24 or 36 rolls

[mday]

What do you use more often 24, 36 or home-brew loaded number of frames on your camera?

[whitecat]

Love the 36 myself.

[jsrockit]

When I use film... 36 exp in 35mm unless I get stuck and have to buy whatever film I can get my hands on... like the roll of 24 exp Kodak Gold 200 I bought a few months ago at a deli.

[PrimeTime]

Prefer 36, but nothing wrong with 24

[celluloidprop]

makes no difference to me - I'm perfectly happy shooting 24s in Superia 400 and Ultramax 400, but 36s in Portra/B&W are fine

[anjoca76]

Both cost nearly the same to be processed, so I always go with 36--unless I screw up and accidentally buy 24.

[Nomad Z]

Always 36. Can't see the point of running out early and, as others have said, processing costs the same anyway.

[Bill Clark]

I do 36 exp. Less waste, leader and end expose. I use bulk and wind my own!

[mdarnton]

I have always loaded my own, in 36, because the waste (leaders) represents a smaller percentage that way.

[sevo]

The only times I've used 24 frame rolls was when I ran low on film in some out-of-the-world place - I'm born in the early sixties, so I'm not part of the generation any more for which using 24 frame film was a economising habit...

It has not been particularly popular in Germany ever since I can remember. I've mostly encountered it in very pedestrian consumer places - rural supermarkets, souvenir kiosks and the like, even places catering for photo amateurs rarely had it.
In the past twenty years, much of its former market has been taken over by disposables, so it is even more exotic today.

[mday]

Just wondered. Saw a fellow yesterday, and it appeared he had several different rolls going at the same time. 1 in each pocket. I am assuming colour, B&W, etc. And it looked like he was only shooting about 15 frames on each, before he pulled the roll.
Thanks for the quick responses.

[mdarnton]

In the 70s or 80s they made 12 exposure rolls for a while. Sounds like those would have been perfect for him. I used to buy color that way, since a roll of color could take me months to finish (still does, in fact).

[sevo]

Originally Posted by mdarnton

In the 70s or 80s they made 12 exposure rolls for a while.

In Germany they went the other way - at some time Agfa upped their 24 to "24+3", and had success with that offering of a "discount" of three frames rather than a price drop like everybody else, so that most other vendors followed. But that reduced its difference to 36 at a time when the price difference was already growing tiny...

[bhop73]

I like using 24exp rolls. I seem to take my time with film, shooting only a few frames per week. So just 24 on the roll lets me see the results sooner. Unless i'm shooting an event, in which case i'd want more shots available, i'd use 36.

[filmtwit]

24 for me.

I can rarely get threw a 36 on a subject or small event and find I need to burn up 10 frames later on.

[stratcat]

Originally Posted by Bill Clark

I do 36 exp. Less waste, leader and end expose. I use bulk and wind my own!

My case too

[timor]

I am bulk loading and prefer short film 12 to 18 max. Maybe I am loosing on leaders, but I am gaining on development flexibility. That is a trade-off I am willing to do. With twelve frames usually I cover one subject or they are shot in singular light conditions. That makes development decisions much easier.

[cosmonaut]

Originally Posted by aperture64

The lab charges the same for 24 or 36, so 36 it is.

Not my lab.

[Coldkennels]

I used to shoot 36 all the time when I was getting labs to develop my rolls for me. Since I started rolling and developing my own, I prefer 24 unless I'm purposely going out for a day's shooting; I find 36 exposures drags on too long if I'm just shooting one photo here and another photo there.

I think shooting 120 got me into the habit of short rolls, too. Sometimes even the 12 frames of 6x6 seems like a lot!

[al1966]

Apart from test rolls I prefer 36 exposure rolls; I shoot at least 12 rolls a wk so if I had 24 exposure rolls I would have to shoot 18 rolls. This would require a 50% increase in time spent developing them and less wasted time changing film.

[daveywaugh]

I spool 30 frames. I find 36 gets stuck in my Paterson reels for some reason and always loose the last few frames. 30 works perfectly.

[btgc]

36 for normal use, 12 for light leak test, 24 for exposure test.
Spooling myself I like anything close enough to full reel.

EDIT: my film storage sleeves are sized for 36exp rolls, too

[Keith]

When I bulk load, which is most of the time ... I load 24. I tend to get a little lost in a 36 exp roll and generally become a bit wasteful towards the end of it!

I wish there was still black and white 220 available for MF!

[thegman]

36, cannot get the films I like in 24. Otherwise I'd consider it, but the cost difference is so negligible, especially once you factor in processing.

[Kent]

Usually prefer the 24. But on some occasions, like holidays or a free weekend, I use the 36.