Reason for 20 exp rolls?

[N467RX]

Does anyone know the reason why the older rolls (60s, 70s, etc) were only 20 exposures and not 24? it sparked my curiosity this morning, because I can't think of any reason why they didn't include the extra 4 frames that we see today.

 

[Rick A]

I really dont know, but I miss 12 exposure 35mm. I know, I can roll my own.

 

[wiltw]

It might have something to do with multiple 20 exposure lengths of film (plus the leader for each roll) was the same length of film as some other multiple of 36 exposure lengths of film (just a guess)

 

[Alan W]

Why 36?I roll my own and always roll 30,6 rows of 5-Plenty of space for the contact sheet with the file info as well.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I believe that it was cost. Back then, a 20 exposure roll with prints or for slides just matched some budgets. A 36 exposure roll was an oddity. In developing countries the 12 exposure roll was the norm for the same reason.

PE

 

[yeknom02]

I just got some expired 12-exposure Ilford film that was just sitting around my camera shop. Excellent for the limited focus testing I wanted to do.

 

[Dave in Kansas]

I wish they still made the 20 exposure rolls. It seemed like a nice length.

Dave

 

[tkamiya]

While multiple of 12 (dozens) may seem perfectly natural and reasonable to people in the west, that's not commonly so all over the world. In Japan where I grew up, things were mostly multiple of 10. Having things in increments of 12 seemed very strange. Maybe regional stuff like that has something to do with it?

 

[Photo Engineer]

And yet, when I was in Japan the only size color films made by Fuji and Konishiroku were 12 exposure rolls!

So....... By your theory they should have been 10 or 20 exposure rolls?



PE

 

[tkamiya]

I have NEVER seen 10 but I have seen 20 - even from Kodak.

 

[Pgeobc]

Well, as I remember it from when I wuzza kid: 20 exposures for home users to fit budgets, as mentioned. No doubt it had something do do with its development in countries that used metric system. 36 exposure rolls were thought of mostly for pros back then, although one could save substantially by using 36 exposure rolls.

I do remember that photofinishing at a later date was very accustomed to dealing with 12 exposure rolls from other sizes, e.g., 620, 127, and 120. I seem to remember that it was an accomodation to the photo processors because it gave them a little boost in dollar traffic/profit and kept them in 12s. 36 exposure rolls fits the 12s rule, too, but most people still did not like them. Even later on, some then-newer sizes, like Instamatic 626, were brought out in 12s at first.

 

[Photo Engineer]

A color print in the 50s and early 60s was about 28 cents. A 36 exposure roll cost about $3, processing about $1 and printing about $10 for a total of about $14 per roll. In today's dollars that would be about $100 / roll.

Just round number tinkering and guesstimates, but you see that at that time, top pay was about $10 K / year for high executive. Gasoline was about $0.15 / gallon for comparison. And, people thought that was steep as it had just gone up from $0.10 / gallon.

PE

 

[erikg]

I remember in the 70's when color film went from 20 to 24 exp. It seemed to be a marketing thing, it was packaged as 20 + 4, you were getting something extra. Like you see with food packaging from time to time. Then 24 became the norm for a shorter roll. Don't know who started it.

 

[pgomena]

When I first learned to use a camera as a high school sophomore, the instructor had us roll 20-exposure rolls from the school's bulk loader just to stay on budget. Heaven knows we wasted enough film as it was trying to learn to put it on steel reels in the dark. I, too, remember when rolls went from 20 to 24 exposures. It was a "bonus" for all the happy-snappers, and it carried over into b&w film. That was all well-and-good for people who had 24-exposure developing reels.

Peter Gomena

 

[Photo Engineer]

P&S cameras are now 28 exposure.

PE

 

[N467RX]

You mean disposables?
Well, regular rolls are 27 exposures if you shoot both frames on the leader (but can't load it in daylight)

 

[removed account4]

realtors used 12 and 20 exposure rolls

 

[vpwphoto]

Then there were us photojournalist types who rolled our own and crammed in 40 or even 42.

 

[MattKing]

I have at least one camera (Retinette) with a frame counter where 20 and 36 are highlighted, whereas 24 and 12 are not. I certainly remember when the "standard" short length for 35mm changed from 20 to 24. I also remember my father shooting 828 in his main camera (a Bantam RF) where 8 exposures was the only choice. I expect 20 was the norm because that was the choice made by companies like Kodak. I expect the photofinishing systems were set up to match.

I'd be willing to bet that when the short rolls changed from 20 to 24, things like the boxes that processed and mounted slides were returned in had to be changed.

 

[OzJohn]

I think that folk who were doing serious photofinishing business at the time 24 exposure (or 20+4 as it was marketed) was introduced would confirm that (a) the industry was still largely charging out D&P orders on the basis of a flat film development fee plus a cost per print (b) 24 film was sold (initially anyway) for the same price as 20 but an extra 4 prints were added to the finishing bill - a 20% increase for both the finisher and the paper/chemistry supplier.
This move probably resulted from market research suggesting that general discretionary income had reached a point where a many people could be persuaded to spend a few dollars extra to get 4 more prints.
OzJohn

 

[Pgeobc]

>>Just round number tinkering and guesstimates, but you see that at that time, top pay was about $10 K / year for high executive. Gasoline was about $0.15 / gallon for comparison. And, people thought that was steep as it had just gone up from $0.10 / gallon.<<

Your processing prices are spot-on, because I was working in a drugstore from late '60 through late '62 and we handled photo processing for people.

Gasoline was about 35 cents a gallon.

A man with a family and a decent job, on average, had to make at least $400.00 a month to support the family properly (wife + 2 kids). $500.00 per month would have been a lot better.

I left for pharmacy school in '62 carrying an ad that I placed on my dorm room wall. It advertised $750 per month for a pharmacist's salary and I thought that something to shoot at.

I shot a lot of slides because it was cheaper to do so.

 

[Photo Engineer]

In 1965, when I went to work for EK, gas was $0.15/gallon and my car got, on average, 9.5 miles / gallon. I had to refill several times on my way from Pittsburgh to Rochester and back. Today, I can make it on 1/2 tank or less but at $4.10/gal. Actually, with raises and everything we stay pretty much at the same place. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The guys in the middle run hard to stay in the same place.

In the 50s, a B&W TV cost over $1000. In the 60s a color TV cost over $1000 but a B&W TV was down to about $100. Same trends today. A $10,000 computer in the 80s is now less than $1000.

PE

 

[mts]

PE I agree with your comparisons but they don't go quite far enough. Bulk chemicals if you can find them are way higher with possible exception of CD-3,4 but even so a pound is still a pound. Don't even think about shipping costs and HazMat fines that didn't exist back then.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Today I perfer shorter rolls. Even 24 is too long for me. I like my RB67 with only 10 expoures.

Jeff

 

[foc]

I remember the change over from 20exp to 24exp and it was a marketing exercise, a bit like the disposable cameras being 24+3 or 36+3.
From what I remember Agfa was the last to change to 24exp. At that time photofinishing also changes its pricing (in Ireland anyway) from the price of develope and the price per print to an all inclusive price for 12, 24, 36. Since 20/24 was the most popular size it was priced at 24 prints, so if only 18 or 20 prints came out it was still charged at the 24 price. I worked in wholesale photofinishing for a few years as these price changes happened. It wasn't often that a customers 24 exp film produced 24 prints, the average was I think 21. This ment that the new price for 24 exp processing was rounded up, (eg 4.99) but the increase was only slight in the customers eye but the lab still made the same if not more profit.