Bulk loading price breakdown

Hello

 

To everyone who bulk loads I was wondering if any of you did a price break down on the cost per frame or 36 count roll, not counting developing?

 

Just wondering and I have one loader with Kentmere and will order a roll of Delta 100 soon, I know that is pretty much both ends of the price scale.

 

Anyway any comments will be appreciated.

 

Thanks

135-36 is about 5 ft long. Allowing for some waste, you can usually get 19 full rolls and some change. Bear in mind that unless you keep everything in the dark from the time you load the loader to the time you empty it, you're going to lose the last 2-3 frames on every roll. With that in mind, a "36" exposure roll is really 33, and be extremely when you close to the end of a roll.

 

So, you're getting 19x33, or ~630 exposures out of a 100 ft. roll. For Tri-X, that amounts to ~20¢ a frame, which is actually more expensive than commercial cartridges. I can get 36 exposure rolls for $6 each, or ~17¢ a frame.

 

Fortunately, there's much more a price advantage there with Ilford. FP4+ works out to right at 10¢ a frame when you bulk load it, vs. the same 17¢ for pre-loaded film.

 

You do need to count in the cost of cassettes. I haven't priced any in a while, but fortunately they last a good little while so they don't add much to the cost. Lately, I've mostly been using manufacturer-specific reloadable cassettes which, for all intents and purposes at the rate I'm using them, they won't wear out. The downside is that they can be difficult to find and typically only work in a limited number of cameras.

Edited June 22, 2017 by ben_hutcherson

With care, working in the dark and using short leaders, you can get about 20 36 exposure rolls from a 100 foot bulk roll. Exact number of exposures depend on your practice with the camera and to an extent, the camera itself. So, say 700 exposures. The major on line supplier that starts with "A" has prices from $129.95 for 400 TX to $39.95 for Kentmere 400. The range per film frame then, from.18 on the high end to ..05 on the low. The prices were a shock to me -- still operating off old stock. Thanks for the question / wake up, Don!

It is Early here -- bad math corrected.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Sandy Vongries

Recently one vendor (maybe B&H) had some short-dated Tri-X at a price more competitive with Ilford, but since I still had a 100' roll under refrigeration, I resisted. I've standardized on Ilford FP4+ as my medium speed film, although I do have one 100' roll of Plus-X in cold storage that I'm saving. I've also enjoyed the Eastman 5222 film that I bought from Film Photography project. 100' of it was cheaper than Tri-X but more than Ilford., After my stock of bulk Panatomic-X runs low I may get some Pan F+, as I've found it to be a good choice for fine grain. I've seen good results from Kentmere 100 here in these forums so I may test some in the near future. The least expensive 100' rolls that I've seen were at Ultra Fine Online. I think it is their 100 ISO stock. Never tried it, though.

One time purchase:

Second-hand Watson 100 loader from ebay $30-$40 with shipping

5x plastic Kaiser reloadable cartridges $16 (or recycle metal cans)

 

Rough calculation:

100' roll of Fomapan 100 => $47

19x 135-36 rolls of Fomapan 100, 19 x $4.35 => $83

 

The difference with loading 33-36 frames per cartridge takes maybe one roll away from what you can get out of a bulk roll, but the margin is still far in favor of bulk loading for me.

With care, working in the dark and using short leaders, you can get about 20 36 exposure rolls from a 100 foot bulk roll. Exact number of exposures depend on your practice with the camera and to an extent, the camera itself. So, say 700 exposures. The major on line supplier that starts with "A" has prices from $129.95 for 400 TX to $39.95 for Kentmere 400. The range per film frame then, from.18 on the high end to ..05 on the low. The prices were a shock to me -- still operating off old stock. Thanks for the question / wake up, Don!

It is Early here -- bad math corrected.

 

I was looking at the "F" vendor as they have some things that "A" and "B" don't stock. They are at $127.95 for Tri-X, but then if you order from the "B" vendor(which is probably the same price as the A one-without taking the time to look) you would get free shipping on it so it would end up being less expensive.

 

Although I'm a fan of the "Yellow Father." some of their prices just leave my jaw hanging. I appreciate that the staple products like Tri-X remain price competitive in both 35mm and 120. Their C41 stock is also price competitive. As a pricing metric, I usually look at the cost of a 120 pro pack(120 rolls tend to be about 50¢ less than 120) and they're at $25 on Tri-X and $30ish on their C41 stock. I will be interested to see if they price Ektachrome in the same range as Fuji products(~$11 a roll) or if they make them competitive at $8 or $9. I will buy and shoot Ektachrome, but unless they've knocked it out of the park with the new emulsion I won't be jumping ship on a large scale from Fuji since nothing replaces Velvia, but I'm still open to trying it.

