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

[Cholentpot]

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.

Good points. Why would there have been made these 200 exposure backs if '12 is really all you need sonny'? I like options.

 

[qqphot]

I wonder how people developed film from those giant 200+ exposure magazines!

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Cine reels, dip-dunk?

 

[MattKing]

I wonder how people developed film from those giant 200+ exposure magazines!

Some used motion picture labs, that first spliced several such rolls on to a big reel, and then developed the entire reel. Much like was done with 16mm and Super 8 movie film.
Most of those who used 200+ exposure backs were in businesses where they needed several such rolls developed at a time.

 

[ic-racer]

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Even if 72 exposures were scratch and problem free, it would be too long to finish the roll for me almost all the time. No thank you.

 

[Quiver2]

I think the industry has answered this. There is a reason the DX coding only goes up to 42 exposures.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think the industry has answered this. There is a reason the DX coding only goes up to 42 exposures.

Great point! I did not know that. Thank you.

 

[laser]

I will offer an opinion from a film manufacturer and photoprocessing point of view:

Manufacturers will make what customer want as long as the customer can be successful using the product and there is enough volume.

Film manufacturers coat on very thin PET and spool it and 72 exposures can fit into 135 magazines. For satillite photography Kodak coated 1.2 mil (.0012-inch) on PET film in 9.5-inch by hundreds of feet rolls. Late 1980's satillites cared miles of film.

Cameras can handle 72-exposures but camera counters will not tally beyond 36 unless the counter is reset by opening the back without rewinding. There are stories of PET support stripping the gearing in cameras because if there is a jam the film will not tear.

In the lab it is difficult to overcome the PET core-set so it is very curly before and after processing. You may be able to ease the curl with drying heat but it will still be much curlier than acetate support. Light piping in PET is another problem. Cameras have to be uncompromised for light leaks.

Processing is a whole other complication. Making a stainless reel will accommadate 2x36 length (about 10 feet) that will fit a 8oz tank places the convolutions of film very close together. Obtaining required agitiation is unlikely. The roll could be haved by sacrificing one frame. Handling in a dip-and-dunk commercial process might work but I think the curl will make it nearly impossible to hang the film. It could go through a Kodak Versamat but few exist. Nearly all were made for governments to support aerial photography.

Getting PET film to lay flat in a scanner or enlarger gate may not be possible.

My bottom line is 135-72 is not a useful alternative. If more than 36 exposures are need between re-loads buy a long roll back, use multiple cameras, or some other alternative.

Yes, 135-8-exposure color negative film were made by Kodak in Rochester in the late 1990s for the real estate and other markets that needed short rolls for the application. They were sold 8 rolls to the carton. At the time they were popular. The spoolers in use at the time could be adjusted to make short rolls. We also made 120-6 for a large portrait shooter who had one sitting on a single short roll. Kodak was very accommodating as long as the volume was sufficent. I am accustom to large volume unlike today's market place.

Bob Shanebrook
www.makingKODAKfilm.com

 

[MCB18]

Thanks for the point of view Bob!

Yes, light piping is a concern. I do not sugar coat it like a lot of folks repacking the stuff do. It needs to stay in the dark at all times except when you load and unload the camera, and even then, quickly in dim light. I have seen so many folks complaining about “light leaks” with Rollei and all I can do is shake my head.

I also know processing is challenging, which is why I didn’t offer it originally. I kind of want to find one of the long roll spools to try it out just for fun, but I doubt I’ll find one. I may send it to Pittsburgh where I know they can do 15 ft rolls of 70mm (if I decide to do it at all).

Interestingly, I have found PET films to behave better than regular films I have shot in regards to curling. Sheets cut from near the center of a 5” roll that was about 12 years old dried almost perfectly flat, and the 220 roll film made from rolls of 70mm 2 years older than that have minimal, if any, curling. I would be curious to know what makes our experiences so different. Have the materials changed? Does Agfa do something different than Kodak? Might me an interesting question to answer.

 

[JParker]

Interestingly, I have found PET films to behave better than regular films I have shot in regards to curling. Sheets cut from near the center of a 5” roll that was about 12 years old dried almost perfectly flat, and the 220 roll film made from rolls of 70mm 2 years older than that have minimal, if any, curling. I would be curious to know what makes our experiences so different. Have the materials changed? Does Agfa do something different than Kodak? Might me an interesting question to answer.

