Why do 24-exposure rolls of 135 still exist?

sevo said:
I've seen 135-12 in Japan in the 1990s - I don't know whether it was part of the half-format niche that was rather peculiar to Japan, or whether that came along the fast turnaround instant lab culture of the nineties (where any Tokyo suburb seemed cluttered with more 1/2 hour turnaround minilabs than all Germany).
Click to expand...

I've bought fresh 12exp rolls as recently as 3 or so years ago. AgfaPhoto Vista Plus 200 (or was it 400?) in local Müller.
 
ornate_wrasse said:
I always buy 24 exp rolls instead of 36 exp rolls. The main reason is due to my height: I'm only 5'3" and when I carry the developed negatives to the dryer at the darkroom I use, they drag on the floor if I use a 36 exp roll. This is a no-no. When I use a 24 exp roll, I can hold one end of the film in my hand with my arm stretched above my head, and the wet, freshly developed negatives won't touch the floor when I walk over to the dryer.
Click to expand...

Fantastic. I would never have thought of this!
 
I wish the short rolls were 20 instead of 24, but that's because my favorite camera to shoot is a Argus C33. it was made when short rolls were 20 Exposures. the film counter can only be manually set when the back is open, so they made the counter gear with a couple slots in it, and there is a peg molded into the back door that fits in those slots, so you have to set the counter to either 20 or 36 in order to be able to close the back of the camera. Argus did fix this design when they came out with the later Autronic series, they got rid of the peg on the door , and made a cut out in the back door so you can rotate the counter manually to set it once the back is closed. So I only shoot 36 exposure rolls with the camera. Would be nice to be able to use 24 also, since I get 24 exp. rolls cheap at Mall Wart.
Back in the 1930's and 40s the short rolls were 18 exposures, half of a full 36 roll.
 
Why not have both? Home developers/scanners have the convenience of the 24 and us lazy folks who outsource it get more value!
 
I never understood why they changed from 20 exposures to 24. If a 20 exposure roll is good because it's shorter, then why make it longer?
 
and what's with the number of exposures in disposable cameras ; )

My local mom & pop camera shop told me I was their only 135 format SLR / RF customer. All other film they process is from disposable cameras.
 
I normally bulk load my film and most of the time I do 24 exp rolls. Reason is I used to it. 36 exp seems lots of frames and with 24 exp I tend to keep one event or shooting session on one roll. If the event or session is long enough, I use 2 24exp rolls.

When I do 36 exp, I'm usually stuck with an unfinished roll on the camera that most of the time I waste on useless photos just to finish the roll, or, if I really want to process the photos, I sometimes develop the unfinished roll. I suppose is silly but that's my experience.

Regards

Marcelo
 
shimokita said:
and what's with the number of exposures in disposable cameras ; )

My local mom & pop camera shop told me I was their only 135 format SLR / RF customer. All other film they process is from disposable cameras.
Click to expand...
27 wasn't it?

I don't use them as they pile up in costs when lab processing is priced equally at 24 or 36 exp, but in 2015 I did get a quicksnap marine because underwater.
Feels a bit of a waste when the things could get 40 exposures out of it instead of 27...
Maybe I'll drop one of these in my next film order. Useful for summer beach shooting
 
dmr said:
I definitely remember 12 shot rolls in the mid 2000s. I used them for quickie test rolls when getting the GIII and Mamiya fixed up and ready.
Click to expand...

My recollection is they came out shortly after the 24 exposure rolls did. I first saw the 24 exposure rolls in late 1976. I saw and bought them while traveling through Japan from Korea to the US. When I had them processed in the USA, the lab techs went crazy, they hadn't yet seen them although I think they were already being talked about in Pop Photo and Modern Photography. I don't recall reading why 24 or 12 exposures came about.

I rather preferred the 20 exposures for a short roll. But when traveling to new places, I usually wanted a bunch of 36 exposure rolls. Less to carry and more shots before needing to change rolls.
 
There's something nice in a roll you can shoot in a day, develop in a day and see what you got. For me, 24 shots is pretty much a sweet spot. More than that can work when you're travelling, but iotherwise is less conveniently demarcated. I'm rolling 26 turns... which is a bit more, but there you are. Guess I haven't got the whole bulk loading thing iced yet. Speaking to the whole 1-1-1-1 theme (one camera, one lens, one film, one developer, etc.), I wish every film were available in bulk, but they're not... and so I'm pretty much an Ilford man by default. You could do worse. And sometimes, for tests you want only 12 shots.
 
I really don't mind 24exp.
Sometimes, I find that maybe for a short day out where I don't shoot much, 24exp works for me.
 
Some shoot one frame of 35mm at a time. I know there is a back for the Contax rangefinder that holds a single frame of 35mm film.

Rolls with 12 exposures were once common and are useful for testing cameras.

I understand though that as film gets more expensive (which it seems to be doing now), it makes more sense to shoot 36 frames (or more) if possible - less wasted overhead that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom