Reason for 20 exp rolls?

If I recall correctly, in 1972 or 1973 when I received my first camera, a Kodak Instamatic 36, 126 cartridges were sold either as 12 or 20 pictures. The cartridge being very easy to load, and with no problem of determining exactly where the first image is like with 135, the 12 or 20 pictures were invariably 12 or 20.

Processing was not so expensive in the early seventies, but no so cheap as well so that I remember that I had to have my roll "last". That means there was a lot of mumbling about whether a certain subject deserved a picture. This "mumbling" is still one of the reasons why I still prefer film now to other existing technologies. Each image has a cost, and ideally it must be worth it.

I'm glad though that I can now afford 50 or more rolls per year. It's my child's dream come true.

Well, when I worked in photofinishing, we charged only per print. There was not a fixed charge.

I agree that chemical prices have skyrocketed because most all chemicals come from oil as a starting material. Some come from natural sources such as corn cobs, but in any event the cost today is higher for chemicals and shipping them. Overall, the US chemical industry has taken a big hit, and many chemistry departments at universities are turning out fewer bench chemists and more forensic chemists. In the long run, we will take a big hit in the US in the chemical industry.

PE

Have no idea if it was cause or effect, but 20 slides fit onto a page.

One of the biggest boons to my snapshot budget was when the labs skipped printing the truly awful shots. That way if I sent in a half-roll or blank roll, the cost for that roll went down, sometimes I was lucky and they charged zero for processing a blank roll.

Keep in mind back in the 60s a mom and pop camera was often still a simple camera using 127, 120 or 620 film. Eight to 12 shots a roll was considered normal. So going to 20 exposures was more than enough for most people. It is not like today when someone with a digital camera will shoot hundreds of shots in a day (all of them poor shots). When film was expensive you took the time to get the best shot you could. Not use a shotgun and hope you got a good one.

I have seen 8 exposure rolls of 35mm film in the past. This film was sold in bulk packs and it was mostly for insurance, police, real estate, or other similar work. They just needed a few shots to document and them send it off to the processor.

I also sold cameras at the time of the big switch.

As others have said, roll film was 8, 12 or 16 shots depending on the camera. 126 came in 12 or 20 shots. The Lab we used had a basic price to develop the film, and then so much a print.. BUT they had a rounded down price for 12 or 20 exposures. (I vaguely recall it was something like 17,18, 19, or 20 all were charged the same price.)

One of my favourite up-sells was to ask customers to buy a 20 exp roll. As I explained it to them, the cost per picture was less. both because the longer roll of film was cheaper per shot and the processing fee to develop the negatives was the same.

Only One customer ever mentioned the flaw in my pitch. If they were with their kids, it did not matter what size roll they had, they would shoot it all, and be back for a fresh one next week. The one customer insisted that he get a 12 shot roll.

In 35mm I have seen 5 shot rolls for folks like realtors (called "commercial film", 12, 20 and 36. I recall an 18 somewhere, as well as the various 24+3 bonus rolls. 36 is the top limit, except for the relatively short lived Ilford HP5 Motordrive film. 72 exposures on a thin Polyester base. (and I could not resist running one of them through my Ricoh Auto Half.)

I used to try and jamb 40 shots when bulk loading to reduce the waste of leaders. You get very close to running out of room in the cassette. and now I have a autofocus Canon that rewinds after 36 shots no mater how much film is left..

A 20 exposure cassette had 3 feet of film in it, and a 36 exposure one had 5 feet of film.

24 exposure was like the bottle of soda you buy that say, "get 4 extra ounces free". When they became the standard, people complain that that was too many shots, so they came out with 12 exposure rolls. Marketing types really like making the package 20% bigger so you won't complain as much because they doubled the price. In other words, the change was just a marketing gimmick.

12exp film was nice for trying out a new film or making a quick test. The only problem was that with colour I could never find a lab that would charge less for 12 prints, I always ended up paying the 24exp charge.

graywolf said:

A 20 exposure cassette had 3 feet of film in it, and a 36 exposure one had 5 feet of film.

24 exposure was like the bottle of soda you buy that say, "get 4 extra ounces free". When they became the standard, people complain that that was too many shots, so they came out with 12 exposure rolls. Marketing types really like making the package 20% bigger so you won't complain as much because they doubled the price. In other words, the change was just a marketing gimmick.

Click to expand...

I think the real question is, why, when they designed the 35mm cartridge, they didn't make it slightly larger, so that 40 exposures would fit, then you could have had, 40, 20 and 10 exposure rolls.....

Here is one logic for the short rolls for the average "snapshooter" vs for certain professions.
Most people shot very few pictures, a 36 exposure roll could easily sit in the camera for a year before being finished. So a shorter roll would get it developed and printed so people could see it faster. I remember my father telling me to be careful and make every shot count, no bracketing or "safety shots."

I remember 20 exposure rolls and when 24 exposure rolls came on the market. But shucks, I was rollin' my own back in those days. 100 feet of Ektachrome became 18 rolls of 36 exposures. I would shoot 200 feet a year.

Steve

I wish they make 35mm rolls shorter than 24.

Jeff

Jeff Kubach said:

I wish they make 35mm rolls shorter than 24.

Jeff

Click to expand...

Broken record but... roll your own!

hpulley said:

Broken record but... roll your own!

Click to expand...

If ya gottem, smokem!

Sirius Glass said:

If ya gottem, smokem!

Click to expand...

:laugh

Jeff

My guess would be it was easier to sell 20 exposure rolls to amateurs than 36 exposure rolls.

Waaaay back when I first started shooting lots of 35mm film, in 1971, you could buy a 20 exposure roll of Plus-X or Tri-X for $0.99, and a 36 exposure roll was $1.15. The 8% PST was extra, of course. I don't remember the exact prices, but AFAIR, Ilford FP4 and HP4 were a little cheaper.

Assuming you got, on average, one frame more per roll than what the manufacturer guaranteed, that means the cost was 5.09¢ per frame for the 20 exposure rolls, and 3.35¢ for the 36 exposure rolls. I remember pointing this out to a friend, who insisted in buying only 20 exposure rolls, because he wouldn't have to "use up" or waste film before taking the roll out of his camera for developing. Cutting off the exposed film and developing it, a practice I engage in regularly today, never occurred to us in 1971!

FWIW, you could buy 100 feet of Plus-X or Tri-X for about $9.00 to $10.00...

Terrence Brennan said:

FWIW, you could buy 100 feet of Plus-X or Tri-X for about $9.00 to $10.00...

Click to expand...

Yes, and there was the handy TX402 or PX402, 50 Ft. Competing with 17meter rolls from Ilford and AGFA (HP3, FP3, and Agfa ISS and ISU)

27-1/2 foot rolls

cmacd123 said:

Yes, and there was the handy TX402 or PX402, 50 Ft. Competing with 17meter rolls from Ilford and AGFA (HP3, FP3, and Agfa ISS and ISU)

Click to expand...

Hey, I completely forgot about those shorter rolls!

But your reference jogged my memory, and I remember Kodak also sold 27-1/2 foot rolls, which contained 5 rolls of 36 exposure film, pre-cut and notched. I bought my first Panatomic-X film in that format.

I used to like 12 exposure rolls, but I only remember Kodak amateur print film in that length. Some time in the 1980's IIRC, Agfa sold promotional cassettes with three extra frames, labelled '24 + 3', which later became its standard length for Agfacolor amateur print films in the U.K. It was possible to get 29 or 30 frames out of them.