the 24

Yes, when available. 24 is "enough", and easier to file the strips in the file page. When I rolled my own film from bulk rolls, I made them 30 exposures.
 
no, because I develop my own film and for the same amount of time/effort, I get 50% more done

when getting the lab to develop my colour film, it does not cost 50% more for 36 exp :)

36exp rolls are not 50% more expensive than 24 exp...

it comes down to the per-exposure cost/time for me (call me cheap/lazy)

If they could make a 48 or more, I'd go for that too :)
 
Last edited:
When I rolled my own, I had an assortment: 10, 15, 20 exposures. There's seldom enough of a saving to justify buying 24-exp. rolls. The lab which does my processing is happy to cut off the exposed length and return the unexposed film to me in its cassette. I get around 30 frames from a 36-exp. roll.
 
No, because the cost savings are trivial compared to the cost of processing. In any case, I only shoot Fuji pro films like Velvia or Neopan 100 and 1600 that are only available in 36.
 
Not using 24exp often. The 36s occupy less space in the fridge, you can fit more of them in carry-on, and take less time in home processing.
 
I usually shoot 24 exp. rolls simply because they're easier for me to handle while developing them. The few 36 exposure rolls that I have shot, I tend to blow through the last couple of frames just to finish up the roll. I'm sure this is something that will change and as I invest more in photography I can see myself moving up to 36 exp. At the same time, bulk loading 30 exp. rolls sounds pretty tempting, too.
 
I use bulk film. I have used bulk film since I started seriously taking pictures, back in 1970! It always seemed that 24 was just not enough film to get the job done. As Kansas said, with 36 exposures it is just a little too long. I roll 30 exposures and it is just right (corroborated by Goldilocks). Also, 30 exposures fit very neatly onto a standard 8x10 sheet of photo paper for contact sheets. For a long time I have wondered why the film companies don't just standardize on the 30 exposure roll. It seems like it would save on manufacturing and packaging costs not to have to cut and package film in two different lengths.
 
i will say that when i am loading a 36 into my patterson processing reel, those last few inches really don't want to roll in sometimes; a 30 would seem like it would be perfect.
 
Not fair, John. Leaves out jokers like me who want 17 exposures on a roll. Chachi, I find this baffling. I used a Paterson Universal tank for years, and no length ever gave me trouble. In many Indian languages, I might point out, "chachi" is the term for father's brother's wife.
 
I prefer 36s because the lab charges the same for processing and scanning as with a 24. Old and frugal, not sure that's how I should go through life but it's where I'm at these days.

I shoot 24s at times because that's what the film I buy comes in where/when I can buy it. Another part of me like the shortness as I shoot film less and less these days.

B2 (;->
 
Not too often, I stick to 12 exposures on 120 rather than 24 on 220. Just isn't enough choice in 220 anymore and 220 doesn't fit on my stainless spools, er, ah, what was that? Oh, 135 film. Well, I suppose that's different then... :angel:

;)

To answer the OP's real question, I mostly shoot 24 in C41 & 36 in B&W as those are what is readily available around here. Preferences don't mean much when you can't get something, now does it?

William
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom