Jump to content

Why 24 exp, 36 exp ?


Recommended Posts

35mm film began with Ur-Leica.

<p> Any one knows what was the original exposure number of Ur-Leica ?

<p> Why standard 35mm film has 24 exposure or 36 exposure ?

<p> Where this numbers 24, 36 comes from, in order words, was there

any particular reason this numbers was chosen ? Say, a box of glass plate contained 24 plates etc ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actully, when I got back into photography seriously a few years ago,

I was shocked to find 24-exp rolls. In my previous photographic

incarnation in the '70s the standard sizes were 36 and 20. To my

mind this made a bit more sense, because when I wanted a short roll I

usually don't need 24 frames, so the 20's were more economical. I

suspect the 24 exposure roll was driven by the amateur vacation-

snapper market, where a 36 is just too long but 20 is a bit too short.

 

<p>

 

the difference is in perspective - people like us shoot a lot, so we

tend to see the 36-exposure roll as standard, and the 24 as "short".

The average Joe sees the 24 as standard and the 36 as "long".

 

<p>

 

As to how the 36-exposure roll became standard, I have no idea. My

speculation is that it was simply convenient - long enough to give a

lot of exposures, and just the right size to fit into a cassette that

would fit into a the camera body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the original UR Leica's frame counter went to 50, which as

Paul said, was probably the longest length that would fit in the

camera. I have the impression that the UR had to be loaded in

darkness and simply held "loose" film with no cassette. Anyone know

for sure?

 

<p>

 

But with a cassette, 36 is about the longest length that will easily

fit inside, but it also happens to be a nice even length of 5 feet or

1.5 meters.

 

<p>

 

I have among my collection of oddities an old Kodak catalog from 1938.

It lists 35mm BW film available in two sizes, 18 or 36 exposures. So

the short size has gradually been growing from 18 to 20 to 24. Then

some made 12 or 27 exposure rolls.

 

<p>

 

Just for interest and comparison, the film prices from 1938 were (in

US dollars):

 

<p>

 

Plus-X, Super-XX & Panatomic-X 18 exp: $0.60

Plus-X, Super-XX & Panatomic-X 36 exp: $0.95

Kodachrome slides 18 exp: $2.50 with procssing.

 

<p>

 

In 1938 the US instituted the first minimum wage of $0.30 per hour,

which today is around $5.50 (not exactly sure), so you can figure the

relative effect of inflation over the last 65 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using similar Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI inflation indexes from

1938 to 2002 (good thinking Tod) $1 back then is equivalent to $12.56

2002 A.D. dollars.

 

<p>

 

So a 36 exposure roll of black and white film was a bit over $11 in

today's money and an 18 exposure roll was about $32 in today's money.

Or $64 for 36 slides.

 

<p>

 

Very expensive, when you consider that real incomes were

significantly lower then, i.e. even after adjusting for inflation.

 

<p>

 

No wonder my Dad constantly mutters about my "wasting film" when he

sees me snapping away, modern amateur style. And no wonder

photography had this reputation for being an expensive hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since print film processors charge by the print they just make more

money with a 24 exposure roles which usually have 25 or 26 exposures.

I shoot 36 exposure Velvia but when I need print film I've discovered

12 exposure "sample" rolls at Ritz for under $2.00. I can do an

entire family reunion with 12 exposures - no wasted film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tod, is right about the UR and 50 exposures - however this applied

only to a direct loading of loose film in the pre-production UR model.

 

<p>

 

The addition of the necessary (re-loadable) film cassette holder in

production cameras brought the aimed for number of exposures down to

40 - this caused problems however and it was found that 36 exposures

fitted far more reliably. Hence all new Leica's were sold with three

cassettes holding 1.6 metres of film (or 36 exposures worth).

 

<p>

 

Remember, it was the sucess of the Leica that created a market for

the pre-loaded film cassettes that we still use today.

 

<p>

 

Source:"A history of the 35mm Still Camera" Roger Hicks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can remember Kodak putting 35mm in 12 exp rolls. Seems like 15 or

20 yrs ago. I welcomed this until I discovered that it costed as

much to develop the 12s as it did for the 24s! The 12s soon

disappeared from dealer shelves. The beauty of 35mm is that you can

afford to shoot 3 or 4 different exposures of the same subject and

then pick out the best for printing. This gets expensive with medium

format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin sys: "35mm film began with Ur-Leica."

 

<p>

 

Just to clarify that Leica did not invent 35mm it was already around

for about 30 years in cinema cameras. Leica saw the potential for using

it in still cameras so for a number of years the film used in Leicas

was from the cinema film stock, then Kodak started to package 35mm for

still cameras. Some people today still will buy a 400' or 1000' roll of

cinema stock and load their own cassettes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those with an historical bent, Leitz used to make a camera called

the Reporter (models FF and GG, aka. Leica 250) that was built to

handle bulk loading film cannisters for 250 exposures. This is now a

collectors item. There are also off shoots of the Leica 250 (?

Russian), some of which are pictured in Lager Volume I, that could

hold 500 or 750 exposures. The Leica 250 is rare today, because it

wasn't a great commercial success and few were made. However, it

does indicate that Leica's thinking went beyond the standard 36

exposure cassette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35mm film itself (introduced in the 1890's) was generally believed to

be derived from 70mm Kodak movie rollfilm (slit in half). The first

commercially available 35mm still camera was not the Leica but

the "Tourist Multiple" (patented 1912) and slightly later,

the "Simplex".

 

<p>

 

The Tourist was half frame only but the Simplex was switchable from

half to full frame and held 50 feet of film! (400 full exposures).

 

<p>

 

A further ten or so 35mm camera's were introduced before the Leica in

1925 - the Leica did however put 35mm on the map, being the first

well engineered, compact, precise and ergonomic camera to do the

format justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With thin base film, more exposure can be packed into a 36 exp

cartridge. Ilford used to market 72 exp film.

<p> Any one tried loading more than 36 exp Kodak TEchnical Pan film

in to cartridge ? I never try this with 35mm film, but do this all the

time loading 50 exp TP film into 36 exp Minox cassette.

<p> I expect a 35mm cartridge can hold up to 50 exp Technical Pan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...