View Full Version : Why you prefer: 24 exp. or 36 exp.
Do you prefer 24 exposure rolls of film or 36 exposure rolls of film? Why?
The first choice is a typo:It should have read:
"I do not prefer either over the other."
Raid
nikon_sam
07-17-2007, 18:36
I don't have a problem keeping film in the camera for too long and prefer to have the longer of the two in there...Plus, where I buy my film the 36 ex. rolls are cheaper...
Raid-
I shoot slowly and just hate leaving a half finished roll in the camera for weeks. So I used to favor the shorter rolls, but then realized it is pretty easy to develop the first half of the roll, cut a new leader, and finish the rest later.
So the long rolls make more sense to me now.
Andrew Sowerby
07-17-2007, 18:42
I prefer 24 -- finish the roll quicker and see what's on it!
ChrisPlatt
07-17-2007, 18:43
24 exposure rolls are easier to load on developing tank reels,
and easier to handle after processing.
I always end up dragging my 36 exposure rolls on the floor...
Chris
bibimbap
07-17-2007, 18:53
For color film, my lab charges the same price to develop 24 or 36... and after scanning the film, I hate to put just 24 frames into those clear plastic pages that are designed for 36. So unless it's some kind of emergency, I've banned 24 exposure rolls from my photography.
Steve
I just hate 24 exposure rolls. I had three of those this evening with me, and I needed more frames.
SolaresLarrave
07-17-2007, 19:03
I'm too used to 36 exposure rolls because I shoot mostly slide film. Those rolls are rarely found in 24-exposures size.
However, I came into possession of some 24-exposures Sensia ISO 400, and must admit I hate it. The relatively measly savings in developing get eaten up by the shipping charges to the lab (which are the same whether you send long or short rolls), so I am working towards finishing that batch and get me some good, ole fashioned Ektachrome ISO 400 instead.
mervynyan
07-17-2007, 19:09
it is about the cost per exposure, whatever is the cheapest of the films I like.
back alley
07-17-2007, 19:37
24 exposure rolls are easier to load on developing tank reels,
and easier to handle after processing.
I always end up dragging my 36 exposure rolls on the floor...
Chris
totally ditto
It is a little cheaper to buy 36 shots, but it seems like 36 is stuck in the camera forever while 24 is about good for a day and also 4x6 is a one shot scan. This is a theoretical advantage because I always seem to get 25 or 26 per roll.
Prefer 36 due to fewer roll changes in camera, and due to greater yield per developing session.
24 exp. are easier to process on SS reels. I bulk load my b&w and usually roll up about 29 exposures. Also, my negative sleeves are 5 frames wide by 7 strips. They fit in a standard binder, so "24 exp." rolls fit, but my scanner holds 6 frames. :bang: However, with color I really don't care.
:)
When shooting film I tend to make every shot count...which means I shoot less than with digital...and since mostly I'm changing location and lighting so often, a 36 roll is a pain. 24 exp works well - allows me to take a bunch of shots but then be able to change rolls to something else (higher or lower ISO) without wastage. When I bulk roll, I tend to put 22 frames on the roll for this very reason.
rogue_designer
07-17-2007, 20:25
I can sometimes shoot pretty quickly when following something on the street... so I like having fewer roll changes.
36 for me.
I will say tho, the convenience of processing 24 is nice... maybe I'll start rolling my own 30's to split the difference.
Robert Price
07-17-2007, 20:41
24 exp for me. I sometimes change rolls before they are done.
24 because of the faster turnaround of the pictures I take.
In general I take a week to complete 24 exposures. And that's the point where I'm getting so curious about what's captured on film that I hand it in for P&P, even if there are frames on film left..
Sometimes one, sometimes the other. When I rolled my own, I would have several "odd" lengths.
sienarot
07-17-2007, 23:31
36 for me (actually, 35 so I don't ever have to feel I need to "sacrifice" a frame to fit them into my archival sleeves).
