more than 36 photographs on a roll?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Ross Peebles, Jul 11, 2003.

  1. Ross Peebles

    Ross Peebles Guest

    I get 37 to 38 on a 36 exposure roll with my Nikon N70.

    Ross -
    Ross Peebles, Jul 11, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ross Peebles

    Jan Keirse Guest


    at my local photo shop I can develop my films for a fixed price per film (at a
    very good quality to my opinion). I was wondering. Do there exist 35mm films
    that can contain like 60 photographs? It would make life a hell lot cheaper ;-)

    Kind regards,

    Jan Keirse, Jul 12, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ross Peebles

    Polytone Guest

    No. 36 is the highest possible. The negs would be too thin if there were any
    more exposures on a 35mm roll. Try APS.
    Polytone, Jul 12, 2003
  4. Ross Peebles

    Colyn Guest

    If you have a half frame 35mm camera you can get 72 pics. But most
    labs are set up to do full frame 35mm..

    Colyn Goodson

    Ft. Worth, Texas

    625 and 675 mercury battery fix

    Camera manuals

    For Sale
    Colyn, Jul 12, 2003
  5. Ross Peebles

    Alan Browne Guest

    Many cameras will expose 37 or even 38 frames on a standard roll.

    If you "roll your own" from bulk stock you can get up to about 40
    frames into a cassette. You can save money doing this, but it is a pain
    to do, and the risk of scratches is higher.

    Alan Browne, Jul 12, 2003
  6. Ross Peebles

    Guest Guest

    Also, some of the older manual focus cameras - I'm only familiar with the
    Canon F-1 but I'm sure other makers did this - had an accessory available
    which allowed up to 250 frames - bulk loaded of course. It's a "film back"
    which replaces the normal back, and includes large magazines for the film on
    either side of the camera. Pretty bulky, but I imagine if you're doing a
    lot of motor drive/action shooting it could really come in handy.

    Guest, Jul 12, 2003
  7. Ross Peebles

    Jan Keirse Guest

    Me neither. Probably noone makes it. I was just wondering if it existed because
    I thought maybe it might be possible to make thinner film that still works.
    Aparrently it isn't. (Or it would be to expensive or I don't know ;-))


    Jan Keirse, Jul 12, 2003
  8. It would make for a very crowded cassette, I don't know of any with this
    much film in it.
    John Garrison, Jul 12, 2003
  9. I had a friend who bulk-loaded a lot more film on a 35mm cassette than was
    intended. Then he found that the exposed film wouldn't fit on his
    developing reel. :-> I suspect the same problem would arise with your local
    Phil Stripling, Jul 12, 2003
  10. In the spirit of Usenet nitpickery, I'll point out that it's not
    unusual to get 37 pictures on a 36 exposure roll. You *might* be able
    to push it to 38 or 39 or even 40.
    Pete McCutchen, Jul 12, 2003
  11. cheaper ;-)

    Ilford used to sell (thin base version) of one (or more, i don't remember)
    of their films in regular 35 mm cassettes that held double the amount of
    exposures. So yes.

    This long roll thing never was a commercial succes. Why?
    On the other hand, shorter rolls, 24 or even 12 exposure films are still
    available. So maybe even 36 exposure rolls are a bit long already? ;-)
    Q.G. de Bakker, Jul 13, 2003
  12. Ross Peebles

    Bob Sull Guest

    And, according to Murphy, that frame will be the best shot you ever took.

    Bob Sull, Jul 13, 2003
  13. Ross Peebles

    EDGY01 Guest

    << Do there exist 35mm films
    that can contain like 60 photographs? >><BR><BR>

    Many years ago Ilford made 72 exposure rolls of black and white film with a
    thinner backing that allowed so much film to work in a regular 35mm camera. It
    was eventually proven to be commericially unsucessful and they abandoned it.

    EDGY01, Jul 13, 2003
  14. Ross Peebles

    Patrick L. Guest

    Olympus, if I recall, made such a camera, no?

    Patrick L., Jul 13, 2003
  15. Same with my F5, but I don't know weather I could get a canister in the
    supply slot that was big enough to hold 60 pictures......Sometimes I have a
    little trouble getting the regular size in and out of the space.......
    William Graham, Jul 13, 2003
  16. Ross Peebles

    Jan Keirse Guest

    Well, so do I ;-) Probably thats because the film manufacturers want to be sure
    there can fit at least 36 photographs on them, but when you don't load the film
    to well, you might loose one or two...
    Jan Keirse, Jul 13, 2003
  17. Ross Peebles

    Bob Sull Guest

    Yes, the Pen F was one.

    Bob Sull, Jul 13, 2003
  18. Ross Peebles

    columbotrek Guest

    I remember a half frame Nikromat from the 70s. Some dude in my photo
    journalism class has one. Thought he could get lots of shots from a
    roll. I lost track of that guy though. Its been a long time.
    columbotrek, Jul 14, 2003
  19. Please bear in mind that many modern cameras don't permit mor than 36
    On the EOS 300 I get 36 exposures on Kodak, but 37 on Fuji.

    The Real Lee Casey
    The Real Lee Casey, Jul 14, 2003
  20. Ross Peebles

    Paul Handley Guest

    Me, I want as few exposures as possible on a roll cause I want to examine
    what I've done quickly. Thats where my digital comes in handy!
    Paul Handley, Jul 15, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.