Tsk tsk, you of all people should know better. The correct size is 12 exposures (or possibly, 24 if you still have 220 around).
No. I would if more films were available in that size.
Hi!Tsk tsk, you of all people should know better. The correct size is 12 exposures (or possibly, 24 if you still have 220 around).
just a guesstimate of the film length in the dark
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?