I used to prefer 24 so I could see my results quicker, but I found that if I'm in a rush to see the pictures then I'm likely in a rush to finish the roll. If I'm in a rush to finish the roll then my effort wasn't put into getting the shot(s) but to simply to be sloppy and careless so I could be done with it. If I want to see my results quicker, I'm told they make cameras with LCDs for that now. Personally, if I find I'm "in the zone" while I'm out shooting, I tend to get really motivated and I'm done the 36 frames before I realize it. (I've actually had a roll that took me about 6 months to finish! First half of the roll was all winter photographs, second half was late summer!)
Processing a 24 shot roll costs the same as a 36 shot roll, so that's taken into consideration.
If you're in mid-roll when you want to switch films, that's what film picks are for. (Or GAS ;) )
Of course, that's not to say I have anything against 24exp rolls. Sometimes that's all the store has in stock. I'd rather 24 than nothing!
toyotadesigner
07-17-2007, 23:46
36 exposures. Because Fuji Provia 100F doesn't come in 24. And even if so, it would be only a few cents cheaper, while the costs for the E-6 development would remain identical. If I'm working for a time critical project I don't mind to remove a film after 9 or 12 exposures.
MF 8 exposures because I've never managed to turn the pressure plate in my camera :D
burninfilm
07-17-2007, 23:47
Well, I buy whatever length the local film supplier has in stock!
Not to be a pain Raid, but what's the point of your question? Just curious, as I don't really see what can be learned from this post? I like a good educational question as much as the next guy or gal. Unfortunately, like many questions that get asked here, you're only gonna hear a bunch of people's personal opinions. In other words, nothing really useful for anyone reading this post.
For instance, I have no problem handling a 36 exposure roll of film after development. But then again, I'm 6 feet tall. Someone much shorter might have a difficult time with this. Also, I know exactly where a 36 exposure roll ends when wound onto a stainless Nikor reel. This makes it easy to know if the roll isn't on the reel very well. Hard to know this with a 24 exposure roll. Now, maybe the next guy/gal uses plastic reels? This is now a useless piece of information!
c.poulton
07-18-2007, 00:16
36 because it works out cheaper to buy. The downside is that I invariably leave half rools of unexposed film in the cameras and forget what film is in there.....
Chris101
07-18-2007, 00:53
24 but I really should have said either. I prefer 24 for the afore mentioned reasons - stainless developing tanks, less chance of getting stuff on it while wet, and I prefer to get it out to see what's on it quicker.
However if I am in a situation where I know I will be shooting 26 or more frames, or if the time to change film will be an issue, then I go for the longer roll.
I tend to load a shorter rolls 24 or less, because I'm slow shooter... and never know what kind of light can catch me during the day. Usually when I'm out to shoot that one roll is enough for the day.
I don't rush with developing (nor do I go to extreme like Winogrand :) ) ... I wait till the time comes, unless there is need for fast results! :D
n*
Iīve always felt cheated when using rolls of 24 exp - like; the end ALREADY? Stupid, of course. I seem to remember Ilford developed an extra thin film base many years ago that would allow 72 shots a roll (for motor cameras, I guess). That seemed to me a good idea at the time. Today I get 60 RAWs from a !GB card ... and stick to 36 in the more analogue world.
leif e
mattmills
07-18-2007, 02:44
36, because there's no such thing as too much film, and because I never have a problem just having a sheet of "tails" after I do a run in my 8 reel dev. can. Shooting more is almost always better. More options when editing, if nothing else.
ijohnnyz
07-18-2007, 02:51
I don't carry a bag, just the camera around my neck and as many 36exp rolls i can comfortably fit in my pockets.
I certainly prefer 2Gb cards over 1Gb cards due to the storage space. Oops. Wrong thread.
I've been using 36 recently, but I prefer 24. It's cheaper and it has less frames. I don't take that many photos, so 36 is more than enough for a day (usually too many.) For example I walked home today - a 2+ hour walk- and I still have 10+ frames left on a 36 roll film.
Weather conditions change here quickly sometimes, and I find myself with B&W film when I want reversal instead or vica versa.