Eastman Kodak is meanwhile also using PET / ESTAR for some of their 135 films, e.g. ColorPlus 200 and Portra 800.
PET can be produced at lower costs than triacetate, so there is an important incentive for film manufacturers to use PET.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Getting PET film to lay flat in a scanner or enlarger gate may not be possible.

My Foto 200 and 400 is curly and harder to handle when processing, but it lies flat in Plustek film carrier or slide mount. Plustek scans hyperfocally - so small curls don't matter really.

Interestingly, I have found PET films to behave better than regular films I have shot in regards to curling

Agreed: Adox HR50/Scala 50; Rollei RPX25, Retro 80S, Retro 400S, Superpan 200, IR 400 - all are Aviphot on thicker PET and behaves absolutely beautiful, dries absolutely flat. It's just the thinnest stuff that causes problems.

 

[nosmok]

I too am running out of desire to shoot even 36 exposures of 35mm film-- BUT I do like having a 6 x 4.5 mask for my 6x9 camera. 16 exposures is OK, especially at 3x the negative area of 35mm-- the best of both worlds.

 

[reddesert]

I don't do this much, but if you take mosaiced panoramas on film rotating the camera (using a panorama head such as the Nikon, or Rolleiflex), you start to go through film pretty quickly. A panorama may have from 3 to 10 or even more frames depending on the total angle covered, and the lens field of view.

Edit: relatedly, you can eat up film fast with the Lomo spinner panoramic camera (I think 4 equivalent frames per exposure) or a Spinshot (maybe 7 frames?) Of course, "owners of a Spinshot" might be the definition of a niche within a niche market.

 

[Cholentpot]

I don't do this much, but if you take mosaiced panoramas on film rotating the camera (using a panorama head such as the Nikon, or Rolleiflex), you start to go through film pretty quickly. A panorama may have from 3 to 10 or even more frames depending on the total angle covered, and the lens field of view.

Edit: relatedly, you can eat up film fast with the Lomo spinner panoramic camera (I think 4 equivalent frames per exposure) or a Spinshot (maybe 7 frames?) Of course, "owners of a Spinshot" might be the definition of a niche within a niche market.

But doesn't that sum up film photography these days? We're all a niche within a niche now.

 

[MCB18]

But doesn't that sum up film photography these days? We're all a niche within a niche now.

Then some of us are in a niche within a niche within a niche. Dead film format club unite!

 

[Cholentpot]

Then some of us are in a niche within a niche within a niche. Dead film format club unite!

127 and 126 shooters...UNTIE!

 

[ic-racer]

All ready for the 72 exposure film...

 

[ic-racer]

Special pressure plate for the thinner film.

 

[MCB18]

Found a 72 exposure roll on of eBay, so will definitely be making a couple 72 exposure rolls for myself just for fun. Maybe I’ll post some pics of the film drying and make some folks wonder if they’re loosing their minds lol

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Special pressure plate for the thinner film.

View attachment 378816

I distinctly remember Leitz offering a special back for their R4 camera to use 72 exposure film. I assume it had the different pressure plate. AGX and I looked for 1980s advertisements but could not find any. Did Leitz ever manufacture this back?

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Yes, 0.06mm film is fun

Is the Astrum film the same as Silberra U200 and U400?

That film is so Incredibly thin that u cut it after multiple attempts getting it in the reel.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

AGX

Haven't seen him here in a while, is he okay?

 

[xkaes]

72 exposure, rolls of 35mm.

Photographers use this every day. It's called a half-frame camera. There are over a dozen new half-frame cameras in the last year or two -- and there are COUNTLESS older half-frame cameras out there too, even SLRs. It's far from DEAD.

http://www.subclub.org/shop/halframe.htm

 

[ant!]

Photographers use this every day. It's called a half-frame camera. There are over a dozen new half-frame cameras in the last year or two -- and there are COUNTLESS older half-frame cameras out there too, even SLRs. It's far from DEAD.

http://www.subclub.org/shop/halframe.htm

And that's why I use in my Canon Demi EE17 only 24exp rolls (and when those are out of my freezer, probably bulk). Even 24exp x2 (which is mathematically incorrect more like 50ish) is way too long for me...