Anybody shooting 24 exp. rolls?

[miha]

Just curious.

 

[ChrisGalway]

No. I would if more films were available in that size.

 

[Besk]

Given a choice, I would buy 24 exposure rolls in color - but haven't shot color film in several years.

Being a mostly a 4x5 photographer, it is hard for me to shoot 36 exposures on 35mm film before developing.

I shoot b&w Rollei Superpan 200 mostly and develop the film myself. The Superpan only comes in 36 exp. rolls.

I am now hand loading enough for 15 exposures from a cartridge and leaving enough on the roll for another 15.
Sounds wasteful but now I don't waste frames just to finish a roll.

 

[Film-Niko]

No, I don't.
I generally prefer 36exp. rolls.

If there is a project I know I need only 15 - 24 shots, then I either use my Mamiya 645 Pro TL, or my "rare occasions" 35mm SLR: I have one SLR reserved for that, which I only use for situations in which I need some shots.
Generally after 6-8 months the 36exp. film in that camera is full and will be developed.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Yes. I've never been a big film burner and have always preferred short rolls - I shot 20-loads back before they became 24s.

When we did bulk loading of TX at my folks' studio in the 60s/70s, it was never with more than 15 or 20 shots.

Shorter rolls are also easier to load onto developing reels - sometimes MUCH easier.

These days, I do more than half of my shooting with Olympus Pen F and Pen S half-frames... and typically get 55 shots on a 24-exp roll. That can take me weeks/months to finish off!

 

[koraks]

Generally not; no clear benefit to it in my use case and it's a little less efficient. I bulk roll virtually all of the 35mm film I use.

 

[mtnbkr]

Not while getting color film commercially developed. The costs are the same for 24exp and 36exp. However, when I finish up the last of my commercially rolled B&W film and start rolling my own from bulk, I'll roll shorter lengths since I develop B&W at home.

Chris

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I do both. I like to carry some 24-exposure rolls of Delta 100 and 400, FP4+ and HP5+ for days when I know I'm just going to shoot one thing, or a few things in the same type of light, and I want to develop it quickly. I prefer the 24 rather than have a 36-exposure roll sit in the camera until I find the time to finish it. I don't mind once in a while wasting 3 or 4 frames in a 24-exposure roll, but I won't waste 15 in the 36-exposure roll.

Only 36-exposure rolls when travelling.

I develop in Thornton two bath, so when I do a batch of 24-exposure rolls I know I'm somewhat prolonging the life of my developer.

Moreover, in Montreal, there's a 7$ difference between the 24- and 36-exposure rolls of Delta 100, so I'm happy they're still around.

Last, but least important thing is that when you shoot all 36 frames, it won't fit in a 7-row / 5 frame per row PrintFile .

 

[brian steinberger]

Last, but least important thing is that when you shoot all 36 frames, it won't fit in a 7-row / 5 frame per row PrintFile .

For this reason I waste a shot or two (depends on camera) when I load so I end up with 35 frames. I prefer the 7 rows of 5 pages since they fit perfectly on 8x10 for contact sheets.

 

[Tel]

For this reason I waste a shot or two (depends on camera) when I load so I end up with 35 frames. I prefer the 7 rows of 5 pages since they fit perfectly on 8x10 for contact sheets.

This reason plus the “what’ll I do with these extra frames?” problem noted above led me to celebrate when I saw that Ultrafine is selling its UXF 100 film again and that it comes in 24 exposure rolls. For me, a win-win.

 

[chuckroast]

Just curious.

That's all I shoot in 35mm monochrome. More and more, I find myself bulk loading 12 exp rolls.

 

[Alan9940]

Since I bulk load, I many times have shorter than 36 exposure rolls available to me depending on my anticipated needs. I shoot 20's all the time in my Retina IIa. I'll do 5 or 10 exposures, if I'm just playing around with something or testing.

 

[ic-racer]

I prefer 72, but recently have been testing cameras and film with 24 exposure loads. That gives me 12 to test the camera and a bland strip of 6 for a sensitometer exposure; so about 18 exposures. So I can put two rolls in a 36 exposure PrintFile sheet.

 

[BrianShaw]

Whenever circumstances dictate that shooting fewer frames is highly likely, which is more often than not these days. For me there’s notting more painful than having to “waste film”, either by shooting extraneous images or not shooting more when more could be shot, just to get it out of my camera and into processing.

 

[Rich Mulvey]

I always roll 20 frames unless I'm doing something like going on vacation.

 

[Don_ih]

I like shorter rolls but always buy 36-exposure rolls because it's a bit more economical. I figure all those manufacturers could save money by eliminating the 24 exposure rolls altogether.

 

[BrianShaw]

Eliminating one or the other…

 

[abruzzi]

I sold off all my prerolled 35mm film, and 99% of them were 36 exposure because thats mostly all anyone sells anymore. However I still have 3 bulk loaders --TriX, Foma 100, and PanF+. I usually roll somewhere between 15 and 20 frames. I HATE 36 exposure rolls because they end up stuck in the camera for 9 months waiting for an opportunity to finish the roll. For when I want to take a lot of shots these days, I use 120 film and 6x4.5, so I get 15 or 16 shots--kind of perfect.

 

[chuckroast]

I sold off all my prerolled 35mm film, and 99% of them were 36 exposure because thats mostly all anyone sells anymore. However I still have 3 bulk loaders --TriX, Foma 100, and PanF+. I usually roll somewhere between 15 and 20 frames. I HATE 36 exposure rolls because they end up stuck in the camera for 9 months waiting for an opportunity to finish the roll. For when I want to take a lot of shots these days, I use 120 film and 6x4.5, so I get 15 or 16 shots--kind of perfect.

I have the same problem, but I won't wait. So I end up processing a few days' shooting with only half the roll exposed if I use 36X. I find 12X is a more natural unit of measure that matches my shooting style. Coincidentally, it is exactly what I get from a Hasselblad roll and close to the 16X I get from 645, both of which are good multiples for a day or two of shooting.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rarely even when available in 20 or 24 exposure rolls. And the other question about 72 exposure rolls, there were problems in the 1960's with scratching but now many cameras will rewind at 36 exposures, nullifying the discussion.

 

[Don_ih]

At least with most cameras, you can bring it into the dark and cut off and develop the exposed film, leaving the unexposed on the spool. I often do that (also find it necessary when I've forgotten what film is in the camera).

 

[loccdor]

There is a benefit to non-DX-coded 24 exp rolls in cameras with a 36 exposure hard cap: you can usually get 27-30 shots on them so the price per shot is less than buying a 36 roll. I'm thinking of some cameras in the Canon EOS series.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I always select 24 frame rolls for black and white purposes. It spools a lot easier onto the developing reel, and is a more convenient quantity per project. I'm only an intermittent 35mm shooter.

 

[Don_ih]

you can usually get 27-30 shots on them so the price per shot is less than buying a 36 roll

Is it, though?

Kentmere 400 at B&H is 7.49 for 36 and 6.79 for 24. So you get 50% more film for 70 cents more.,

 

[mshchem]

Oh how I wish I could have good old 20 exposure rolls.