 

Where Kodak gets you, though, is niche products like sheet film and 100 ft rolls. I was astounded when I checked the prices this morning on Tri-X, since by my math it's essentially break even if not more expensive that packaged Tri-X. Sheet film is another sore point with a lot of photographers. 4x5 TXP-320 runs $100 for a 50 sheet box while TMX and TMY2 are in the $125 range. I haven't checked recently, but most of the C-41 films are in a 10-sheet box at around $40. Compare that to Ilford, where sheet films are essentially the same price/area as smaller formats(4 sheets of 4x5 have about the same area as a roll of 120). The last box of 25 sheets of FP4+ I bought was around $35. Fuji is equally eye-popping with 4x5 transparencies running ~$80 for 20. Don't look at 8x10 prices unless you REALLY want a shock...

 

I did pick up a 100 ft roll of Vericolor Slide Film yesterday that expired in '92 as a freebie for buying a bunch of other stuff at the shop. I'll be interested in playing with it, although I have no idea what kind of crazy filtration it would need to be used as a daylight balanced film, and it's already quite slow when used as intended. For those unfamiliar, this is a C-41 process film on a clear base intended to make slides from color negatives. It's balanced for tungsten light and the orange mask on negative film. It might be time to dig out my film holder and find some good negatives I'd like to have as slides. I can just the reaction from my local lab when I hand them a roll in a Nikon reloadable cassette and ask for it to be C41 processed and then mounted :)

Good luck with the Vericolor slide film, Ben. If it doesn't work out you can reload it and sell it to LOMO users, I suppose.

A historical note: one of the early selling points of Kodacolor (back in the 50's) was the availability of slides from the negatives. I actually had some Kodacolor 400 negatives printed as slides in the early 1980's and they looked quite nice.

Fair enough, Mike :)

 

I have some Lumiere in 120 that I should unload on the Lomo crowd. I didn't like it when it was current, and I'm sure age hasn't been kind to it :)

 

A friend of mine was shaking his head not too long ago at a Lomo guy who wanted to burn 10 rolls of expired Velvia(not that far out of date) in a Holga. I just about went into fits over that one...

Also, some emulsions that are not well-known might only be available in bulk. I have a partial bulk roll of Kodak 2484 that expired in the late 80's that I don't believe was ever sold in individual cassettes. I think it's nominal ISO might be 800 or more, although I got printable negatives from 200 to 1600. There was, of course, some fog and grain with it.

Hello everyone. Mike, the Ultrafine emulsions, 100 & 400, are to me, for all purposes Kentmere products, rebadged of course. The one super advantage is that 120 film is available from them, so both formats (35 & 120) can be used together. The only reason my postings have the Kentmere tags is the 100' roll was a bit less ($8), due to someone's effort to rob me on the postage! Aloha, Bill

@bill- the Ultrafine vs. Kentmere is reversed where I live: 100' of Kentmere 100 is $39.95 but only $33.95 for Ultrafine Extreme 100. Not sure about shipping, though, Good to have a less expensive alternative if FP4+ gets too pricey for me.

Thank you everyone for the time responding.

Looks like the lower priced rolls are very economical, I am looking at Delta 100 which is about 70.00 a roll and if HP-5 works out that is about 60.00

I sill have to try Kentmere 400 again and see if I can get to like it, I just can't seem to get over the grain in the shots with sky in them compared to Delta.

Have not used Kentmere, by all reports decent. In days of yore, grain was very popular with some. There were folks who even went to the extreme of developing Tri X in Dektol for high grain and contrast. If what you are seeking is finer grain, I doubt your money would be well spent buying another roll or K 400. Remember stein's definition of insanity! ;-)

I used to bulk load film, but now I find that

 

Arista EDU Ultra 100 ISO 35mm x 36 exp. | Freestyle Photographic Supplies. is simpler

 

I bought 20 rolls of Arista EDU ultra 100

Good point Sandy, no point in doing the same thing over and over.

I have been using HC-110 and Rodinal and was just wondering if there was a tweak or a different developer to get a little less grain look.

In HC110 It looks good for the most part

I got the same look with Ultrafine Extreme

I will probably just stick with the Ilford products

I used Kodak films with Microdol X, HC-110 and D 76. Various Kodak papers and Dektol. The more meticulous on cleanliness, temperatures, times and agitation, the more consistent your results will be. Also had good results in special situations with Acufine & Diafine. Has been a good few years since I developed -- poised on the brink with all of the darkroom junk set aside, and a place made ready. Have been paying for processing and scanning -- lazy me!

Have been paying for processing and scanning -- lazy me!

 

Get that dark room set up!

 

Even though I do E-6 myself, I'm happy to pay a commercial lab to do my 35mm E-6(I like it mounted, and I don't have a way to do that) and shoot a small enough amount of C-41 that I'd rather pay $4.50 a roll to support the local lab. I really only got into doing E6 myself because Chicago is the closest place where I can get sheet film developed, although I do 120 also.

 

The commercial lab I use does offer B&W developing, but I think they just do 7 minutes in D76 at 20ºC, which is a value that will give results on most any film. I can't imagine not having freedom to control my dilution. agitation, time and of course developer choice.

