Why do 24-exposure rolls of 135 still exist?
Old 02-11-2017   #1
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,755
Why do 24-exposure rolls of 135 still exist?

Serious question. Even for the rankest consumer film (like Gold Max 400 - actually my favorite...), it comes in 24s (which you can get at CVS) and 36s (which you can buy in NY). Why bother with the 24s? Why not just simplify distribution with 36s?

I think the two sizes might date back to when processing was included and there was a significant price difference. Today, not so much - in fact, the 24s seem to be pricier than the 36s.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #2
DFigueira
Registered User
 
DFigueira is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Portugal, Óbidos
Posts: 68
Althought I avoid it, it might be suited to people that are used to the length of medium format or less frames.
Other than that, It might be a 'strategic' way to sell less for more
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #3
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,528
The same reason they sell compact cars and full size cars. Not everybody wants or needs a 36 exposure roll of film.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #4
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
Do they? Hereabouts I can only spot expired batches, or film of unknown origin and expiration date. All legitimate film with stated expiration date is 36 frame (apart from that idiotic Revolog Tesla with imprinted fake static, but does that count as film?).
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #5
Tin
Registered User
 
Tin is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 306
As I recall, way back at the beginning it was the 20-exposure films that came out. I think the reason was that many amateurs could only finish a 36-roll film in a few months. Hence the shorter rolls to attract such consumers. But soon afterwards, the 24-exposure rolls replaced the 20-exposure ones.

But I also encountered 12-exposure rolls. Those were consumer films---specifically I remember seeing Agfa negative films made like that. Of course, there were 8-exposure rolls of professional films to facilitate quick testing by professionals.

Tin
__________________
Tin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #6
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,425
I wish they still had 12 exposure rolls. I might even use my 135 cameras then.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #7
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,184
I'm film cameras frequent user. I have film camera with me almost always. But these days it is loaded with 24 or 14 frames roll. I only need 36 few times per year.
Buying 24 frames loaded allows me to be me. Also in Canada USD one dollar difference translated to two or more CAD, plus taxes which are always on top.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #8
znapper
Registered User
 
znapper's Avatar
 
znapper is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 402
36 is too much anyway, it was probably made for the consumers, so that they would get more shots per roll.

I spend ages getting trough a 36 frame roll, so normally I bulk 12-20 frames.

I have a roll of acros in my m3 right now, 10 frames after a whole week. :P
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #9
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,887
The answer is obvious, isn't it? They are made for us half frame shooters.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #10
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is online now
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,746
I oft shoot ilford films (delta 100/400/xp2s) in 24 exposures rolls. Why?
Because I do not need to shoot 36 frames in a go and desire /need to see the results in a short time.
When traveling for more days I prefer 36 exposures.
robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #11
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,272
For those among us with shorter arms?
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #12
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
I recently shot a roll of consumer AGFA C41 with 15 frames, that better?

I'm with you tho - don't get the advantage of 24 frame film today.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #13
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,643
I prefer 24 frames. In fact, I miss the days of 12 frames. I like to change and process rolls quickly and I have always found loading 36's onto the plastic reels a pain in the arse.
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #14
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 58
Posts: 2,810
I too prefer 24 exposure rolls and choose them over 36 whenever available.

For me 24 exposures is just about right for one good day's worth of shooting.
That damn 36 exposure roll will still be in my camera next time, half-finished.

FWIW exposing a lot of frames doesn't seem to increase my number of keepers.

A graphic artist and photographer I admire grew up poor in post-WW2 Germany.
To this day he says even when he shoots digital he exposes frames sparingly.

http://www.johannschumacherdesign.com/photographyhome.html

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #15
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,455
w 24 exp rolls my costs for dev and scanning increases by 50%

i only shoot 36
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #16
GarageBoy
Registered User
 
GarageBoy is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 759
My labs charge the same for 24 and 36 exposures, so 36 for me
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #17
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarageBoy View Post
My labs charge the same for 24 and 36 exposures, so 36 for me
Exactly.

24 exp rolls are a hold over from the old days of getting prints (double sets!) with your developed film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #18
Thomas78
Registered User
 
Thomas78 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Düren, Germany
Age: 40
Posts: 785
Here in Germany, nowadays 24 exp rolls of 135 are almost nonexistent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #19
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
Serious question. Even for the rankest consumer film (like Gold Max 400 - actually my favorite...), it comes in 24s (which you can get at CVS) and 36s (which you can buy in NY). Why bother with the 24s? Why not just simplify distribution with 36s?

I think the two sizes might date back to when processing was included and there was a significant price difference. Today, not so much - in fact, the 24s seem to be pricier than the 36s.

Dante
the only reason is that 24 exp sell well enough to keep them in production
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #20
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is online now
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,746
Where I live Ilford Delta 100 24exp = 5,02 EUR / 36exp = 6,17 or HP5 24exp = 4,23 EUR /36 exp = 5,43 EUR

By the way I just noticed that by my usual supplier Ilford are the only films offering 24 or 36 exposures, the others are only 36.

And yes, laboratory development has the same cost if 24 or 36 !

robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #21
k__43
Registered Film User
 
k__43's Avatar
 
k__43 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 948
Oh, yeah .. I also once shot ilford HP5 (pre-plus) with 72 frames - took for ever!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #22
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,871
I'd be satisfied with 12, 20 or 24 exposure rolls, because it takes me awhile to shoot 36. I like feedback a little more frequently to know I'm not doing something wrong! But yeah, price per photo goes up with the shorter rolls.

When I was a kid, my parents would load the camera with a 36-exposure roll of Kodachrome and when the slides came back from processing there would be pics of the 4th of July parade, some summer picnics, the Halloween pumpkin, some Christmas photos, springtime garden photos and maybe even another 4th of July parade... All on the same roll!
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #23
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,520
One nice feature I like about a 36 exposure roll is when I finally finish it, I'm usually surprised the photos I made at the beginning of the roll.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #24
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 12,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by k__43 View Post
Oh, yeah .. I also once shot ilford HP5 (pre-plus) with 72 frames - took for ever!
Yes, amazing, I remember using a roll of that in my M2. The film is so thin and flexible it lost connection with the film-advance sprocket and I wondered what was up after a couple of rotations of the counter! I tried again with better results by frequently snugging up the rewind knob. Just imagine running a roll of that in a half-frame camera!

I also recall that it was slide film that came in 20-exp rolls while color-neg was 24...
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #25
froyd
Registered User
 
froyd's Avatar
 
froyd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,098
Processing for me cost the same whether the roll is 24 or 36 frames long. Despite this, I still prefer to use 24 frames mostly for the reasons many have given above.

As a matter of fact I had the opportunity to buy a large amount of recently-expired consumer grade c41 all at $1 a roll. Even then, I picked out only the 24 frame rolls.

I must suffer from a mild form of Leicaitis: the willingness to pay more for less features
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #26
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
 
davidnewtonguitars's Avatar
 
davidnewtonguitars is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Beaumont, TX
Posts: 1,363
I thought it was 24 exp. for color and 36 for B&W.
I don't care how long it takes to finish a 36 exp roll, I only take shots worth taking.

And by the way, why aren't metric converters sold in gross quantity anymore, I hate to buy only a dozen.
And by the way, why does Guac cost extra?
__________________
Leica M2 / 7artisans 35-f2 / Canon 35-f2 ltm
http://davidnewtonguitars.squarespace.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #27
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
 
coelacanth's Avatar
 
coelacanth is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,475
I recently got bunch of 24 exp Tri-X for daily use ($3.99/roll). For Tri-X, bulk loading won't save much money for me, and I like the convenience of pre-cut rolls and not wasting frames when I wanna develop the current roll asap. I can get 25 shots in M.

I develop and scan myself so the processing cost is virtually the same between 36 and 24 exp rolls in practice.

With my current method of Diafine — shooting around ISO1000 – 1250 — home developing and BEOON scan, 24 exp roll will further accelerate my casual shooting-to-getting-result speed. I feel like I'm back shooting Monochrom v1 (my all time favorite digital M). I know I'm going totally backwards, but I like it. This way, if I like a photo I took a lot, I'll have an option to wet print while I can relatively quickly digitalize it to a 35 mp picture.

