A
astroman
Guest
Hi all.As Ive never bought bulk film is it cost effective to buy 100ft bulk at 29.99 or the 36 exposure roll at 1.99?Of course Im talking about the new arista 400/tri-x.Thanks
Bulk film cost effective ?
- Thread starter astroman
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 7
- Views 1K
usagisakana
Established
It's slightly cheaper to bulk roll. But only slightly so, and I decided that the extra little bit of money wasn't worth the hassle of rolling (for me), so just bought the 36 exposure rolls. These are some of the cheapest 36exp rolls ever though, so the cost savings of bulk rolling are less than for other films.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
You get around 18 rolls of 36 exposure from 100' of film. Do the math and you will see there is a small savings. Only you can decide is the small savings is worth the small hassle.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
depends on the film, you can save a lot over some brand names, e.g. hp5, tri-x, etc.
But you must also take into consideration of quality control, e.g. canister quality. I tend to buy high quality canisters.
But you must also take into consideration of quality control, e.g. canister quality. I tend to buy high quality canisters.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
http://www.tapesuperstore.com/koblandwhned.html brings you to the website for the Film Emporium. They sell motion picture film. B&W Eastman Double-X Negative 5222 can be had as cheaply as 18 cents a foot in what they call "short ends". That's what's left of the 400 or 1000 ft. roll on one side of the movie camera magazine when they cut off the exposed side for processing. Kodak calls still films "Kodak" and pro movie films "Eastman".
5222 is ISO 250 and easy to develop in most standard developers like D-76. Use the times they suggest for Kodak D-96 movie film developer. D-76 and D-96 are about the same thing. Actually you can increase the times about 15 or 20 percent and expose at ISO 400, and you might like the results better. Motion picture film is usually developed to a fairly low contrast because it goes through a couple of printing steps that boost contrast. At 18 cents a foot a 36 exposure roll (5 1/2 feet) will set you back a whopping 99 cents.
The down side is that you'll have to learn to work in the dark, tearing off a double arm's legth of film and taping, spooling, and reassembling the cassette by feel, because if the roll is longer than 100 feet it won't fit in a bulk film loader. This is actually faster than using a loader though. The leader doesn't have to be neatly cut to look like a factory load either, so just use scissors and eyeball the shape.
For sale ~ 15mm Voigtlander finder
5222 is ISO 250 and easy to develop in most standard developers like D-76. Use the times they suggest for Kodak D-96 movie film developer. D-76 and D-96 are about the same thing. Actually you can increase the times about 15 or 20 percent and expose at ISO 400, and you might like the results better. Motion picture film is usually developed to a fairly low contrast because it goes through a couple of printing steps that boost contrast. At 18 cents a foot a 36 exposure roll (5 1/2 feet) will set you back a whopping 99 cents.
The down side is that you'll have to learn to work in the dark, tearing off a double arm's legth of film and taping, spooling, and reassembling the cassette by feel, because if the roll is longer than 100 feet it won't fit in a bulk film loader. This is actually faster than using a loader though. The leader doesn't have to be neatly cut to look like a factory load either, so just use scissors and eyeball the shape.
For sale ~ 15mm Voigtlander finder
Last edited:
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
The Arista/Kodak films are pretty much a toss up between bulk rolling and buying. I think you only save $6 if you bulk roll. Theres always the convinience factor of rolling your own custom number of frames.
That being said, the savings add up when you roll from bulk films that cost more than $30 a 100ft roll. Rolling say Ilford Delta 400 saves quite a bit since a single 36exp roll costs around $5 USD. A 100ft roll costs around $50, run the numbers, there quite a bit of savings there.
That being said, the savings add up when you roll from bulk films that cost more than $30 a 100ft roll. Rolling say Ilford Delta 400 saves quite a bit since a single 36exp roll costs around $5 USD. A 100ft roll costs around $50, run the numbers, there quite a bit of savings there.
peter_n
Veteran
I agree. Arista Premium/Tri-X is really a toss up. As a bulk roller I would still buy the cassettes from Freestyle. Where there are clear savings to be made though I will buy bulk, Ilford XP2 is half the cost with bulk.
KenD
Film Shooter
Currently popular films (e.g. tri-x) that are not expired or short dated are likely to show only marginal savings with bulk as opposed to bricks. However, short dated or mildly outdated bulk, or off-brands, can make for big savings over factory loaded.
KenD
KenD
