Why 24 or 36 exposures per roll of 35mm?

[film_guy]

Why do 35mm film rolls come in 24 or 36 exposures? I've seen some rollls of 12 exposures, but majority is 24/36. Is there some historical significance to this? I would think putting a roll of 42 or 50 exposures in a roll would be much better on the environment since there'll be less packaging used per roll. And each roll would last longer in the field too, especially in locations which film is hard to obtain.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

They used to be 20 exposures as well, and it changed to 24 at some stage.
I think it's a mix of convenience and design constraints, you can only fit so many exposures inside a cartridge, and 24 or 32 exposures make it manageable to take photos and change film when you need to. If you have 50 exposures a roll and you change subject matter and you need a faster emulsion, you may be throwing away 20 exposures so you can change film.
That's my take on it, but someone else may have some more historically logical input.

 

[Ole]

36 exposures plus leader is about the most that will fit in the cartridge. With a short leader you may be able to fit 40, but that won't work with all cameras.

 

[Andy K]

I think you would find a 42 or 50 frame roll too many frames. I even find 36 frames too many and tend to load a maximum of 20 frames these days. Bulk loading is easier on the environment than buying rolls.

If I am going somewhere away from a film supply I take at least twice the amount of film I think I will actually require. I take it in the form of a couple of bulk loaders and a hundred or so cassettes. Better to carry too much and bring it back unexposed than not enough.

 

[Woolliscroft]

36 exposures plus leader is about the most that will fit in the cartridge. With a short leader you may be able to fit 40, but that won't work with all cameras.

You can make 40 exp films with a bulk loader, but beyond that the cassette is so full you risk scratching the film. Ilford used to make 72 exp films on a special thin base, but they curled like crazy, had depth of focus issues and were a pig to process and dry. I guess 36 is three dozen and so a multiple on the average 12 on 120 of roll film cameras when Leica developed 35mm as a still format.

David.

 

[MattKing]

It was a fairly major change when slide film went from 20 to 24 exposures - a significant amount of my Kodachrome experience was with 20 exposure rolls.

Of course, if you really wanted more pictures per roll than, you could always buy an Olympus Pen, and work with half frame (up to 72 exposures per roll). Your photofinisher would not, however, be particularly happy about it.

Matt

 

[Steve Roberts]

I think you would find a 42 or 50 frame roll too many frames. I even find 36 frames too many and tend to load a maximum of 20 frames these days. Bulk loading is easier on the environment than buying rolls.

Like Andy, for more serious B/W work I find 24 exp ideal as with the kind of subject matter I prefer I'd be unlikely to take more than about that number at one location. However, for colour slides I'd usually go for 36 exp, as 24s become proportionally much more expensive per frame and I'd live with leaving a film in the camera until it was finished at a later session.

There's also the issue of developing more than 36 exps. My reels will take 40 at a stretch, but are there reels for more (other than cine) ?

Steve

 

[ann]

years ago, ilford came out with a 72 exposure roll. THe base was very thin and a bit tricky to work with, but great for sports work.

However, it didn't last long as the commerical folks had difficulties with the thin base and the machines (or so i was told).

except for the curling issues i love the stuff lol


I recently sold the tanks used to hold that length of film, which was a surprise, but then one never knows what will happen on ebay

 

[copake_ham]

As I do not bulk load - my preferences in the past were for 36exp. because of the better price/exposure ratio.

But I'm more and more desiring to shoot 24exp. rolls because I find that as I get older - I take more time and make fewer shots (I like to think this is maturity - but perhaps in only senility ).

The other day I grabbed a "four pack plus" of some Fuji Superia from the checkout rack at Target. It had four rolls of 24exp. with a "bonus" roll of 36exp.

While it's only "consumer" grade" at $7.77 for the pack I thought it was a good deal and a good way to get some 24exp. (albeit, color) film.

 

[rwyoung]

The shorter 12-ish exposure rolls were commonly refered to as "reporter rolls". They could be used one per assignment. I can remember seeing some Kodacolor and definately Tri-x labled as such. Also seen a few short rolls labeled for "law enforcement use".

 

[Lee L]

The other problem with greater than 36 exposures, especially for working photographers with the Ilford 72 frame film, is the camera's frame counter. At a glance you can tell that you have somewhere between zero and 34 exposures left. Is it time to change film while things are slow? I seem to recall that at least one body came out during that time with a much larger frame count, but can't recall which.