 

As for scanning-back in the day I use to run a lot of film to the Wal-Mart one hour lab(when they still had one) and just do process+scan. I was always happy with the automatic scans that the Frontier would spit out for 8x10 prints, but at the end of the day I can do better on my own and tweaking the scanner for each frame. It's a time consuming process, though. I use to like either getting 4x6s or the CD(usually the CD since it was cheaper) so that I could see what was worth scanning myself. A lot of time with a loupe and a light table has let me at least get SOME idea of how a C-41 frame will scan, although often times I don't know for sure until I actually see it on the screen. That's one big advantage to E-6-you can easily preview it before investing the time in scanning.

Hello everyone. Don I believe you will find the 400 Kentmere has excellent grain when used with one of the pyro type developers. I use Ultrafine400 in my 6x6 Isolettes almost exclusively, and the Kentmere 400 in the 35mm's. . .results with the Obsidian Aqua are equal, hence IMHO, the two are the same film. Here is an extreme of the 6x6 UFX400. Section is a 3.5 x 5 crop of 6x6 neg blown up to 33 inch square, without the black borders.

** For the 5th time today, V2.2 is being a snit. . . all kinds of "error" msgs. Any one else having "troubles"??

Photo after I get this 2.2 working.

Aloha, Bill

I have to reboot computer. 6 months since this ver. was dumped on us & it still is WIERD. Now I get 2x ??

Here is a Kentmere 400 / PyrocatHD neg thru the Fed-2/Jupiter combo. Section is from a 15x23 inch enlargement. Bill

Great results, Bill. I must admit I only tried one roll of the Kentmere 400 and had to improvise a developing time for it (as at the time I don't think their was an official time in HC110 dilution B). Now I see quite a few suggested times, but the results I see in Obsidian Aqua and Pyrocat are quite good. One thing I've noticed besides the fine grain these developers bring forth is that the tones are excellent. Naturally since I use HC110 almost exclusively I will probably experiment some more with it, maybe at different dilutions. BTW, I noticed B&H sells the 400 for the price as the 100.

Hello everyone. Until my fire in 2015, I had been using primarily 510-Pyro for 5 years or more & had a stash of various Big Box emulsions to pick from. A few cameras were lost, but the stash & chemistry were gone, so to expedite recovery (photographically speaking), I ordered some Obsidian Aqua chems & the Ultrafine films in 35mm & 120. Long story short, after experimenting with these, and a number of big box offerings, the Ultrafine/Kentmere emulsions & OA are my "standards". I find the high lite / shadow ratios are best with this combo. Aloha, Bill

Kentmere certainly looks interesting. From some quick reading, it seems it's an Ilford product although it's NOT the same as their other emulsions. I just wish it was available in something other than 35mm.

 

I've used a decent amount of Arista.EDU in 4x5. It's by far and away the most affordable panachromatic sheet film on the market. Although I don't like it as well as I do my other two B&W staples-FP4+ and TXP-320-it's great for trying out lenses and otherwise just getting a feel for how movements translate into film. I also bought some in 120 to burn before I opened the 4x5 box. With Ilford Ortho film now being non-existent, their ortho film also looks tempting as a way to play with that aspect of photography. As a Foma film, though, it's not necessarily as predictable as a film from the big three.

This seems to be careening towards a film/developer discussion.

I haven'T read so carefully, but I load my cassettes in the changing bag. I HATE the idea that the last frames will be ruined. I never use frame counters I just generally just shoot until I can't advance anymore. I am not a numbers guy so doing a breakdown empirically is ok, but as often goes ..the real mileage may vary considerably.

I will roll off 25 exposures and I will loose three to four loading the camera. My estimate is from 30m (40mm per frame) I can get 750 exposures. So lets say I get 30 rolls (20 21-exposures losing 3-4 loading camera) I did not calculate the cassette cost. I have them; so there. I paid for the Agfa APX 100 (believed to be Kentmere) delivered €48,90 let's call it €50,00. That is per 25 exp roll (30) rolls@ 0.06 per frame. So my cost per 25 exposure roll is: €1,50. Iwill get circa 21-22 exp..

Sure it would be even more economic to make longer rolls, but I want to shoot different cameras more often. For me it's about the cameras and not the film so much. Maybe like cars and gasoline.

So It at least seems seems economic that I am using a bulk loader (Watson) etc, but It's like buying the salami on plain bread instead of the bio rye bread. My macro economics.. my sense....I don't have to prove this to anybody but me! right? :)

Hello again. Mentioned earlier, the BEST benefit of using a bulk loader for 35mm is the loading of short lengths for testing, etc. Also, with several reloaders, you can have different emulsions about. I do not have exact $ figures, but after 4 or 5 100' rolls the expense of the cassettes & loader goes to pennies for each "roll" of film.

Ben, try a "sampler pack" of 120 film from the Ultrafine Xxtreme offering on Ebay. (3) rolls each emulsion. What ever developer for Kentmere works. Aloha, Bill