So to me, personally, I see a reason for 24 exp rolls to exist.

I still have 36 exp (I only shoot 35 frames so I can put the entire roll in a 5 x 7 sleeve) for travels and events though.
__________________
- Sug

b/w guy.

flickr | Instagram

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #28
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 58
Posts: 2,810
If you have bulk-loaded you know that 36 exposures (plus start/end frames)
is about the practical limit of what can be crammed into a 35mm cartridge.

Since the film is so tightly packed it rubs against itself and the inside of the
the cartridge and so may be more prone to scratching, and is surely curlier.

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #29
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,425
I still have the same roll of 36 exposures I put in the Viewmaster camera 5 years ago...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #30
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,094
Good question. Such good answers.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #31
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,439
If you have more than one film camera loaded at the same time 24 exp allows faster rotation between cameras and you get to see results quicker. 12 or 24 exp rolls also minimise processing error consequences if you develop them separately.

I use 36 exp rolls to minimise costs. If I was bulk loading I wouldn't hesitate to load shorter rolls for reasons given above.
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #32
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,553
Originally 120 only had six exposures. And for a while most roll films were available in six and eight exposure lengths (have you ever encountered a comically skinny used roll of 122? That's a six exposure roll).

For a lot of consumers film was "expensive" so they'd buy the 24 exp. roll and spend a whole year shooting it. Or longer. 12 exp. was even cheaper, perfect for the family that only took one photo per birthday party and and another photo for Christmas.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #33
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 78
Posts: 5,943
Well, gee, I have some 24 exposure rolls of Ilford Delta 100 in the fridge, is it really so unusual?
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #34
huddy
Registered User
 
huddy is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 161
I shoot 24 exposure rolls whenever I can as I find that my 36 exposure rolls linger in the camera longer than I want. The cost per shot may be a little bit higher, but I don't mind given my limited volume.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #35
fireblade
Vincenzo.
 
fireblade's Avatar
 
fireblade is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,140
36 is for the wedding boys.
__________________
Vincenzo

"No place is boring, if you've had a good night's sleep and have a pocket full of unexposed film."
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-2017   #36
Beemermark
Registered User
 
Beemermark's Avatar
 
Beemermark is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanik View Post
I wish they still had 12 exposure rolls. I might even use my 135 cameras then.
One of the reasons I Load my own is to get 12 exp.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2017   #37
philbed
Registered User
 
philbed is offline
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1
I always use 24 exposure roll. It's easier to contact a full roll on a 8x10 paper sheet. I put the negative in a negative page which holds seven 35mm strips of 4 frames, 28 frames total. Contact prints on 8"x10" paper. Same paper size as my 120 negative contacts.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2017   #38
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,401
Hi,

I often take a specific camera and a specific film to do a specific job; it seldom needs as many as 24 shots. As has been said, 36's are for weddings and holidays.

Regards, David

PS And wasn't it 18 or 20 to a roll when colour 35mm film first appeared and still was in the 50's?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2017   #39
Samuel D
Registered User
 
Samuel D is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 42
Nothing prevents you from developing a 36-exposure roll before you’ve made ~36 exposures. And if simplifying manufacturing and distribution by standardising on 36-shot rolls reduced costs by the already small price difference between 24- and 36-shot rolls, we’d all win.

So I suppose the continued existence of 24-shot rolls means the costs arising from that complexity aren’t actually very great. Probably because many people still buy 24-shot rolls; I recall reading about a 20%/80% split (24-/36-shot) for a particular product, but I forget which one it was.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-2017   #40
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 898
I shoot 8 EXP 6x9 and 35mm, 36 exp regardless because of lab cost being equal. I only shot 24 once (27 actually) with a Fuji Quicksnap marine. A miniproject itself, but I wish those disposables came in 36 (39-40) exposures instead, just for efficency!

I'd say my sweet spot would be around 20 shots. Allows having lots of frames and doesn't cut short as 8.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:39.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.