Lee

 

[Roger Hicks]

The original Leica prototype was darkroom loaded and took (IIRC) 50 frames. When they introduced cassettes, the most they could conveniently get in was 36.

Initially there were 18-exposure half-rolls, but these were lengthened to 20 as a marketing ploy (much as 120 went from 6 to 8 frames) and then to 24-exposure maybe 20 years ago. This left no short rolls so the 12-roll was brought out...

There's more detail in my A History of the 35mm Still Camera (Focal Press c. 1984) but that's basically it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

The original Leica prototype was darkroom loaded and took (IIRC) 50 frames. When they introduced cassettes, the most they could conveniently get in was 36.

Initially there were 18-exposure half-rolls, but these were lengthened to 20 as a marketing ploy (much as 120 went from 6 to 8 frames) and then to 24-exposure maybe 20 years ago. This left no short rolls so the 12-roll was brought out...

There's more detail in my A History of the 35mm Still Camera (Focal Press c. 1984) but that's basically it.

Cheers,

R.

Didn`t Ilford once introduce a 72 exposure roll of their HP5 film?
This I believe, wasn`t particularly successful and was soon discontinued.

 

[film_guy]

I guess the size of the cassette would limit the number of exposures. It's just that I see photojournalists/documentary photographers in countries where there's no electricity/computer access having more convenience shooting with longer rolls than 36 exposures.

 

[3Dfan]

I remember seeing Kodak 72 exp. rolls at the grocery store many years ago.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

My Spotmatic F has reminders for 20exp and 36exp rolls.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Didn`t Ilford once introduce a 72 exposure roll of their HP5 film?
This I believe, wasn`t particularly successful and was soon discontinued.

I didn`t see the previous post by Lee L. (Sorry).

 

[Paul Howell]

My Spotmatic F has reminders for 20exp and 36exp rolls.

the frame count was changed in the late 70s, I never figured out why 24 rather than 20, I thought (this is what I get for thinking) at the time that 20 and 40 would have more sense. I have still have 20 frame SS reels.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I remember seeing Kodak 72 exp. rolls at the grocery store many years ago.

I think you may be misremembering.

Yes, 72 frames are possible with a thin polyester base, as Ilford illustrated, but I don't think Kodak ever did it. Can PE enlighten us?

Cheers,

R.

 

[bob100684]

kodak sells multipacks with the total number of exposures in the pack on the label, so seeing 72 or 96 exposures is possible.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder why it is still possible to get cassettes of Fuji Superia in 12 frame cassettes? 7 dayshop in the Channel Islands often stock it but I don't think I have ever seen it in Kodak colour or in any make of B&W film.

For those with one camera and looking to change from B&W to colour on one day's shooting at one site or those trying to shoot all frames in one set of light conditions, I can see 12 frame cassettes in B&W being useful.

A bit like the usefulness of paper at 5 x 7.5 inches but I've been down there already.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I wonder why it is still possible to get cassettes of Fuji Superia in 12 frame cassettes? 7 dayshop in the Channel Islands often stock it but I don't think I have ever seen it in Kodak colour or in any make of B&W film.

That way, those guys who used to have three Christmases on the same roll can finish the roll right after New Year's and see the prints right away.

 

[eddym]

Speaking of bulk roll loading of cassettes... anybody remember bulk load backs for cameras? Weren't they something like 500 exposures?
I remember once when I was shooting runners back in the late 70's, I was at a race and saw another photographer shooting a Nikon F2 with motordrive and a 135mm f2 lens. I wonder now how long he could hold that thing up to shoot...?
Me, I was shooting a nice lightweight: Pentax MX with winder and 85mm f2. It was tiny in comparision with the Nikon!

 

[ann]

HP5 at one time came in 12 exposure rolls.

and lee, yes, with regard to the 72 exposure rolls, it was a bit of a lottery to know when one was nearing the end of the roll as the camera stop counting at 36.

if i remember correctly i just let the camera warn me, as it would stop advancing the film.

 

[removed account4]

from what i remember people in the real estate business used to use the 12 exposure rolls as well.

i still get/use 48 and 72 exposure rolls of all my favorite 35mm film, but i have to load my pen F

-john