Anybody shooting 24 exp. rolls?

[Sirius Glass]

Tsk tsk, you of all people should know better. The correct size is 12 exposures (or possibly, 24 if you still have 220 around).

I was interested in 220 when it first came out in the 1960's. There was always a lack of choices for emulsions, only those for professional photographers, cost twice as much as a 120 roll to buy, process and print. It was never made practical got non professional photographers. DOA from the start.

 

[braxus]

I still have some 24 rolls. Partly because that was what I could get. I dont mind shooting 24, as sometimes trying to use a whole 36 roll is too much to shoot. 12 is just too short.

 

[chuckroast]

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

If you take a look at B&H, they show over 30 films available in 24exp. Some of them are the new no-name brands but both Kodak and Ilford are pretty much fully available in this length.

 

[MCB18]

Tsk tsk, you of all people should know better. The correct size is 12 exposures (or possibly, 24 if you still have 220 around).

Hi!

Also to answer the question, no. I like 36 shots in a roll. I am fortunate that film actually makes money for me, so I don’t feel too bad taking a bunch of pictures at a time. I just made a 72 exposure roll actually, I can’t wait to use that!

 

[abruzzi]

I was reorganizing today, and came across my Nikon FA which E100 loaded and 28 exposures taken. I sold all my 35mm film (except three bulk loaders) a couple years ago, so this camera has probably been waiting 2-3 years for me to finish the roll.

Give me 120, 6x9 any day of the week--8 shots is the perfect size for a day out.

 

[Don_ih]

I have about 20 or so rolls of HP5+ 36 exposures and three of them are sitting in cameras now - one since December, the other two since mid January .... I just remembered one of them is actually Ortho 80.... Anyway, it's taking forever to finish the rolls. I generally like to shoot all exposures on a roll and develop the same day. My regular bulk rolled roll is about 18 exposures.

 

[Steve Roberts]

I normally load film off a 100ft roll according to what I'm about to use it for, so typically about 12exp for test purposes and about 20 - 25 for normal use. It's not an exact science, as I don't use a film loader, just a guesstimate of the film length in the dark. Unless I'm "on a mission" 36exp hangs around in the camera for too long. Also, over the years I've wasted far too much time in the darkroom trying to squeeze a reluctant 36 exposures on to a tank reel when 25 goes on with no problem.
Steve

 

[Don_ih]

just a guesstimate of the film length in the dark

That's what it was originally. 36 exposures was the arm span of Oskar Barnack. (Well, probably with the film held away from him....)

 

[axestrata]

From a cost/value concern, 24 exposures would only make sense if I was developing the roll myself. But since I do not have a home setup, 36 exposures is more bang for my buck when paying a lab per roll.
Otherwise, 24 exposures per roll is ideal for the way I usually shoot 35mm.

 

[Sirius Glass]

From a cost/value concern, 24 exposures would only make sense if I was developing the roll myself. But since I do not have a home setup, 36 exposures is more bang for my buck when paying a lab per roll.
Otherwise, 24 exposures per roll is ideal for the way I usually shoot 35mm.

Welcome to Photrio!

While I can develop and print my 35mm color print film at home, it is more convenient and not very expensive to just send the film out for development and printing.

 

[ChrisGalway]

If you take a look at B&H, they show over 30 films available in 24exp. Some of them are the new no-name brands but both Kodak and Ilford are pretty much fully available in this length.

Yes, I see that but it seems different here in Yurp. FotoImpex (for example) list around 190 35mm film options (incl bulk reels) but <10 are for 24/27/15 exposures ... and the main Kodak and Ilford B&W films are not listed in 24 exp.

 

[snusmumriken]

Yes, I see that but it seems different here in Yurp. FotoImpex (for example) list around 190 35mm film options (incl bulk reels) but <10 are for 24/27/15 exposures ... and the main Kodak and Ilford B&W films are not listed in 24 exp.

If you go on the Ilford Photo website you'll find that all their popular options (FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100, Delta 400) are available in 24 exp as well as 36 exp.

 

[ChrisGalway]

If you go on the Ilford Photo website you'll find that all their popular options (FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100, Delta 400) are available in 24 exp as well as 36 exp.

"are available" ... in principle, but the main internet stores in the EU do not seem to stock them. FotoImpex is quite typical, nearly 200 35mm films listed but very few in 24 exp length. Of course you can find them if you look hard, but 36 exp lengths dominate hugely.

 

[Arcadia4]

B&W i find 24exp the perfect length in delta 400 or hp5 and have switched to shorter rolls for recent purchases, it avoids it staying too long in camera and as i develop at home, easier to get on the reel and no cost penalty, but shoot some 36exp too.

Colour i always shoot 36exp rolls due to the cost penalty for buying and developing 24exp and lack of choice, (no pro image or portra) but also as i use colour more when travelling.

 

[axestrata]

Welcome to Photrio!

While I can develop and print my 35mm color print film at home, it is more convenient and not very expensive to just send the film out for development and printing.

Yes, with regards to c-41 I agree. B&w i figure then is where the cost difference is worth considering.

 

[Agulliver]

I bulk roll the vast majority of my B&W films and make up cassettes for what I project I'll need. As low as 16 exposures for a gig where only a trio are playing and where I want to develop the film ASAP. 36 or up to 40 if I can, for travels or the 5 hour jam sessions I photograph.

For factory loaded cassettes, I prefer a mix of 24 and 36. Sometimes I don't finish a 36 exposure roll before I want to process it.

 

[AZPhoto]

I like to keep a roll or two of 24 exposures around just in case I have some project/idea that calls for fewer than 36 exposures. I know, I may be penny wise and pound foolish. Guilty as charged.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have not had a 20 or 24 exposure roll of film in my possession for decades. I rarely ever had a need for them. I would shoot 36 exposure rolls or 35mm rolls or 12 ewxposure 120 rolls.

 

[loccdor]

Today, I just finished off a 36-roll that had 20 full-frame shots taken on it with 40 more half-frame exposures. Ha!

 

[loccdor]

By the way, Delta 400 is on B&H currently for 36 exposures $14.69. The 24 exposures are $8.25. That's 56% of the price.

 

[P C Headland]

If the price is right, I prefer 24 exposures for B&W if only because 36 exposures is rather long when hanging to dry!

For colour I go for 36 exposure since the cost to develop is the same (being per film). and I don't have to worry about hanging it to dry.

 

[BMbikerider]

If I buy bulk rolls of B&W then yes because I can load whatever length I choose up to 36 exp. When bulk rolls of colour were available usually Agfa I used to load 'short' rolls then but when that stopped being sold I was stuck with 24 or 36 exp. If you use say part of a 36 exp roll and have to retrim what is left you will loose around 6-7 inches of film which is quite a chunk out of a full roll.

I do remember that Kodak used to make 12 exp rolls but the cost was way above 1/3rd of a full roll but I have not seen that for sale for perhaps 20 years.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If the price is right, I prefer 24 exposures for B&W if only because 36 exposures is rather long when hanging to dry!

For colour I go for 36 exposure since the cost to develop is the same (being per film). and I don't have to worry about hanging it to dry.

I avoid such problems by having two cameras available: one for color and one for black & white.