One of my reasons for going to medium format was to have less frames. One of my favorite cameras is my Agfa Billy-Compur: 8 frames per roll. No wasted shots there.
350D_user
07-18-2007, 03:24
Some films, Agfapan for instance, you'll buy whatever's there. 24exp is preferable, but I'll settle for 36 if necessary.
And having just taken the first roll of 24 out of the Kiev 4, that camera's not having anything more than 24! Damn, that rewind knob's sharp. :(
Richard Black
07-18-2007, 04:37
24 shots for around town, and particularly of my grandsons, 36 shots on vacation, fewer roll changes.
Well, when I shoot 35mm, I prefer getting 21 frames before I need to change film so I use 36 film - 14 frames for a 24 roll does not seem worth it. In medium format, I would like to use 220, but some of my cameras can only take 120 and so I stick to the shorter rolls so I don't have to worry about having enough of each length and it make film changing easier.
In MF film it's definitely 120 not 220, just for ease in loading the film reels.
I can do either, sometimes I end up wanting to change before 36 are up, but if I am processing the roll myself, I prefer 36. I don't mind not shooting a full 36 if I am doing my own processing, not a lot of money wasted.
I use 36-exposure rolls because they're too short but not as too short as 24-exposure rolls
ibcrewin
07-18-2007, 07:23
Generally, I prefer a roll of 36. But.. When I get antsy, like I just got a new lens or something then I'll go for a roll of 24. What really stinks, is when you have a good feeling about a roll and you are at frame 24 on a roll of 36. Then the last 12 shots are usually rushed just to see what's on the first 24.
They used to do 12 and 20.
The Ilford 72 needed a special tank...
Noel
They used to do 12 and 20.
The Ilford 72 needed a special tank...
Noel
I still have one of those rolls! If you put a 72 exp. roll in a half-frame camera, you get 145-148 frames in.
dazedgonebye
07-18-2007, 08:29
I'm impatient, so I'd like to use 24 exposure rolls. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little I like to shoot available in a short roll.
BW400CN being an nice exception.
sepiareverb
07-18-2007, 11:21
Prefer 36 due to fewer roll changes in camera, and due to greater yield per developing session.
Well said Frank! That greater yield per developing session is a nice bonus, especially when you're back from a trip. Just spent three days running films, would have been five with 24exp rolls.
I sometimes wish they came 45 exp, as I'm often just settling in to a groove when the roll gives out.
ErnestoJL
07-18-2007, 11:28
Definitely 36.
Itīs cheaper than 12 or 24 exp. rolls and I allways hated carrying too many 135 cassetes in my pocket. Besides I do not want to "save film" loosing the chance of getting a nice picture.
Cheers
Ernesto
toyotadesigner
07-18-2007, 13:11
I sometimes wish they came 45 exp
The Robot gets 50 exposures out of a 36 exposure film because of the square format 24x24 mm.
schrackman
07-18-2007, 13:40
I prefer 24 -- finish the roll quicker and see what's on it!
That's my thinking!! lol
Ray
Max Power
07-18-2007, 14:17
Neither:D
Bulk roll my own for 30 exp.
36 is better than 24. Even better is 150, 300 or 1000!
Digital-Didier
principe azul
07-18-2007, 15:23
36.
Cheaper, more efficient to process, and 24's not available for Provia etc.
Something not yet pointed out is that it's more environmentally friendly.
And 24 gives me palpitations. Ran out of Tri-X one day, and Jessops sold me a 24 by mistake. Didn't notice, and when the Leica gave out strange grinding noises on frame 25... :eek:
oftheherd
07-18-2007, 15:50
Well currently I prefer 24 because I don't take as many photos as I used to. I don't have to wait as long to get them developed. In days past when I used to take more photos, I preferred the 36 exposure rolls over the 20 exposure (remember those?).
EDIT: Oh, I see somebody already mentioned that. I remember coming back from a trip through Japan, where I picked up a 24 exposure roll. It caused quite a stir when I took it to my local camera store for processing. I had totally forgotten 72 exposure rolls, never having used one.
