View Poll Results: What about a 72 exposures 35mm B&W iso 400 film
- 83. You may not vote on this poll
Yes, I see some advantages in such a film
No, I don't see any advantages at all
B&W iso 400 film with 72 exp.
A 60 micron PET base double perforated panchromatic iso 400 35mm film could be made (again) by one of our main European manufactureres.
In a 35mm cardtridge there is place for 72 exposures but the film is twice as long, half thick (but very strong due to the polyester base) but has limited possibilities, depending on the camera which is used.
The main question is: Would you be interested in such a film or not?
What do you see as a main advantage and some disadvantages of using such a film?
How would you process it? I don't think any of my reels can handle quite that much. Which means cutting the film in half.
No real interest from me. Between the issues of processing,cameras and the lack of need.
OTOH 220 would be interesting -)
As you know, Ilford never did well with this, even in the days when the film market was much bigger than today. While there are times I might be interested, as a rule the drawbacks would deter me:
Difficulty of processing: yes, you can still buy the reels and Hewes could re-make them, but it's still easier for me to stack 2x36exp on top of one another.
Light piping, meaning that you have to load under VERY subdued light. I'm told this can be overcome but I've never seen evidence of this.
Frame counter runs out (So buy a Leica M2)
Neg storage (2 sheets needed)
Put it this way: I wouldn't put my own money into such a venture.
Last edited by Roger Hicks; 07-19-2007 at 08:36 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I don't see the purpose.
2 neg sleeves. Most likely my camera won't like it as the frame counter stops at 72 frames. Processing - even if you could get the reels, what's the point?
To me 36 frames is a lot. I like to organize my negs by date and venue, so I often have to stop mid roll anyway...
Nah, save your investment money for better adventures.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
For B&W, no. Aside from the processing issues, what would be the application? Maybe some street photographers could benefit from longer rolls of 400 speed B&W, or perhaps PJ-style wedding shooters who use film. When Ilford tried this at least there were photojournalists who would be shooting B&W 35mm.
Color slide in longer rolls would be interesting to me for bird photography (one of these days, I'll just get the 100 exp. back for my F-1N), since that can be processed by a lab with a continuous roller processor, but there aren't too many other film holdouts among wildlife shooters these days.
One processing option, by the way, would be the Lomo tank for movie film. It can handle 50 feet of 35mm, 16mm, or 2x 8mm.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Lots of good reasons have been mentioned already, but this one is the most true for me (too). I already think 36 frames is a lot. A lot more than 3 x 12 frames.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
Besides that, one of my 35 mm cameras might be able to cope with it; the EOS, I'm sure, will not. It always rewinds after 36 frames, no matter what.
(If I wanted to shoot 72 frames, I'd buy a half-frame camera.)
-- A sinister little midget with a bucket and a mop / Where the blood goes down the drain --
Only need I can think about.
A while back some body was asking for a WIDE 35mm back for use on an 8x10 camera. But some how I think the market for both the back and the film would be pretty small.
Can an Xpan count that high?
I would love to put a roll in my PEN and get 144 exposures on a roll - just to say that I had done it.
Robert - I would love it. When I am doing portrait I often shoot about 100 shots, often when I am shooting at an event I would like it.
When I do not a lot of shots I use medium format anyway.
Of course, equipment is necessary to support it. But I do see market for this.