Why 24 or 36 exposures per roll of 35mm?

[Roger Hicks]

Speaking of bulk roll loading of cassettes... anybody remember bulk load backs for cameras? Weren't they something like 500 exposures?

Normally 250. The Leica FF and GG were 250-exposure variants of the 36-exposure bodies with the same specification, as far back as the 1930s. Surprisingly many SLR manufacturers offered 250-exposure backs but as far as I know they were most popular with museums, etc., rather than sports photographers. The first I know about was the Praktina in 1953/4.

Several of the earliest (pre-Leica) 35mm cameras took long rolls of film: the Tourist Multiple (1913) gave 750 exposures 18x24mm, while the Simplex (1914) was switchable between 400 exposures 24x36mm and 800 exposures 18x24mm. The Esco (1923) gave 400 exposures 18x24mm; the Eka (1923), 100 exposures 30x42mm, achieved via imperforate film; and the Cent Vues was 18x24mm again.

Maybe I should reissue my History of the 35mm Still Camera (which was indeed 1984, ISBN 0 240 51233 2)

Cheers,

R.

 

[CraigH]

George Eastman's original Kodak was 100 exposures but of course it wasn't 35mm.

Craig

 

[Mick Fagan]

The best reason to use 36 frame rolls, is that they fit perfectly onto a single 8x10" contact sheet, no wastage.

If I'm ever going to short load, I use 18 frames and cut an 8x10" sheet in half on the long side.

I do this with colour and B&W.

On the subject of bulk backs for 35mm film, the modern ones produced in the late seventies and eighties by Nikon and Olympus were 250 frame, the internal film holders and their loading systems are able to be used in either camera.

One of the main uses I knew for these 250 frame backs was school photography. One company I knew of had about 10 of these fitted to Nikon F3 HP bodies. That company had the most knackered F3 bodies, I have ever seen!

The power drain of these big backs is quite enormous so some of these were fitted with a mains power supply to the MD4 motor drive.

I was involved in a television advertisement where we cobbled together an F3 body, MD4 drive, 250 frame back, 20 film cassettes, mains power supply MA4 (which required an additional plug that was only available from the USA as Japan had none) and 500 x 100' rolls of B&W film (kodak, don't remember what)

We converted a cibachrome roller transport paper machine to process the film. IIRC we set it up to process 6 lines of film side by side.

It took us about 4 weeks to get all the equipment together, a couple of days to ascertain that everything worked, then we were ready.

We shot a young woman pretending to shave her legs with brand X lady shaver so many times, the poor girl started to cramp up. To keep things going smoothly, we slung a handy female with quickly manicured hands, horizontally in a canvas sling to continue the shaving motion.

We were at the studio at 3 am and didn't get out until midnight.

All of this effort eventually went on a nation wide TV campaign and out of the 30 seconds that the ad ran, we accounted for less than 4 seconds.

Man there was money being thrown around then.

The biggest magazine back I have ever heard of was for the Nikon F2, it took 30m of film for 750 exposures, I haven't ever seen one.

Mick.

 

[eddie gunks]

if i need to do any testing i may load up a roll of 12 exposures. but other than that 36 is the way to go. i do alot of travel photography so that means less film to carry. also i mostly have them only develop it so i save money on processing costs.

eddie

 

[DBP]

Maybe I should reissue my History of the 35mm Still Camera (which was indeed 1984, ISBN 0 240 51233 2)

Cheers,

R.

Yes, and some of the cookbooks too.

 

[Andy K]

I think the OM System included a bulk load back at one time.

 

[Steve Smith]

That way, those guys who used to have three Christmases on the same roll can finish the roll right after New Year's and see the prints right away.

That would be my grandfather. One roll of 127 every four years. And I'm not sure if he ever had any processed!

Steve.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That would be my grandfather. One roll of 127 every four years. And I'm not sure if he ever had any processed!

Steve.

I noticed that until my film is processed, all the photographs are perfect.

Steve

 

[copake_ham]

I noticed that until my film is processed, all the photographs are perfect.

Steve

And this wonderful pre-processed perfection is something else those damn digis with their infernal LCD screens ruined for us!

