Rolling your own : one caveat
Hello fellow film shooters.
Today I shot my first roll of bulk film loaded reusing a canister.
Everything went fine, I set to make a 16 exposure film. Actually I could shoot 17 frames, but there was
a problem : for obvious reasons, the last frame is burnt, because it's the part of film that was exposed
while I was loading the canister into the rolling machine (not sure how to call it, the "lead" ?).
Anyhow, this makes me think that going forward, I should settle for a number of frames (24) as I roll,
and stop shooting at frame 23 or 22 to be on the safe side. Any other suggestion ?
I add about 4 frames on a 36 roll, in order to keep down the waste of frames you mention I only roll 36 rolls, less would be too many frames in total wasted.
That's how I reason too. Per roll the level of waste is the same, so the economic incentive to load our own film from bulk becomes smaller the shorter the rolls are. Pretty simple economics.
Originally Posted by Felinik
I suppose another incentive to 'roll our own' could be to make rolls that are of a length that is appropriate to how we work, disregarding the economics of it. I've always wanted to have 20 and 30 exposure rolls. It's easier to keep track of in my head, and I often cut rolls short at that many exposures, because the lighting conditions have drastically changed, or I move on to another project.
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
You're right. In my case, it is not just the economics. Being used to 120 film, I sometimes can't see the end of a 36 exposure film.
Another motivation for rolling my own also has to do with reducing waste.
I load forty frames to get a thirty six exposure roll.
If you are careful as you handle the film, so as not to pull out too much extra film when loading a cartridge and you are conservative with pulling out too much leader when loading the camera, you can get thirty five or thirty six clean exposures. I usually get thirty four plus one "maybe" exposure at the end of the roll.
This, I don't mind because I often scan my film for proofing purposes and for display on computer/Internet. The clear frame at the beginning of the roll and the black frame at the end gives me the light/dark references from which to adjust my scanner. Once I have those two references set, I can batch scan the whole roll in about half the time it would take to do every frame individually.
i don't mind giving up a frame or to if I can have a benefit later on.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I reload 35mm in total darkness, which saves those last frames.
add two frames at the front and three at the end/leader to allow for this problem. Watch your film counter -- you can't squeeze that extra shot on with bulk.
the extra is also why I don't recommend short rolls like you did unless speed is of the essence -- you can get 20 rolls of 36 out of a 100 feet, but if you roll 24s or even 20s you double the amount of waste and, obviously, reduce the amount of film you actually shoot to the point you are no longer saving money.
not sure what ur shooting, but freestyle's arista professional, the re-spooled tri-x in a purple box, actually costs the same whether you buy 20 rolls already spooled or buy it in bulk -- if that's your film of choice, save bulk loading hassles and increase yur supply of empty film cans in the bargain.
When I bulk loaded 35, I only left about an inch sticking out of the light trap (the minimum), taped on the spool, and turned off the lights. Then do the rest in total darkness.
Why do the rest in total darkness?
Originally Posted by jp498
I don't need the lights on to do it. [double entendre?] So after I roll it and chop the film, I can feed enough back into the dark part so only an inch is sticking out.