OT: Bulk loading to save money

[monsoonphoto.net]

Do any of you folks bulk load your film? I'm considering this route in

anticipation of higher film prices down the road. Based on my

calculations, I'd save about a dollar on every bulk-loaded roll of

Neopan 400. <P>The question: is it worth the trouble just to save a

dollar a roll?

<P>

Btw, I shoot about one or two rolls a week.

[john_amiet2]

The short answer is, do you care about $1 OR $2 a week?

 

The long answer is, consider the investment in a bulk loader, reusable cassettes, the time it takes to load into the cassettes, etc. In the future, I think this may be one of the directions film takes. ie. Bulk purchases, via the internet from who knows where, and load to your hearts content. At present, it probably is not a significant advantage, but in the future it may be one of the only ways.

 

BTW, I currently do it for B/W film, but have given up doing it for colour because my preferred colour films are not readily available in bulk. It is not an easy call, but I suggest a mix 'n match approach at present.

[joe_blow32]

Works for me.

 

Also, you can roll odd amounts of exposures (30 to a roll is what I do). Makes for nice contact sheets.

[lutz]

I'm doing it right now, Neopan 400 from <a href="http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/index.php?cPath=24">Megaperls</a> in a 100ft bulk loader. USD 32 for approx. 20 rolls gives me USD 1.6/roll - if I could find Neopan 400 for USD 2.6/roll I might not be bothered, but Fuji b&w is almost unobtainable in Europe, leave alone at these prices. A wonderful emulsion and, as mentioned before, bulk loading might soon become the only affordable way to go, anyway.

[ronald_moravec1]

Been doing it for 45-50 years. Two problems. The tail is always fogged so you can put exposures there if the film counter is not watched. The second is plastic cassetts don`t seem to work in screw, m r bodies. Oh yes, a third. Cassets in the stores are filthy dirty so you need to order from B and H. You will get clean ones. Dirt is the true enemy of home loads.

 

The current design Watson loader is the best.

 

You can work entirely in the dark and avoid problem #1 and deciding which loader is best.

[george_conboy1]

And there's the convenience factor of always being able to spool up a roll and go. Friends who have abandoned bulk loading have given me their loaders so I have a few and keep three of them full with different films.

 

Of course, having a spare card for your digicam moots the need for a convenient source of film....

[bernard_frank]

Let's see: one roll a week, that's 52 rolls a year, give or take. That's $52 saved. You'll need

about four 100 ft rolls for that. Depending on the roller you have, it may take you at least

a whole day in all, if not more, to bulk roll those four rolls, what with the loading, the

rolling, the cutting of the leader (which you need to do if you have a Leica with the "tulip"

spool on the receiving end), the marking of the cassettes (unless you shoot only one kind

of film), etc...

 

So, it amounts to a whole day of work for $52. How does that compare to your salary or

wages or fees or whatever? $52 a year? Don't do it for the money.

 

But do it for the fun, the relaxation, for not having to go to the store every time you need a

few rolls, and for the convenience of rolling different length cassettes.

[al_kaplan1]

I've been doing it just about from the beginning, back in 1961. It's saved a lot of money over the years, lets me use Leica cassettes, and also use films that were only available in bulk. I used to use Kodak Royal-X Pan Recording Film which wasn't spooled in cassettes by Kodak, and I've gone through a lot of motion picture stock like Double-X ISO 250 and XT Pan ISO 40 which I liked better than Panatomic-X.

 

I get about 19 36 exp. rolls from a 100 ft. roll. I just go in the darkroom and do it by hand, no loader. Including trimming leaders it takes under two hours, closer to one really, so the saving is significant. When figuring the savings base it on your after tax cost, what's left after all your taxes are with held, not your gross pay. You don't pay income tax on money you save.

[mike dixon]

I roll my own. It's really not that much trouble. I typically load up several rolls while I'm watching TV, so it's not like I'm expending valuable time loading cassettes.

[monsoonphoto.net]

Thanks everyone. I guess I'll just shelve this for now. I'll probably reconsider this option later down the road. <P>

By the way, what do these special Leica cassettes do, Al?

[dirk-san1]

Thanks for the hundreds of referrals, Lutz - much obliged :)<p>

 

As others have said, rolling your own is partly cost saving, but mostly attitude. Just ask any

good smoker.<p>

 

Make sure to salvage used canisters from a mini-lab, as described <a href="http://

www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009NOb">here</a>

[al_kaplan1]

Alan, on older M a LTM bodies the Leica cassettes open up when you turn the key on the baseplate to attach it. They have inner and outer shells and when turned open there's a slot perhaps 3/8" (8mm) wide for the film to come out so it doesn't have to go between two pieces of felt or velvet which might pick up grit. There's nothing to wear out and leak light. Those with a brass knob only work on LTM bodies. They're a bit too long to fit in M bodies. Chrome knobs work in both LTM and M bodies equipped to open them. They pay for themselves over time compared to buying regular cassettes, and sometimes you can luck out and get them for a buck or two at yard sales from people who don't realize what they'd bring on Ebay. Of course if that happens you should also buy the M3 body and 3 lenses for $200 too...LOL. It does happen ;-)

[jim_a]

It depends on what's available when I need to buy film. Here in the states B&H has had imported Neopan 36exp rolls for $2.39 each but it's been back-ordered a while now. That's a good price considering that it costs me $2.05 per 36exp roll to bulk-loaded Neopan. Factory loaded "USA" versions of Neopan are $3.99 a roll right now so it's nearly a $2 a roll savings to bulk load Neopan. Tri-X can now be had for $30 for 100 feet making it $1.66 per 36 exposures.

