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

[MCB18]

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.

Huh, 8 exposures is tiny! Exactly the opposite end of the spectrum!

A 72 exposure roll might be just the thing, if you have an Exacta, and cut off the exposed frames in-camera.

I didn’t know that was a thing, that’s incredibly cool actually!

I prefer 18 exposures over 72

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).

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

Definitely interesting hearing both sides of the argument.

One person who was asking about it said that they were planning on attending a convention and wanted to be able to shoot for an entire day without needing to reload or carry extra film.

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

The film is about half as thick as regular 35mm films. Very thin, made specifically for squeezing as much film as possible onto a standard spool.

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.

Close! Regular 35mm rolls are approximately 0.14mm thick. The 72 expose rolls are 0.06mm thick! While 0.1mm films exist (repacked areal surveillance films are often this thick), it isn’t enough to make 72 exposures fit.

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.

View attachment 378439

That’s very cool you still have some of the reels! I think if I could find one I would definitely try and find a way to process it, maybe a bucket in the dark could do it?

I should be able make you some fresh 72 exposure rolls if you would like. If you are in the US, send me a message and I’ll tell you what the plans are for later this year.

 

[Film-Niko]

Close! Regular 35mm rolls are approximately 0.14mm thick.

Can you please give evidence for that (official data sheet). I have never seen a 35mm photo film on tri-acetate base with such thickness.
All I have seen from the major manufacturers in the last 25 years have been in the 0.122 to 0.135 mm range.

The 72 expose rolls are 0.06mm thick!

I have referred to the old 72exp, HP5 film. And that was not on such a thin base.

While 0.1mm films exist (repacked areal surveillance films are often this thick), it isn’t enough to make 72 exposures fit.

0.1 thick PET film base is not only used for aerial films, it is also more and more often used for normal pictorial films as well. See e.g. Adox CHS 100 II or Kodak ColorPlus.

As mentioned above, it was said to me by the manufacturer that with a 0.1 mil. PET base 72exp. are possible. I have no reason to doubt them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I tried 72 exposure rolls. I found them hard to use and the film easily picked up scratches. I would not buy 72 exposure rolls if offered.

 

[Angarian]

I tried 72 exposure rolls.

The former HP5 72exp.?

I would have 2-3 cases / projects, in which I could benefit from it.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I remember not being that popular when they launched. More of a niche product. I would dare say that it was more niche that 220 film.

I would say, the reason for 220 was that it took some time to load a 120 film when you ran out on a fashion photo session, but a) 35mm was not often used on Fashion photography, and b) 35mm was fast to load on most cameras.

Also, for the normal consumer market, it means that you had to wait till you used the whole 72exp so not that practical; again a very niche product.

Personally, I normally use shorter rolls (like 24 exp) so I can finish my roll faster. Also, now that film is more expensive, I would tend to either waste a lot of expositions or either leave the roll on the camera a long time.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I tried 72 exposure rolls. I found them hard to use and the film easily picked up scratches. I would not buy 72 exposure rolls if offered.

Yep, my experience as well. Pretty easy to scratch. Also, a pain to find a place for drying. Used 2-3 rolls but never used again.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Also, I remember one of the rolls got stuck on the camera. Don't remember if it was a Miranda, Olympus or Canon. Had to open camera on the dark and pull the film manually.

 

[DWThomas]

Hmm, I'm in the '36 exposures is already too many' camp. Partly that's because I shoot very little 35mm to begin with. I can think of situations where a massive number of frames shot without reloading would be useful, but not for any project I am likely to do. Most of my current stash of 35mm film is 24 exposures, although not all emulsions come that way. Decades back 12 exposure rolls were something I occasionally used, though again, only a few emulsions were available that way.

My dwindling bulk roll of Panatomic-X generally gets spooled off in 20 exp for annual 'Argus Day' use.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The former HP5 72exp.?

I would have 2-3 cases / projects, in which I could benefit from it.

I used 72 exposure rolls years ago, so it was not HP5 72 Exposures.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yep, my experience as well. Pretty easy to scratch. Also, a pain to find a place for drying. Used 2-3 rolls but never used again.

Also, I remember one of the rolls got stuck on the camera. Don't remember if it was a Miranda, Olympus or Canon. Had to open camera on the dark and pull the film manually.

Yes, a pain to find a place to dry, but I did not have a roll get stuck in the camera, only scratched.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

This is what it took to develop these 72 rolls (I sold it too).

 

[MCB18]

Can you please give evidence for that (official data sheet). I have never seen a 35mm photo film on tri-acetate base with such thickness.
All I have seen from the major manufacturers in the last 25 years have been in the 0.122 to 0.135 mm range.



I have referred to the old 72exp, HP5 film. And that was not on such a thin base.



0.1 thick PET film base is not only used for aerial films, it is also more and more often used for normal pictorial films as well. See e.g. Adox CHS 100 II or Kodak ColorPlus.

As mentioned above, it was said to me by the manufacturer that with a 0.1 mil. PET base 72exp. are possible. I have no reason to doubt them.

When I get home I’ll use some dial calipers on some film I have lying around.

I don’t have any of the original 72 exposures Ilford to measure, however I can tell you it is smaller than 0.1mm. According to an online tape roll calculator, 0.1mm will only fit approximately 1.8m into a 35mm cassette, or around 44-45 exposures. In other words, close to the normal amount bulk loaders have found they can squeeze in the cassette. 0.06 mm will fit the entire 3.1m needed to make a 62 exposure roll.

 

[ic-racer]

The Ilford plastic 72 exposure spirals are the same diameter as a conventional 36exposure reel. They fit in a 'standard' developing tank.

 

[MCB18]

This is what it took to develop these 72 rolls (I sold it too).


View attachment 378453 View attachment 378454

That is very neat! A tank like that would save me having to use the bucket!

 

[MCB18]

The Ilford plastic 72 exposure spirals are the same diameter as a conventional 36exposure reel. They fit in a 'standard' developing tank.

You mean this:

I wonder how hard that would be to design and 3D print… would just need to figure out how to reliably attatch the film to the center, that isn’t shown well here. I imagine something similar to a Hewes reel could be used?

 

[ic-racer]

Yes, I have two of those. But, since I am going to cut the film to hang it to dry, I wound up cutting it half-way during loading, and used two conventional reels.

These threads come up from time to time, but, unless I'm missing something, there has not been a link to a film suitable to load in to the 72 exposure cassettes.

 

[MattKing]

Huh, 8 exposures is tiny! Exactly the opposite end of the spectrum!

That is the point - when 72 exposures were available, the volume of film sold was massive, so it was economic to produce all sorts of niche products, and there were lots of store shelves with lots of spaces on them for those niche products.
I'm sure there were stores out there whose weekly Ilford film order included some 72 exposure rolls that needed to be put on the shelves quickly, because the weekly Kodak film order had just arrived and the 20/24, 36 and 8 exposure rolls needed to get out on the shelves as well.

 

[MCB18]

Yes, I have two of those. But, since I am going to cut the film to hang it to dry, I wound up cutting it half-way during loading, and used two conventional reels.

These threads come up from time to time, but, unless I'm missing something, there has not been a link to a film suitable to load in to the 72 exposure cassettes.

I will be buying 0.06mm film from Astrum in about 2 months. I’ll offer it as an option if people want it.

I’ll definitely be looking for one of these reels now. Will I use it often? Probably not, it seems impractical for normal use. but now I have the bug and I want to try it out…

 

[ic-racer]

Depending on the price I'd take a couple hundred feet.

 

[Cholentpot]

I think there's a market for it. Users of the new Pentax are not generally developing their own film so it's someone else's problem.

As for cutting in half, you have 144 frames. Losing a frame or two isn't a big deal. I'd try one out if on the market. I've gotten 40+ frames on a standard bulk load so I can see getting closer to 160 than 144. That would be something else.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Too long too cumbersome whilst loading on a reel.
Too long a wait until developing.
I still have my Ilford / Hewes reel ,loader and tank but prefer bulk loads of 20-24 exposures and a Paterson tank.
You could also go this route!

Kennedy Instruments Monobar

Kennedy Instruments Monobar

www.photomemorabilia.co.uk

 

[Hassasin]

seems like those asking for 72 exp are coming from digital era and can’t put their head around 36 limitation. I agree fewer would be more welcomed, 20/24 maybe even 30. But I doubt that would lower price per roll. Just the convenience of not looking for 36 ways before it can be developed.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

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.

I must have golden Paterson tank then - zero, absolutely zero problems with ratcheting reel - film both dry and wet

It's best not to guess/make hard statements out of thin air without trying it first out.

To my mechanical understanding, the BB in ratcheting plastic wheel will push any film through, any thickness as the BB is designed to grab perforation and digs a bit into plastic to assure this. And if your plastic reel is dry, the pushing action will have little resistance, resulting in the usual operation. If your film and reel is wet (Reversal reexposure) - also no problems, at least in my case/bathroom.

Foto 400 - no problems loading, a lot of problems to handle such a thin material. But I wonder if that thinness will result in sharper projection as there's less non-image material to focus through. And my Foto 400 is sure sharp AF

 

[koraks]

I wonder how hard that would be to design and 3D print

Not terribly difficult to design. Printing it will be the more critical step; if you use a home&garden variety filament printer, the surfaces will end up too coarse and the film will snag all the time while trying to load it; it'll be a disaster. With a high-end resin printer, the results may be quite good, although even then you might want to somehow smooth the inside of the ribs a little so that the film will advance smoothly.

 

[loccdor]

72 exposures would have its use in wildlife, sports, event photography, stuff where you're constantly shooting and expect to have to take many to get very few "keepers", usually because your subject is moving a lot and you have a shallow depth of field.

I frequently shoot a whole 36 roll on my dog to get a couple good ones. Because he's not a model that listens to photographic instruction

But, I believe there are setups for 35mm cameras that already can handle hundreds of shots without a reload. They look bulky but that might be the way to go if you needed it and were already working on a tripod.

Another option is carrying multiple loaded cameras.

So, would I shoot 72 exposures if they needed a special reel, were hard to load, not supported by many auto-wind cameras? Honestly no, because a typical 90s/2000s film SLR loads film in 2 or 3 seconds.

Medium format regarding 120/220 is a different story since you could be spending a minute or two to load 8-15 shots, plus those rolls are more prone to letting in light during the reload process. Also, when you're taking a film bag on a long trip and don't want it to be bulky.

Maybe if somebody had an underwater camera and needed to dive for a while would be one exception. Or shooting in an intense storm.