Ability to load shorter rolls is one of the reasons to bulk load. It takes me weeks to get through a 36 sometimes, when I'd shoot a 12, 20, or even 24 on a single outing.
Bulk loading 24 exp rolls smells oxymorony to me.
Yup. That's what I did back in college in the early-mid 90s and had access to a darkroom and "free film" on campus. If I get back into bulk rolling, I'll be doing that again. By the time I get to the end of a 36 roll, I'm almost desperate to finish it up.Ability to load shorter rolls is one of the reasons to bulk load. It takes me weeks to get through a 36 sometimes, when I'd shoot a 12, 20, or even 24 on a single outing.
Now it looks like you just have to bulk load your own rolls. That means if you send them out for processing, you do not get the cassettes back and that just adds to the cost.
Ideally to see if anyone still had 24 exposure rolls in stock at the old prices.
Ability to load shorter rolls is one of the reasons to bulk load. It takes me weeks to get through a 36 sometimes, when I'd shoot a 12, 20, or even 24 on a single outing.
I have a Nimslo 3D that I prefer to use 24 exp rolls in because I really don't take that many photos with it in a given outing.
And why do you suppose that he will send the coils for processing and development? Perhaps you are a wealthy man and have the financial ability to send your films to film development laboratories while sitting at home.
Since the Nimslo exposes 4 frames at a time, you're talking about the difference between 6 photos and 9 photos.
Personally, I'm not a fan of 36 exposure rolls, because it takes too long to finish a roll, but when it's a dozen or less, it's hard to be that critical.
Ultimately, your cost to develop a roll will be the same (if you develop yourself, there is a savings, but it's marginal), and you're going to limit your available emulsions.
Thank you for your kind and friendly words.Without wishing to offend, the OP is from New York, and specified North America-- even though the film industry has largely collapsed, a city like New York has many, many available photo labs for developing. If she was mixing her own chemicals, or developing at home, she'd probably be more aware of options for bulk loading, etc..
I'm aware of your work keeping photography alive in Egypt, and you have my respect. In many cases here, it's still more practical and financially sensible, to take your film to a lab instead of developing at home, simply because if you don't shoot frequently, your chemicals will expire before use, whereas the labs (mostly) deal with replenishment, test strips, and generally ensuring the results are reasonable.
Since the Nimslo exposes 4 frames at a time, you're talking about the difference between 6 photos and 9 photos.
Personally, I'm not a fan of 36 exposure rolls, because it takes too long to finish a roll, but when it's a dozen or less, it's hard to be that critical.
Ultimately, your cost to develop a roll will be the same (if you develop yourself, there is a savings, but it's marginal), and you're going to limit your available emulsions.
Nimslo takes 12 exposures on a 24 ex roll and 18 on a 36. Really 12 is already pushing it because you really have to have the perfect situation for a Nimslo photo to be worth taking in the first place.
4 frames-- are they half-size?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?