Rolling your own film

[jacbro]

Am I the only dummy to go 100 ft

Hi all.
I wondered if I am the only dummy to purchase films in 100 foot-roll. All the other guys I speak to are never buying film, other than ready to load cartridges.
I know that such a length of film is tying up my bulk loader for some time, but the price advantage is more important that this factor.
Unless it is a serious problem to obtain bulk film...
Thanks for your input.
Jacques

 

[clogz]

Hello Jacques,
On Ebay bulk film loaders are cheap so why not buy a few extra ones?

Take care
Hans

 

[glbeas]

I think the other ones are the dummys, I haven't bought any preloaded 35mm B&W since the Stone Age. The cost is so much lower it's foolish not to if you shoot very much, especially on a budget. And the loaders can be had cheap so get a few more off Ebay.
I've since stopped shooting B&W in 35mm and only do it in MF and LF.

 

[Robert Hall]

When I bought IR film, I bought it in 150 ft rolls. It saved me over half, and on an $11 roll of film, that's a lot!

 

[jd callow]

If I ever get a 35mm that I will use as much as my MF and LF then I will buy my 35mm in 100' lengths or at least the B&W film.

The options are too great to ignore rolling your own -- a handful of short rolls for different light or contrast. Cost being an extra benefit.

 

[johnnywalker]

I buy film in 100 foot rolls. I could afford not to, but that is a waste of money. I don't understand why your bulk loader is tied up. I get about 19 cassettes per 100 feet, and have about 50 of them and keep re-using them. They are cheaper than borscht.

 

[Dave Parker]

I always buy my transparancy film in 100 foot rolls, saves me a heck of alot of money! be crazy not to!

Dave

 

[eric]

You not crazy. I don't shoot as much 35mm but I have 2 loaders. I need more! Sometimes, I know what I'll shoot and all I need is about 15-20 shots. Just roll what I need.

Lately, I've been rolling only 24 shot cannisters. I figure, I use my medium format a lot and all I got is 12 shots. Not like I have a motor drive and shoot like crazy.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Even new loaders aren't too expensive. I just have to remember to label them-)

 

[BruceN]

Me too. I've got 3 loaders with 3 different films and am thinking about picking up a couple more.

 

[jim appleyard]

Bulk loading film is not dumb, it VERY smart! I have 3, one for each type of b/w film. The only film I buy in pre-loaded form is Kodachrome, because it's not made in bulk rolls and Kodak's Portra because the lab I use doesn't like masking tape in the film processer.

 

[sp_maher]

I load my own as well. I own one loader, so I do all of my loading in one sitting to free up my loader. The cost benefit is absolutely tremendous.

Sean

 

[djklmnop]

Nothings wrong with bulk loading. The fact that you don't have to worry about inconsistancy between rolls is very nice.

Just make sure you clean up your room once you're done

 

[Monophoto]

There's more than economics involved in bulk loading. Additional factors include:

1. the ability to purchase a lot of film in one emulsion number. That enables you to test it once, and know how it will perform over time. Sure, you could buy preloaded "bricks", but that brings you back to the economics. I have always (for more than 25 years) purchased two 100 foot rolls at a time - the price is less than that of one brick, and one round of testing provides information of a lot more film.

2. conveneince. I used polyethelene sleeves to store 35mm negatives. One sleeve (that can be proofed on an 8x10 sheet of paper) holds 7 strips of 5 negatives - 35 exposures. So I bulk load in 35 exposure lengths. OK - I have to frame number my strips because I can no longer use the factor numbering - but that's not a big deal. All it takes is a rapidograph pen and some india ink, and it provides a setting for an initial scan of the negatives. I can also load short rolls for special applications.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I have 9 loaders. One for my wife to keep her film in, one for the kids to practice loading their own casettes. I have old expired and never to be shot film in that one. the rest I keep loaded with various flavors of 35mm film. I have color print, transparency, and several speeds of b&w. I cannot afford to buy the pre-loaded stuff. I'm poor from maintaining 3 hobbies. Photography, woodworking, and bicycle racing. One of them has got to go. Probably the one that results in broken bones and road rash.

 

[rbarker]

Leave it to a woodworker to chisel savings wherever he can, so the economics dovetails with the budget.

 

[jd callow]

Leave it to a woodworker to chisel savings wherever he can, so the economics dovetails with the budget.

Yeah but it sounds like he is giving up on his marriage

One of them has got to go. Probably the one that results in broken bones and road rash.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Probably the one that results in broken bones and road rash.

Just avoid those fancy woods and you won't get any more rashes-)) 9 bulk loaders? I thought I was bad with 5 or 6.

 

[pschauss]

I started bulk loading so that I could make 12 exposure rolls for testing. When Kodak cut off the supply of $1.99 grey market Tri-X and Plus-X, I bought a second bulk loader so that I could use bulk loaded film for my more "serious" work.

 

[Max Power]

I bulk load for both economics and convenience.
My local photo shop sells D-400 in 24exp rolls for $7.00 per. It's also a 25 minute drive to the shop.

I have another 2 100ft rolls in the refrigerator for whenever I might need it.

Kent

 

[Nige]

even buying a new loader you pay for it in the 1st 30m roll (sorry, I had to slip some metric into this conversation!)

I run 2, one for 100ish speed (usually FP4) and one for 400ish speed (either HP5 or Delta 400). Not using much 35mm at the moment so that keeps me supplied. For slower, faster or weird, like IR, I'll buy a roll or two of factory loaded.

 

[ElrodCod]

Bulk film may not be identical to film sold by the roll. I'm not sure about now but Tri-X bulk film used to have a heavier base than the packaged 35mm film.

 

[Dean Williams]

Bulk film may not be identical to film sold by the roll. I'm not sure about now but Tri-X bulk film used to have a heavier base than the packaged 35mm film.

I've been through 14 100 foot rolls of Tri-X since Jan 2002, plus about 120 rolls of factory loads. I got tired of looking for a difference after going back that far. It's the same stuff bulk or cassette, except the frame numbers, of course. I don't recall there being any difference back in the '70s, either, but I'm not digging them out to check. Certainly there is no difference where it counts. Film speed, dev times and emulsions are indistinguishable.

 

[Max Power]

Does anyone here have problems with scratches due to loading 36 frames plus 3 or 4 for waste?

I ask this because when I started to bulk load, my reference was the famous 'Bulk Loading FAQ' which is found on PN. I think that I read something about not loading a full 36 frames because it would scratch, even if one's cassettes were clean.

Does anyone here have any anecdotal evidence either for or against a limit on the number of frames?

Thanks,
Kent

 

[Nick Zentena]

When I was a kid you loaded all you could cram into the can. 36 frames? That was for wimps-) With the cans I have now I find 40 frames [36 good plus four fogged] is pretty much it. Plus modern cameras don't like shooting past 36. Unless you count the Ricoh I have with a broken frame counter-) Then you'll have trouble fitting the extras on the processing reel.

You can get 36 frames with no fogging if you want. Just learn to do the taping and cutting with the lights off.