 

For cassettes I use left-over cartridges from my local photo lab who give them to me for the asking. There is a little bit of film that is sticking out of the cassestte where the machines cut the film. You butt your bulk film to this piece and wrap it with scotch tape. See the photos below to see how to roll them.

 

I use them once then pitch them. I never have issues with scratches or the ends popping off. As long as you get enough scotch tape wrapped under the splice there is no way this will rip off in your camera.

 

I roll the entire 100 feet in one sitting using a Watson bulk loader.<div></div>

[andrew_hull]

You should ask this on the black and white film board, you know, the one where people talk about black and white film!

[nathaniel_pearson]

One advantage is that bulk rolls are in such low demand, you can often get ridiculous

deals when they're finally given up on and cleared out. I got a 100' roll of E100G for

USD 15. And it wasn't short- or out-dated -- the store had merely put it in that bin

and marked the price down, perhaps b/c it was stored next to something that was

short-dated.

 

You can get great deals on clearance 36exp. rolls too, but it's nice to have a loader in

case you see a great bulk roll price.

 

One caveat: be sure to mark your rolls with what's in them!

[dan flanders]

I have loaded from bulk off and on for the past fifty years. In the early days it was a distinct saving because I shot up a lot of film. However, if you use Leica cassettes the real advantage is peace of mind, knowing that fewer exposures will be lost due to possible light leaks and other faults that often occur without logical explanation. Now that my volume of shooting has been significantly reduced there is doubt whether there is any actual saving, but the ease of using the Leica cassettes more than justifies the practice. Often I transfer color film from the factory cartridge to the Leica cassette purely because it seems to advance more easily that way even though there is no assurance it will prevent scratches, etc. On the whole I seem to encounter fewer problems with cassettes and that offsets the inconvenience of loading. Though I have a loader it is often more convenient to use a changing bag. Being able to load only the anticipated number of exposures needed for a particular shoot is one of the advantages of bulk loading.

[mike_elek]

I've been bulk loading for about 20 years or so. I used a lot of Tri-X when I was shooting for newspapers.

 

These days I have two bulk loaders -- each with my favorite films. I'd like to add a third.

 

The great thing about bulk loading is the ability to do odd-size rolls. For example, when I'm testing a camera, a roll of 12 or 15 generally is sufficient.

 

I also reuse cassettes from store-bought film. There is a proper method for taping when reusing store-bought film.

 

Aside from the savings, Ilike the ability to roll film when I need it.

[SCL]

I used to bulk load Tri-x for a number of years and realized the advantages others above cited. Not doing it now, as I'm using my Leica glass on a Nikon D100 or just shooting film as purchased. If you're doing a lot of shooting & your own processing, bulk loading, IMHO is the only way to go.

[eric rose]

Been loading bulk for 35 years. Even in the snow at minus 40 while walking uphill in bare feet LOL.

 

I love the ability to load up just as many frames as I think I will need. Since I do my own developing the turn around is rather quick. No more waiting to finish the role crap.

 

I also bulk load C41. My lab takes my cassettes no problems and give them back to me after they are developed. I do it more for the convenience than anything else.

[al_kaplan1]

Here's a source of 35mm motion picture stock, but the rolls are mostly too big to fit a bulk film loader. Still, "short ends" at ten cents a foot is CHEAP. "Ends" are what's left on the feed spool in the movie camera magazine when they send it in for processing.

 

Eastman 5222 is ISO 250 daylight, 200 tungsten. It's actually a bit faster if developed to a normal contrast for making paper prints. D-96 developer is very similar to D-76.

 

http://filmemporium.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/page5.html#5222

[Jochen_S]

I got 2 cheap bulkloaders and did it even without in a changing bag. Saving money, doing more by myself, detracting my mind from costs to expose a extra frame now and than...

[kelly_flanigan1]

In the mid 1960's a bulk roll of 100ft of tri-x was often about 5 bucks brand new in date. My brothers new Konica auto s2 was 45 dollars in 1964. gasoline was about 20 cents.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

What kind of tape do people use? I lost a whole roll because the Scotch magic tape broke and when I opened the camera I exposed it (I knew something was "off" but I was in too much of a hurry to think). Leica levers seem to carry more torque than others and I think that did it. Now I'm using medical adhesive tape from a First Aid kit; it's harder to work with, but I know it won't break.

[al_kaplan1]

Plain old masking tape works just fine. I use the cheap "no name" stuff.

[mike_elek]

Masking tape, electrical tape. Lately, I've been using that blue Scotch-brand tape.