Why do 24-exposure rolls of 135 still exist?

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
 
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!
 
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.
 
k__43 said:
Oh, yeah .. I also once shot ilford HP5 (pre-plus) with 72 frames - took for ever!
Click to expand...
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...
 
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 :)
 
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?
 
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). :D 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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Well, gee, I have some 24 exposure rolls of Ilford Delta 100 in the fridge, is it really so unusual?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom