I just roll off 12 shots. If I need 20 - 36's I roll that. If I need a combination of films I can also load up that as well. So for me it's the flexibility it offers. But of course buying a new hat would be a nice bonus too.

Frank Szabo · Dec 27, 2008

JBrunner said:
So I got this new old F3. Helluva camera. When I did shoot a lot of 135 in the day, the client was always buying, so I just bought however many rolls were in the budget. This usually left me with a few rolls for me and so working kept me in good supply. Now I find myself wanting to shoot this thing for me, and I don't get the client supplied film like I used to. I think it would be nice to have a lot of stock on hand, but how much money could I really save rolling my own FP4? Is the savings worth the time and effort to you? What are your experiences? Besides time and effort are there any other downsides?

J

Jason - Sure, there are some savings to be had by 'rolling your own', but like everything else we do as a 'film crew', it's mainly a matter of wanting to rather than having to, at least for me.

The real plus is being able to snip a bit of film for some silly test that was concocted without having to pull out a fresh roll and whack a leader.

Chuck_P · Dec 27, 2008

I still shoot 35mm, Canon A2, on occasion (I just rolled two rolls of TMY today as a matter of fact) and the cost savings is no question IMO and there is really no real crunch on time and effort IMO either.

stillsilver · Dec 27, 2008

The thing I liked best about bulk loading was that I could load as many (up to 36 exp) or as few frames as I wanted.

Mike

removed account4 · Dec 27, 2008

jason

it depends how cheap you get the film.

john

ozphoto · Dec 28, 2008

I've always bought bulk rolls and rolled my own, unless I needed something special. (Got about 4 cans of APX 100 in the freezer, just waiting to get out!).
I enjoy the fact I can roll smaller rolls if I want to. I don't always, but the choice is mine. Usually I load in the darkroom and then roll it off as I watch the news.

Price does come into it as well - but on a whole it usually works out cheaper.

At present, B&H have single rolls of Delta 400 36exp for $5.50, or a 100' roll for $52.50. Their pro packs (50 rolls) sell for $275.00, though you won't save anything by buying this amount of film - one wonders why. :confused:

Your best bet is to work out the cost of both ways to buy and decide if the extra effort is worth it.

- Nanette

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 28, 2008

Used to be you could count on about a 50% savings by bulk loading, but today with grey market film and all kinds of bulk pricing schemes, you have to price it out for the film you actually plan to use to see if the savings are worth it. For instance, I used to bulk load Provia 100F, but then the long rolls, which were grey market from Japan, got expensive, and B&H was selling press pack rolls for cheap, so it didn't make sense to bulk load, unless you wanted short rolls.

Herzeleid · Dec 28, 2008

I have to agree with other people, It really depends on how cheap you can find the 100 feet roll. I found some cheap and I can save %50 per roll.I am not including the bulk loader for the first time investment, There is no saving for the first time if you buy a loader.
My experience is that sometimes the last frame is partially exposed because it is the first frame you load into the cassette.
I am a newbie in bulk loading I can live with it now. I am sure there is a solution to that as well.
Great part is I loaded a 6 frames into a 3 cassettes for development tests.
And of course being able to load 20 instead of 36 exposures but that is not good for saving film.

AgX · Dec 28, 2008

I prefrer bulk loading. An aspect which has not come up, is that it saves space in the freezer. Especially when you stock many different emulsions.

Concerning short length: one could always use a standard 135/36 cassette, expose it for a part and only cut off and process that part.

Concerning prices. It depends. Here Porta's in bulk are more expensive than the equivalent amount in cassettes.

rusty_tripod · Dec 28, 2008

My last purchase was not cheaper when compared to equivalent length rolls. It was more convenient because I could determine the number of shots.

PhotoJim · Dec 28, 2008

I find that I'm shifting away from bulk loading. Maybe it's because my life is busier and free time is more precious.

Still, there are some significant cost savings to be had with bulk films, particularly with black and white. I don't find the savings to be nearly the same with colour films.

