Which film do you prefer? About to buy another 100 ft bulk roll

Yes, bulk Tri-X seems to cost more than preloaded cassettes.

 

But if you have the 250 exposure back for the Nikon F, then it might be useful.

I don't think Kodak will ever offer bulk Tri-X at prices competitive with other brands bulk. Tri-X is not the only film I use so when I use my remaining 100' roll up I will start buying single rolls. Currently, at least for my tastes, Tri-X delivers the combination of speed, reasonable grain, tone, an exposure latitude that I prefer over other ISO 400 films. Should Tri-X go south altogether, I would be okay with Ilford HP5+ or just rate my Eastman 5222 at E.I. 400 and develop a bit longer.

But if you have the 250 exposure back for the Nikon F, then it might be useful.

 

I may not have one for the F, but I've been trying to talk a local shop owner out of an F-1 with a 250 back, motor drive, and Servo EE finder.

 

My issue is that I have no idea how I'd develop that much film :)

When I was shooting more film, I found the advantage was being able to load short rolls when I only needed 10-15 shots. No idea if I saved any money, but I found wasting half a larger roll was bothersome.

I am sorry, I just do not get it with film loaders. Do they save that much time and convenience? I have about ten canisters which had exposed film. I leave about 1" tail of film. I clip an appropriate length of film from a 100 foot roll. If I want to test it I cut a short strip (maybe 15 - 20 ") or longer strip for 20,24,30 or 36 exposures. Then just tape it to the tail on the canister and wind it back in the canister either by hand or put in camera and use rewind nob. Never felt that a loader was critical. Maybe I do not know what a loader is or it is like a remote control where you never need one until you owned one.

When I first started with bulk film, I put the bulk roll and a camera in the changing bag, cut a tongue, put it in the take-up spool, and wound off the appropriate number of shots. Then cut the film, tape it to the spool, and rewind it (not all the way in). I always used reusable cartridges.

 

The idea of bulk loaders is that you can do it in daylight, but it exposes the far end of the roll.

 

Now I actually have a bulk loader, which I use inside a changing bag.

The advantage of the loader is that it counts off (listen for clicks) the exposures.

 

I like to go to the end of the roll, without worrying that it has been exposed.

 

Another way that I have used, when I had access to a real darkroom,

(With reliable light seals) is to put two tape marks on the door the appropriate distance

apart, tape one end near the top, unroll and cut near the bottom tape, then hand

roll onto the spool.

Yup, any method works and the advantages and disadvantages of each used to be hotly debated. There is also the simple Lloyd and the fancy Watson. I've got both and either one works. The advantages of each were also debated because photographers tend towards OCD.

In the past, bulk loading film was significantly cheaper than individual rolls. And for a student shooting a lot, the $ difference was significant. We had to scrimp and save to buy all the stuff a student needed and wanted.

Today, I don't shoot enough 35mm film for a bulk loader to make $ sense for me. The roll of film might stay in the loader for 5 years. I'm distracted by digital, 120 and 4x5.

 

The bulk loader makes reloading cassettes easier/convenient, and you can reload in room light.

If you have easy access to a darkroom, than the method that glen_h used also works.

 

Glen

That was more a problem with the Watson 100 loader that some of the others. The frame counting mechanism added distance between the cassette and the loading gate, so you had a longer length of exposed film at the end of the roll, which killed the last 1 or 2 frames in the roll.

My brother used a different bulk loaded that did not have a frame counter. Without the frame counter, his bulk loader had a shorter exposed length at the end than my Watson 100. But he had to look up on a table the number of frames he wanted, then across to the number of turns on the crank to give him that many frames.

Ilford is still cheaper for bulk rolls, Kodak isn't. On a price issue, I limit myself to Ilford. For me I shoot 35mm around the clock so it's ASA 400. I shoot ASA 100 film with medium format when I know I will be mostly using a tripod. So to me that would be HP5 400.

 

If you say you want more IQ, minimal grain with a classical look it would be Ilford Delta 100 or Kodak Tmax 100. I have tried Fuji Acros 100 very very smooth and fine grain but it look too digital, seems like what some reviewers have said also. If you want more grain or that film look, yes I know you said minimal grain but an option would be Ilford FP4.

I am sorry, I just do not get it with film loaders. Do they save that much time and convenience? I have about ten canisters which had exposed film. I leave about 1" tail of film. I clip an appropriate length of film from a 100 foot roll. If I want to test it I cut a short strip (maybe 15 - 20 ") or longer strip for 20,24,30 or 36 exposures. Then just tape it to the tail on the canister and wind it back in the canister either by hand or put in camera and use rewind nob. Never felt that a loader was critical. Maybe I do not know what a loader is or it is like a remote control where you never need one until you owned one.

 

Not with Kodak but with Ilford bulk rolls yes. Kodak TriX bulk $120. Ilford HP5 bulk $65.

Not with Kodak but with Ilford bulk rolls yes. Kodak TriX bulk $120. Ilford HP5 bulk $65.

 

It seems that TX and TXY are more, but TMX isn't (yet). About $85/100ft now for TMX.

 

Maybe it is how long it takes to get through the pipeline, and eventually TMX will match.

 

But yes, $60 to $70 for Ilford films.

Kodak TriX bulk $120.

 

Theoretically you SHOULD get 20 36-exposure rolls from 100ft, but I find that 18 or so is more realistic(esp. considering the amount you waste in a Watson loader).

 

Since the last factory loaded Tri-X I bought a few weeks ago was like $6.30 a roll, it's at best break even if not less expensive to buy the factory loads.

 

I guess I hadn't checked Ilford prices and didn't realize it was that inexpensive. I should get FP4+-I honestly don't shoot it a lot in 35mm, but it's my main 4x5 film and I'd be well served by burning some up in a less expensive per shot format.

I've used Ilford HP5 since the 80's...and love the contrast and grain in HC110 Dil B. I regularly push to 3200 while metering for mid shadows for street photography. Attached is pushed to 4000 and metered at 2500. Adjusted contrast a bit but love the mushy grain of Microphen.

 

Kodak used to make 27.5 foot rolls, which are five 36 exposure rolls, with tongue and tab, end to end.

 

So, 5.5 feet/roll, for 18 rolls/100 feet. As with factory loaded rolls, you usually get 38 exposures if you start just after the (Leica style) tongue, and go until it won't wind anymore.

The last thing I'd ever want is a 36 exposure roll. With shorter rolls I end up with more or less the same subjects on the roll and can adjust development. With digital one can shoot with abandon, but with film I pay much more attention to each shot. Obviously if one were shooting sports or events, 36 makes sense.

The last thing I'd ever want is a 36 exposure roll. With shorter rolls I end up with more or less the same subjects on the roll and can adjust development. With digital one can shoot with abandon, but with film I pay much more attention to each shot. Obviously if one were shooting sports or events, 36 makes sense.

 

Yes been there done that. I just be careful and spend a month or 2 months on a single roll. Re: the wastage at the start and end of the roll when using the bulk loader and also when you develop it a shorter roll in the same amount of chemistry and the film sleeves. I could do 7 strips to max out the sleeves.

The usual negative sheets are 7 strips of 5 shots, so 35 total. But I usually get 38 on a 36 roll.

 

But yes, shorter rolls are sometimes nice.

Mine are 6 frames per strip :D Hama glassines.

Mine are 6 frames per strip :D Hama glassines.

 

So six frames and seven strips, but they don't fit in regular size binders.

Back when I used to make contact sheets of my negatives, I preferred the 7 strips of 5 since it would fit on 8x10 paper and any notes written at top also showed up. IIRC, the 7 strips of 6 frames might have been slightly too big.