ChrisPlatt
07-18-2007, 16:10
Well, I buy whatever length the local film supplier has in stock!
Not to be a pain Raid, but what's the point of your question? Just curious, as I don't really see what can be learned from this post? I like a good educational question as much as the next guy or gal. Unfortunately, like many questions that get asked here, you're only gonna hear a bunch of people's personal opinions. In other words, nothing really useful for anyone reading this post.
Raid's post needs no defense, but in my opinion taps into an important question:
What type of photographer are you?
Do you expose lots of frames to be sure you get the shot?
Or are you the type that carefully plans each and every shot?
I attended a photo workshop given by an interesting fellow named Johann Schumacher.
He's a graphic designer by trade and an excellent photographer.
He was brought up and learned photography in Germany right after the war.
As he explains it people were poor and film scarce; that's why he is frugal with film to this day.
http://www.johannschumacherdesign.com/photohome.html
Chris
BTW many of the photos there were taken at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in Queens,
a special place I have been visiting for 40 years, and full of compelling images...
ChrisPlatt
07-18-2007, 16:27
I have no problem handling a 36 exposure roll of film after development. But then again, I'm 6 feet tall. Someone much shorter might have a difficult time with this. Also, I know exactly where a 36 exposure roll ends when wound onto a stainless Nikor reel. This makes it easy to know if the roll isn't on the reel very well. Hard to know this with a 24 exposure roll. Now, maybe the next guy/gal uses plastic reels? This is now a useless piece of information!
Not to someone whose film has buckled loading on the reel,
or who has stepped on their wet negatives...
Chris
back alley
07-18-2007, 17:03
as to the point of this question...i dread the day that we come here strickly for educational purposes.
i for one know what i need to know when it comes to my gear/film etc. but i like being here among others who are in the same situation. sure i like to learn but i also like to have a good time, enjoy myself and see what others around the world are up to.
not everything has to have a point.
jmho
Raid's post needs no defense, but in my opinion taps into an important question:
What type of photographer are you?
Do you expose lots of frames to be sure you get the shot?
Or are you the type that carefully plans each and every shot?
I attended a photo workshop given by an interesting fellow named Johann Schumacher.
He's a graphic designer by trade and an excellent photographer.
He was brought up and learned photography in Germany right after the war.
As he explains it people were poor and film scarce; that's why he is frugal with film to this day.
http://www.johannschumacherdesign.com/photohome.html
Chris
BTW many of the photos there were taken at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in Queens,
a special place I have been visiting for 40 years, and full of compelling images...
At first I thought the question was kind of pointless but after reading some of the responses I realized that the choice was indicative of peoples' different approaches and working methods and found some of the responses interesting.
For me the choice boils down to economy. If I buy a roll of Astia or whatever for $4 or $5 bucks, have it processed at the local lab for $5 (unmounted) I can keep the cost per roll pretty reasonable.
If I'm antsy to get the film back because I think I got some nice shots it usually means I had no problem shooting all 36 exposures. If the roll spends a few days in the camera its generally because I haven't found anything to shoot that I'm particularly excited about and so don't mind waiting.
I only buy 24 exposure rolls if they are special deals; else I buy 36 exposure rolls. When traveling, carrying 36 exposure rolls will reduce the load 33% compared to 24 exposure rolls. Some photo labs charge the same for developing and scanning of 24 and 36 rolls. This is a saving again (of 33% per frame).
Is that exactly 33% Raid, or did you round off? ;)
Frank,
It's 1/3=0.3333333333333333333333333333333333333.
I rounded off! You caught me.
Raid
24, simply because I hate the rewind of a Bessa.
burninfilm
07-18-2007, 22:49
As I said before, I wasn't trying to irritate this thread, I was genuinely curious about why he would ask. I guess the choice between 24 and 36 exposures seems extraordinarily trivial to me. In fact, everything I've read so far boils down to simple common sense. Yes, 24 exposures means you'll go through the roll faster. Yes, 36 exposures means you'll get slightly better film economy and more shots each time you develop the roll. Yes, 24 exposure rolls are shorter than 36 exposure rolls. Yes, you can carry fewer 36 exposure rolls to get the same number of shots as a greater number of 24 exposure rolls.