One other thing to bear in mind is that there is the odd film that you simply can't get any other way but in bulk. Eastman Double-X is a great example. This is a very interesting ISO 200 motion picture film that is processed much as any traditional black-and-white film, but it isn't available in single rolls. The shortest roll you can get from Kodak is 400'.

Sirius Glass · Dec 28, 2008

I wish there was a way to bulk load 120.

Steve

Bill Harrison · Dec 28, 2008

If you buy movie film, it can be massively inexpensive. There is a 400 foot roll of fresh Plus x on ebay for $106 + shipping... that's abt 80 rolls of 36 exp.. Bill

John Koehrer · Dec 28, 2008

No doubt there's a substantial savings bulk loading.
It's not worth the risk though if it's a money job. From scratches on the film by an errant piece of dust caught in a light trap to pulling the film out of the cassette or having a cassette pop open.

iamzip · Dec 28, 2008

If you're willing to try house brand film, Freestyle has their Arista B&W in bulk quite cheap, less than $30 a roll.

mikebarger · Dec 28, 2008

Sure is a mix of yes you save money, and no you don't save money but control of the number of frames per roll is important.

Must be a wide range of price for rolls and bulk.

Mike

2F/2F · Dec 28, 2008

I don't understand the "load as few frames as you would like" advantage that has been listed several times.

I find anything under 36 to be a hassle in many ways; mainly the inefficient use of processing time. If there was a practical way to have 100-shot rolls, that would be great for me.

If I need to change films before I am done with a roll, I will rewind the film, and when I can finish it, I will reload it and advance past what I have already shot...but more likely, just shoot a bunch of pix really quickly to finish the roll.

If I shoot only a few frames on a roll, and for some reason need those pix to be processed ASAP, I will trim off that length of film and process it. I have only done this maybe threee times, though. I trimmed off the piece of E-6 film and gave it to the lab in a 4x5 film box. They just charged me the snip fee of $3.

C'mom....it's 35. If I am going to obsess over each shot and/or shoot a very low number of pix, I am just going to shoot a larger format anyhow.

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 28, 2008

2F/2F said:
C'mom....it's 35. If I am going to obsess over each shot and/or shoot a very low number of pix, I am just going to shoot a larger format anyhow.

Me too, but back when I only shot 35mm, I liked the option of 6, 12, 20, or 36 exposures.

rusty_tripod · Dec 28, 2008

My Canon shoots beginning at the end of the roll. Thus, snipping off is a bit of a challenge. Not such an issue with Minolta or Pentax.

BetterSense · Dec 28, 2008

If I shoot only a few frames on a roll, and for some reason need those pix to be processed ASAP, I will trim off that length of film and process it.

Do you do that in the dark, then, after retrieving the leader from the spool with a tool? And how do you know how long corresponds to X number of frames, if it's dark?

msage · Dec 28, 2008

JBrunner said:
So I got this new old F3. Helluva camera. When I did shoot a lot of 135 in the day, the client was always buying, so I just bought however many rolls were in the budget. This usually left me with a few rolls for me and so working kept me in good supply. Now I find myself wanting to shoot this thing for me, and I don't get the client supplied film like I used to. I think it would be nice to have a lot of stock on hand, but how much money could I really save rolling my own FP4? Is the savings worth the time and effort to you? What are your experiences? Besides time and effort are there any other downsides?

J

Jason
I am going to buck the trend, I do not bulk load. There are two main reasons, my time is worth more to me then sending the time bulk loading 35mm film and there are chances of damaging the film in the process of the bulk loading, dust and other "quality control issues" to contend with.
I love shooting and darkroom, I have little time for those. Bulk loading is no fun, so I don't.
That said, I don't doubt that it saves money so for many it is a option.
Michael

Is bulk loading worth it?

JBrunner

Moderator

jmcd

Claire Senft

2F/2F

Eric Rose

Frank Szabo

Chuck_P

stillsilver

removed account4

ozphoto

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Herzeleid

AgX

rusty_tripod

PhotoJim

Sirius Glass

Bill Harrison

John Koehrer

iamzip

mikebarger

2F/2F

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

rusty_tripod

BetterSense

msage

Is bulk loading worth it?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency