Why do 24-exposure rolls of 135 still exist?

Dante_Stella

Dante_Stella

Rex canum cattorumque
Local time
5:10 PM
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
1,862
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
 
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
 
The same reason they sell compact cars and full size cars. Not everybody wants or needs a 36 exposure roll of film.

Jim B.
 
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?).
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
I recently shot a roll of consumer AGFA C41 with 15 frames, that better? :D

I'm with you tho - don't get the advantage of 24 frame film today.
 
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.
 
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
 
Dante_Stella said:
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
Click to expand...

the only reason is that 24 exp sell well enough to keep them in production
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom