72 exposure rolls: were they ever popular, and would people actually buy them now?

MCB18

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2023
Messages
826
Location
Colorado
Format
Medium Format
Ever since doing the Astrum group buy in May, I have been asked several times if I could offer double length, or 72 exposure, rolls of 35mm. I have answered that yes, with the thinner film I can, but I didn’t plan on it because I thought it was kind of dumb.

The next thing that most folks said was something like “Oh I bet if you offered it people would probably buy it. You could get 144 shots in the new Pentax!”. I have always assumed that this probably isn’t the case. It seemed niche at the time and it most certainly hasn’t gotten any more popular since! And anyway, who would want to go out of their way to develop them? You would have to cut the roll in half anyway, and you would definitely lose a frame!

But, someone pointed out that making a development spiral for a 10 ft roll wouldn’t be terribly difficult with 3D printing, and you could probably make it small enough to fit in a Jobo 2500 series tank. It may also be possible to process the film in black and white minilabs and dip and dunk machines. So technically you could develop the entire thing at once.

So, my question to you all is: was this actually a thing people used regularly when Ilford did it? And if I did it now, would anyone be interested?
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,331
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
I bought one roll of Ilford in 72-exposure roll. I still have it. The film was very thin and hard to handle… so I never bothered. That film length does not ever seem to have been popular.
 
OP
OP

MCB18

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2023
Messages
826
Location
Colorado
Format
Medium Format
BrianShaw said:
I bought one roll of Ilford in 72-exposure roll. I still have it. The film was very thin and hard to handle… so I never bothered. That film length does not ever seem to have been popular.
Click to expand...

Yes, 0.06mm film is fun. Stainless reels are a must. You aren’t going to load it on plastic reels, it would almost certainly crumple instantly. Although the plus side is, the base is completely clear. It looks like glass. I have yet to develop my 220 rolls but the 35mm looks absolutely stunning.
 

abruzzi

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
2,917
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
Large Format
yow! I though 36 exposures was about 3-4 times too long. Its why I mostly stopped shooting 35mm, except what I bulk rolled to about 18 exposures. 120/6x9 8 shots per roll is perfect.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,187
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Yes, and drying would mean leaving it on the reel, or cutting it wet. Not for me. I do have a 250 exposure back for a Nikon F2, that's kinda (Way More) wacky too.
 
OP
OP

MCB18

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2023
Messages
826
Location
Colorado
Format
Medium Format
BrianShaw said:
Bring back 20-exposure rolls!
Click to expand...

I offer bulk rolls, so I kinda didn’t see the point. If enough people ask during the order, sure.

mshchem said:
Yes, and drying would mean leaving it on the reel, or cutting it wet. Not for me. I do have a 250 exposure back for a Nikon F2, that's kinda (Way More) wacky too.
Click to expand...

l I think you could just clip it in both ends and hang it, couldn’t you? Also I have no clue how to develop those 33 ft rolls lol. Chonky dev reel probably.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,187
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
Hewes made ss reels for Ilford they're still out there. I know I had one I never used, they will fit the Hewes loader that are very effective.
 
OP
OP

MCB18

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 16, 2023
Messages
826
Location
Colorado
Format
Medium Format
mshchem said:
Hewes made ss reels for Ilford they're still out there. I know I had one I never used, they will fit the Hewes loader that are very effective.
Click to expand...

I have thought about getting one but every time they come up I don’t have the cash to spare unfortunately
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,552
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format

I prefer 18 exposures over 72.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,866
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
The 72 exposure rolls were like the 8 exposure 35mm rolls made for and sold mostly to the real estate support industry. They were essentially special purpose products that only made sense in an environment where film was so prevalent that the cost of a roll of film was actually one of the items used to make up and track the official Government Cost of Living Indices.
 

Philippe-Georges

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,659
Location
Flanders Fields
Format
Medium Format
Long time ago, when Ilford marketed the Hp5 72 exp., I thought that a miracle happend and jumped on it as I always had to load the camera when the interesting things happend during a reportage.
Then I realised that I was actually wasting good film with motor driven cameras, as at the end only 5 to 6 photos were usable.

After all these years I don't shoot 35 mm film anymore as I started to dislike that small camera format, I don't know why.
I sold all my 24x36 cameras and got a 6x9 instead.

So, the 12 or 8 exp. I get now with my medium format camera's gives me a feeling of rest and fulfilment.
I sometimes come home after half a day wandering around with hardly 4 to 6 shots, mostly all of them 'interesting'.
With the years I learned to carefully look and contemplate before exposing.
And I am not in a hurry to develop that film, I don't see the point in wasting the other non exposed part of the roll...

The large format sheet film (4"x5" & 13x18cm) was never really my cup of tea, although I shot a lot of these professionally (had to).
 

Alessandro Serrao

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
839
Location
World
Format
35mm
MCB18 said:
So, my question to you all is: was this actually a thing people used regularly when Ilford did it? And if I did it now, would anyone be interested?
Click to expand...

I hate 36exp in a roll, let alone 72...
 
Last edited:

guangong

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
3,589
Format
Medium Format
Even 36 exposures can seem too many. Much depends on one’s method of shooting as well as subject(s) being photographed. Since my thumb is not feeble, never a fan of motorized film advance. Also, thumb does not need batteries.
Lately I load 35mm camera with 36 exposures film, but don’t feel compelled to shoot whole roll.
 

bdial

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
7,440
Location
North East U.S.
Format
Multi Format
A 72 exposure roll might be just the thing, if you have an Exacta, and cut off the exposed frames in-camera.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,480
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
I have a few of the 72 exposure spirals, but they don't fit in my processor. What I used to do was load 36 and cut it in the dark. Yes, It would cut through a frame, but otherwise it fit fine divided into two spirals.

I can't use any of my existing rolls as they are too fogged; it would be nice to have some fresh film. All five of my Rollei film backs go to 72 exp.

 

Alessandro Serrao

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
839
Location
World
Format
35mm

How do they stuff a film strip of 72exp while even 36exp is tight in the canister?
 

Film-Niko

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
708
Format
Multi Format
Alessandro Serrao said:
How do they stuff a film strip of 72exp while even 36exp is tight in the canister?
Click to expand...

Standard 36exp. film on classic tri-acetate base with 135 micron thickness is not very tight in the canister.
AFAIK Ilford used 100 micron thick PET base for their former 72exp. HP5+.
And I was told on a former Photokina fair in Cologne by a BW film manufacturer that 100 micron thick PET would be indeed fitting for a 72exp. film in a standard metal film canister.

72exp. film would be perfect for users of the Lomokino camera, and sports and wildlife photographers who wants to use film for certain projects.
 

perkeleellinen

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,899
Location
Warwickshire
Format
35mm
I imagine the film woluld also appeal to photographers working in hazardous places where opening the camera back would cause damage. Perhaps also photo-journalists not wanting to waste time changing film during critical moments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…