Again, I say, why ask a question with obvious answers?;)
Why not ask if someone prefers red soft releases vs. blue soft releases, and how the personality of the photographer is incorportated into that choice? What part of their shooting style affects that choice? Does the red release inspire courage and intellect into their photographic regimen? Or does the blue release provide a cool sense of calculation for their creative endeavors? Is this an equally valid question? LOL!:p
matt fury
07-19-2007, 00:09
I prefer 36exp mostly for the cost-related reasons. Having to pay for 1/3rd more rolls to be developed, or even if I was still doing it myself, doing that many more rolls is not cool!
I prefer 36 as it gives you an additional 12 exposures in a pinch - plus all the film makers have stopped making 36 exp in consumer grade.... you have to go to a specialty store (lab) and pay higher prices...
burninfilm: Don't take everything too seriously. Why did I ask the question here? It has to do with having enough frames when suddenly an occasion occurs where having a few extra frames would make a huge difference.
One of the most asked questions here is what equipment to take on a trip. People will give you different opinions.Yes, they are personal "opinions", and this is fine with me. If you don't want any interaction but want strictly to learn, go out and take more photos.
Cheers,
Raid
Pherdinand
07-19-2007, 07:38
For shooting around daily, 24 is better suited.
If i go swhere and expect to take many shots, i definitely prefer 36.
I just wish 36 existed in 120-format (and was loadable into a 70 y old rolleiflex), i'd never carry any other camera :D
sepiareverb
07-19-2007, 08:13
36 is better than 24. Even better is 150, 300 or 1000!
Digital-Didier
I always saw those big backs for the Nikon F3 or the Pentax LX in the back of the instruction book as an accessory- anybody ever actually use one of those? 250 exposure backs or something? I've never even seen one in person.
Marc Jutras
07-19-2007, 09:05
36 exp for me. The cost at the lab is the same for 24 and 36 exp rolls (process and scan, no prints). With my workflow, a roll rarely stays in the camera for more than an hour.
12 exposure rolls are still around if you look. Walgreens often has ISO 100 in 12 exp.
For me I answered no preference since it depends on what I am shooting and what is in stock.
I did use lots of the old 20 exposure rolls. It seemed to be more of a real difference then.
I'm with CVBR3M and Max Power on rolling your own: I seem to find 30 shots a happy medium, but maybe only because I don't feel I'm wasting a lot of money if I end the roll early. For store-bought rolls I've usually got a mix of 24's and 36's just because that's what's available, but I'm not much of a "street shooter." After 8 to 16 shots per roll on 120 film, sometimes even a 24-shot roll seems to go on forever.
I really like the 12-shot rolls of Fuji Superia I got from David Murphy for quick lens / RF tests, though at ASA 800 I need a neutral density filter for my usual wide-open lens tests outdoors. I'll have to check Walgreens here for those 12-shot ASA 100 rolls.
When I roll my own film I roll 38-40 frames into a film cartridge.
shadowfox
07-23-2007, 10:13
It's easy:
24 - rolls for testing cameras/lenses/whathaveyou
36 - rolls for events/outings/travel/whathaveyou
I've been toying with the idea of bulk-film for economy and consistency, anybody have a pointer to "bulk-film-loading for dummies"?
I used to do a lot of bulk loading in the past.
I have used the following items:
1. Changing bag. It is very useful.
2. Bulk film loader; I use a Watson model.
3. Small screw driver to open the cartidges.
4. Masking tape to attach film to take-up spool.
5. Labels for the film catridges.
6. Empty plastic film containers.
The reloadbale film cartridges are getting pricier. See www.freestylephoto.com.
I have tried to use regular film cannisters, but they are difficult to open and close again.
Good luck.
Raid
I really do not like 24, I always run out just as I need one or two more frames. This is not so bad with an SLR but with a Leica it can really suck. I still have not mastered running and loading the M just yet :)
narsuitus
07-25-2007, 08:54
When I shoot with an 8-shot 6x9cm 120-film rangefinder, I long for 24-exposure film.
When I shoot with a 35mm rangefinder, if given a choice between 24 or 36, I choose the 36 exposure film length.
When I roll my own, I put 30 exposures in a cassette.
The only time I buy 24 exposure rolls is when it is the only length available or the sale price is so low that I cannot resist.
I'm often a slow shooter of film and a roll of 36 sometimes gets stuck inside my camera for weeks, especially now that I also shoot a lot of digital. I've started to prefer short loads -- I can usually run through a 24exp roll on one of my morning walks.
Gene
I am shooting a lot of 24 exposure film these days simply because there was a great sale on excellent film in 24 exposures. For my upcoming trip, I will have only 36 exp. rolls of film. It cuts film weight and bulk by 1/3.
xayraa33
09-22-2007, 07:51
Ilford at one time in the past offered 72 exposure film in 35mm cassettes.
I still have one such roll in the freezer! With a half-frame camera,you get about 148 frames in.
i usually roll my films so i can shoot about 24-30 for casual shooting. 36 only if im out travelling. :)
i use to buy loose rolls buy found out that bulk loading is much better, you get to roll the amount of frames you want and you also save some amount when you buy bulk.
i load my rolls, so i always put around 20-25 frames, because i am very slow shooter - i usually take only 2-3 shots per one walk with camera. often i dont shoot anything - just enjoy and watch around :D
24 matches my usual sporadic shooting style (shoot about 24 pictures, then a gap of days or weeks before I shoot again).
36 matches my traveling shooting style (lots of pictures daily).
Depending on what has been available locally and at what price, I may have 36 exp. commercially loaded film or bulk-rolled cassettes. If needing less than 36, for a camera test or something like that, and I don't have a short length of bulk-rolled handy I use a changing-bag to chop a commercial 36 length in two pieces and put the spare bit in a bulk-roll cassette. Developing your own film gives flexibility overall !
If you don't develop your own film, then your options and preferences most likely will be different.
For preloaded I prefer 24. that's about what I'd shoot in a day out for a walk.
If I load my own, I usually make 20 exp rolls.
And I too have an HP5 Autowinder 72 exposure reel still kicking around. Developing time could be cut to 45 seconds using Ilfoneg. Nasty film to keep flat though.
RHaroldP
09-22-2007, 12:31
I bulk load 38 frames and shoot 36-37 rarely using preloaded film. It takes the same effort to develop 36 frames as it does to develop 12. I'm also less likely to wind past the last frame and jam the camera. (A small margin for error).
Richard
rick oleson
09-22-2007, 20:12
I shoot 24 because it's easier to load into my tanks. I also use 5x7 frame negative sheets that won't hold more than 35 frames.... I can usually count on screwing up one frame on a 36 shot roll, but it doesn't always occur at the right place in the roll to leave me with seven 5-frame strips. And, getting lazier and slower in my old age, I finish a 24 shot roll a bit quicker than i'd finish a 36.
If I'm on a "hot streak" I'll burn through whatever length is in the camera ridiculously quickly. I voted for 24 exposures because sometimes, between 12 and 24 shots, I get the itch to change films (color to B&W) and I hate wasting film. Had there been an option for 12 exposures, I would have taken it.
EDIT: I should also mention that I have a camera that really doesn't like the longer rolls... the winding gets very, very stiff towards the end of a 36-exposure roll on my Minox 35GL, to the point where it feels like you'll snap the film before you get to the end.
hunghang
08-08-2008, 00:01
Economics.... relatively cheaper to buy, more per development cycle, and 36 exp fits into one of those standard neg holders :)
I used to be in between the "24's not enough" and "it's taking me too dang long to finish this 36". I've since resorted to "hey, just as long as I have film"... now I'm :).
36 - when you're on a roll you don't want a short roll, or words to that effect!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.