 

[PatTrent]

Why do 35mm film rolls come in 24 or 36 exposures? I've seen some rollls of 12 exposures, but majority is 24/36. Is there some historical significance to this? I would think putting a roll of 42 or 50 exposures in a roll would be much better on the environment since there'll be less packaging used per roll. And each roll would last longer in the field too, especially in locations which film is hard to obtain.

One thing I used to like about the 20 exposure rolls, is that if you shot a test roll of slide film, the 20 mounted slides fitted perfectly in an archival slide sheet page. With 24 or 36 exposures, it takes part of a second sheet to hold all the slides from one roll.

I rarely, however, buy 24 exposures, as those rolls (and the processing) cost you almost twice as much per slide as a 36 exposure roll, and those rare occasions (for me, anyway) when I'm not shooting an entire roll don't outweigh the economy of 36 exposure rolls.

One exception I have found is when 24-exposure rolls of color neg is on sale through some large brick and mortar retailer. In that case, the savings on the film offsets the lack of economy in the processing, unless I use a 1-hour lab that charges a flat fee for "develop only" regardless of the length of the 35mm roll.

 

[PatTrent]

Speaking of bulk roll loading of cassettes... anybody remember bulk load backs for cameras? Weren't they something like 500 exposures?
I remember once when I was shooting runners back in the late 70's, I was at a race and saw another photographer shooting a Nikon F2 with motordrive and a 135mm f2 lens. I wonder now how long he could hold that thing up to shoot...?
Me, I was shooting a nice lightweight: Pentax MX with winder and 85mm f2. It was tiny in comparision with the Nikon!

Yes, I'm old enough to remember those. I'd forgotten all about them until you mentioned it. I saw one "in the flesh" only once.

 

[PatTrent]

I think the OM System included a bulk load back at one time.

Canon also made one for the F1 camera.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There were a couple of different long roll backs for the F-1 cameras. I think the older ones for the F-1 and F-1n were 250 shots and the one for the later New F-1 was 100 shots. If I could find a 100-shot back for my New F-1 with cassettes and the loader, I'd buy it for bird photography.

 

[mawz]

Portra also used to be available in 8 exposure rolls for headshot use (1 roll per subject). I've seen pro-packs of 8exp 160NC within the last couple years.

Agfa stuck with the 20 exposure rolls almost to the end. I was shooting 20 exposure APX400 rolls well into 2006.

 

[film_guy]

How big are these long roll backs? Could something like that be modified to work with a current Canon AF camera like the EOS 3?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I doubt that an older long roll back could be modified easily for a modern electronic body. You would have to do some major surgery to both the long roll back and a standard back for the camera body, and then you would have to figure out how to convince the film to wind correctly and circumvent the normal functioning of the body, perhaps requiring that the body then be dedicated to the long roll back. It would be easier just to get the body the back was designed for and lenses and accessories for that body for use with the long roll back.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I've not been following this thread, but something just struck me.

At one time, there used to be 12 exposure rolls of film in 35mm. I think it was in the early days of color, and color was so expensive that it was sold in smaller rolls to save costs.

PE

 

[wirehead]

I distinctly remember shooting 12 exposure rolls of Kodak film in the 80s.

I'm pretty sure, however, that it's in my dad's collection, because all of my rolls are 24 or 36...

 

[dmr]

About two years ago, when I got my first GIII successfully re-assembled, I picked up a 12 exposure roll of 200 at Walgreens for the test roll.

Since then I recall seeing some 12 exposure rolls of Fuji something at the area's remaining real camera shop.

 

[film_guy]

I've seen 12 exposures roll for sale at Pro shops which still sells film here. I guess they're useful for people who want to test film, but I'm looking for a way I can shoot more without changing out rolls from my camera.

 

[Andy K]

I think the OM System included a bulk load back at one time.

There is one on eboy at the moment, in Germany, including the loader it will set you back around 600 pounds!!

 

[3Dfan]

I still occasionally see 12 exp. rolls of film, including Kodak. Normally there is little price advantage to it so it's not very popular.

 

[Paul Howell]

I still see Lucky and other cheap film in 12 exp rolls at the dollar store. I use to buy HP5 in 12 shot rolls, recently I returned to bulk loading and I will keep a few short rolls of 12 and keep handy in my camera bag.

 

[reub2000]

Could the multiples of 12 be because of cine usage? Movies takes up 24 half-frames per second. So 36 exposures would be 3 seconds of film.