Who Decided 35mm Film Comes in 24 or 36 Exposures?

[sevo]

Photojournalists loved the 72-exposure rolls of HP5 -- initially. Unfortunately, the film base was so thin that it often would break in motor-driven Nikons.

If so, that must have been an early incarnation on Acetate. The HP5 72 I used had a almost unbreakable Polyester base - thin, but so tough that labs hated it for jamming their cutters. My F3 once or twice jammed with HP5 72 inside, for reasons I never figured out - but the film was not broken...

Sevo

 

[Roger Hicks]

As far as I am aware, the Ur-Leica (darkroom loading) took 50 exposures and 37-38 was the most you could get into a Leica film cassette (apparently they originally tried for 40), and this was 'rounded down' to 3 dozen as an easy-to-remember number. Three cassettes were sold with each camera.

In the 1930s the standard shorter load was half this, i.e. 18, but this was increased for marketing purposes to 20 just before WW2: the extra cost was trivial, the perceived extra value, much greater. The 12-exposure 'weekender' appeared in the 1960s, which opened the way for extending 20 to 24 in the 70s, though 20 hung on for a long time. I have also seen 24+3 (Agfa) and 36+2 (Foma) but never 8.

I had never heard of Ilford 72-exposure breaking: as Sevo notes, it was coated on polyester base, as were traffic films. SFX started out as (from memory) SP815 and SP816 (speed camera films), one on acetate, one on polyester.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mark Wood]

A friend of mine was given some rolls of 8 exposure Kodak film that his uncle had in the freezer. He was a real estate agent and they would use them to shoot each house... one house per roll so they never got stuck midway in a roll or 24 or 36.

That sounds like it could possibly be 828 roll film for the Kodak Bantam cameras. That was sold in 8 exposure lengths, 40 mm wide I think. (Quite an impressive format with Kodachrome too!)

 

[David Hughes]

Well, I don't know but remember that it was bought as off-cuts and loaded by hand.

When I did this years ago I'd measure it roughly in the dark and then graduated to a loader with a counter but - here it comes - how about it being a meter or film and a meter and a half of film? Then standardised to 2 and 3 dozen frames. Today the things usually measure about 63 inches for 36 exposures.

Regards, David

PS Of course 63" divided by 1½" (frame length) is 42 - which is worrying. ;-)

 

[Mackinaw]

.....Of course 63" divided by 1½" (frame length) is 42 - which is worrying. ;-)

You're forgetting the two or three millimeter of space between each frame. Over five feet of film, they add up.

Jim B.

 

[rover]

Leica set the standard and Kodak introduced it as a 135 cartridge.

Barnack set the 36 exposure standard somewhat arbitrarily; as mentioned earlier 36 exposures is ~5 feet. Remember, the Leica was originally conceived in 1914 as an instrument to batch test movie film and not as the popular camera we know now. Apparently, five feet was a good length to test. As I recall the Leica later became commercially available as a camera in 1925.

Kodak introduced the 135 cartridge with the original Retina in 1934. Until that time the cartridges (usually brass) were handloaded, either from bulk or 36 exposure "handload" strips with a paper leader attached. 36 exposures became the standard, 18 was offered in 1939 and after WWII the film industry settled on 20 and 36 until much later when 20 became 24.

Now I know where to look. If I go to my Retina Guide I bet this is the info that I find.

 

[Gary E]

believe it was Leitz himself -- it was rumoured to be the length of a strip of film held up between left and right hand

I recall reading this somewhere too. Remember a "foot" of measurement was decided by the size of the then current King's foot. Sometimes it is as simple as simple can get. 🙄

 

[Sparrow]

I recall reading this somewhere too. Remember a "foot" of measurement was decided by the size of the then current King's foot. Sometimes it is as simple as simple can get. 🙄

Now I got from somewhere that the “foot” was used in Roman military manuals, but I would have thought we, humans, would have measured in feet from the day we started counting to two.

I always assumed the change to 12, 24 and 36 was so they all divided by both 4 and 6, so they could be cut to fit whichever neg carrier you had

 

[Dralowid]

...and Zeiss marketed their own rolls of film/refills for the Contax I. 40 exposures (I think). There is a red do on the counter and if the camera were to hand I could confirm

Michael

 

[Pherdinand]

Because people like dozens of stuff.
36 is easy do divide by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, 36-
and also by 4.5 🙂

 

[Rob-F]

36 exposure rolls are just a little bit too long for my Nikor stainless steel reels, especially since I tend to shoot the first (#0) frame instead of using it as leader. They could make a 33 exposure roll and I wouldn't complain. So a 72 exposure roll would not work for me!

 

[Al Kaplan]

Those "single use" film cameras contain a 24 exposure roll but give you 27 exposures because no film is fogged while loading. The camera contains the roll of film, but not in a cassette. Each time you advance the film you wind more of it into the cassette, and the film is numbered backwards when it's in the cassette, with #1 closest to the spool.

 

[Roger Hicks]

...and Zeiss marketed their own rolls of film/refills for the Contax I. 40 exposures (I think). There is a red do on the counter and if the camera were to hand I could confirm

Michael

Dear Michael,

That was for a sort of 35mm/220 cross, with paper leader and trailer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dogberryjr]

You'll have to wait for the next Dan Brown book to learn the real reason.

 

[Sparrow]

yes, but what the hell is a cubit? it's been raining nonstop here and I've enlisted my jewish friends to help build an ark

In the dark recess of my memory I find this bit of trivia; a cubit is about 5’6” the height of a man, but don’t quote me or complain if you can’t get two of everything on

 

[Al Kaplan]

Some companies sold "Daylight Refills", a spool of 35mm film with a black paper "leader" so you could reload an empty cassette without going in a darkroom. The film itself, under the paper, had a pre cut leader.

Kodak marketed 27.5 foot rolls of bulk film consisting of five 5.5 foot lengths of film with a leader on one end, a skinny "tail" on the other to fit into the slot on Leica and other brands of cassette spools. The way the leader and tail were connected by a narrow piece made it easy to tear apart in the dark. The cassettes of the era like Ilford and Agfa were really designed for multiple use, much sturdier than the Kodak snap caps.

 

[HansDerHase]

You're forgetting the two or three millimeter of space between each frame. Over five feet of film, they add up.

Jim B.

Maybe David is not so much worried by the fact that he loses 42 - 36 = 6 frames, but by the fact that there is that 42 again...

.. and 6 = 4+2. That is even more worrying.

😉

 

[Ronald M]

The accountants. 20 became 24 The few 12`s were discontinued.

It is a plot to get you to buy more film and prints. Then came digital !

 

[Ronald M]

The accountants. 20 became 24 The few 12`s were discontinued.

It is a plot to get you to buy more film and prints. Then came digital !

I resolved the problem 40 years ago by spooling my own. You can also buy 36 and cut off the exposed portion and retape the leader if you want to save 4 frames.

Giving up all my secrets. I also have a stick calibrated in exposures to cut off the right amount. Use it in your darkroom naturally.

 

[David Hughes]

Giving up all my secrets. I also have a stick calibrated in exposures to cut off the right amount. Use it in your darkroom naturally.

That's probably what it was. I used to buy in bulk and cut of a length of film that was the length of the bench in the darkroom and used to use the length of the bath when improvising... The point was to keep it simple as miles of film in the dark and the wrappings etc were a pita at times.

Regards, David