Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
Laurie Solomon wrote: That is the safest conclusion. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. So the conclusion is - don't try to squeeze out an extra frame or two? Maris When mentally reviewing my own many thousands of rolls of film, I think I can honestly say that the labs I've used have done equal or probably more damage to frames within the legal frame areas (numbers 1-36), than to the over 36 frames. So, for me, the $aving$ of an extra 2-3 frames per roll, and the number of times that last extra frame has either saved my butt, or been an unexpected keeper that I would have missed, says it has little to do with safest conclusions. Art
Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
Laurie Solomon wrote: I pay and have paid for and expect 36 exposure for many, many years - everything over and above that is a gift. While that is not in question; what often is in question is the fact that given the shorter lengths of leader any attempts to squeeze that extra frame out of the film often leaves no room for the processor to attach things like processing clips for dip and dunk, leader tape for roller processing, or drying clips if the film is hung up to dry as in the case of black and white films done in custom labs. As a result those extra frames frequently are damaged in one way or another due tot he mechanics of processing and the need for a frame or two of open space at either end. Many people think that because they can squeeze an extra frame or two on the roll - gift or not - they should be able to expect to get the image on those extra frames back undamaged as if they were within the normal range of frames for that roll, be it 12, 24, 36 exposures. Well, I thought I was done with this thread... My experiments show that the loss of film is not at the rear end, but at the leader. I know this may sound like it makes no sense, but it does. There has been some shortening of the rolls since years ago (I'd guess at most one frame), but not as much as is showing up in loss of frames in newer cameras (back to 36 or max 37). What I see mainly is wasted leader due to too much of it being used during the autoload process. The autoload feature should actually allow for extra frames is anything. This, I believe, is an agreement with maybe both film manufacturers and labs. The most slide boxes used by labs can no longer even fit 39 mounted frames anymore. Art
Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Arthur Entlich wrote: What I see mainly is wasted leader due to too much of it being used during the autoload process. The autoload feature should actually allow for extra frames is anything. This, I believe, is an agreement with maybe both film manufacturers and labs. Of course it could be that they are making _absolutely_ sure that no pictures are being fogged by the loading process being a bit too short. If the first frame was partly fogged for this reason, you can be sure someone would start suing for the usual 20 billion dollars for mental distress, etc., etc.!! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
RE: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
Well, I thought I was done with this thread... I thought you were too; so we will chalk it up to a senior moment in which you forgot you were done with the thread. :-) My experiments show that the loss of film is not at the rear end, but at the leader. MY personal experience both in terms of processing my own Black and White as well as examining the front and rear tails of the film which my local custom professional lab returns for both E-41 and E-6 films suggest the loss of film due to wasted unused film is at both ends and about the same amount. There has been some shortening of the rolls since years ago (I'd guess at most one frame) Actually, I believe it is more than one frame. If one measures the overall length of the film strip against the length of the older film strips, I believe you will find that rather than allowing for 6-7 frames total of leader the new strips are allowing for only 4-5 frames. It is this shortening total length of the film that results in processors often being forced as a practicality to damage the last extra frame on the roll that people attempt to squeeze out of the roll, which as you note is typically the only spare exposure that the newer automatic cameras will allow given the bar coded canisters. What I see mainly is wasted leader due to too much of it being used during the autoload process. As I said in another post, when this takes place it is at the beginning of the roll; and with automatic cameras, it does not usually effect the amount of leader at the end of the roll - especially 36 exposure rolls - since the automatic cameras stop winding and allowing the shutter to be operated at 36 exposures. However, it could effect the amount of end leader (or I guess the proper term is tail) in less than 36 exposure rolls where the camera may allow one to use the shutter pas the official number of exposures until the camera can no longer wind off any leader/tail.However, in all cases the use of too much leader in loading will result in the camera not being able to allow for the designated number of actual frames that are exposed. In other words, the excess leader will cut into the actual film that was suppose to be used for making exposures. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 8:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips) Laurie Solomon wrote: I pay and have paid for and expect 36 exposure for many, many years - everything over and above that is a gift. While that is not in question; what often is in question is the fact that given the shorter lengths of leader any attempts to squeeze that extra frame out of the film often leaves no room for the processor to attach things like processing clips for dip and dunk, leader tape for roller processing, or drying clips if the film is hung up to dry as in the case of black and white films done in custom labs. As a result those extra frames frequently are damaged in one way or another due tot he mechanics of processing and the need for a frame or two of open space at either end. Many people think that because they can squeeze an extra frame or two on the roll - gift or not - they should be able to expect to get the image on those extra frames back undamaged as if they were within the normal range of frames for that roll, be it 12, 24, 36 exposures. Well, I thought I was done with this thread... My experiments show that the loss of film is not at the rear end, but at the leader. I know this may sound like it makes no sense, but it does. There has been some shortening of the rolls since years ago (I'd guess at most one frame), but not as much as is showing up in loss of frames in newer cameras (back to 36 or max 37). What I see mainly is wasted leader due to too much of it being used during the autoload process. The autoload feature should actually allow for extra frames is anything. This, I believe, is an agreement with maybe both film manufacturers and labs. The most slide boxes used by labs can no longer even fit 39 mounted frames anymore. Art
Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
So the conclusion is - don't try to squeeze out an extra frame or two? Maris - Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 11:07 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips) | I pay and have paid for and expect 36 exposure for many, many years - | everything over and above that is a gift. | | While that is not in question; what often is in question is the fact that | given the shorter lengths of leader any attempts to squeeze that extra frame | out of the film often leaves no room for the processor to attach things like | processing clips for dip and dunk, leader tape for roller processing, or | drying clips if the film is hung up to dry as in the case of black and white | films done in custom labs. As a result those extra frames frequently are | damaged in one way or another due tot he mechanics of processing and the | need for a frame or two of open space at either end. Many people think that | because they can squeeze an extra frame or two on the roll - gift or not - | they should be able to expect to get the image on those extra frames back | undamaged as if they were within the normal range of frames for that roll, | be it 12, 24, 36 exposures. | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, | Sr. | Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 11:30 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC | tips) | | | I pay and have paid for and expect 36 exposure for many, many years - | everything over and above that is a gift. | | Maris | | |
Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
Laurie Solomon wrote: Art, Interestingly, I have been finding that the length of the film leaders on both ends of the film have gotten shorter and shorter as time has gone on. There use to be enough leader to allow for three extra frames plus room to put clips on the ends of the film; now in some cases there is hardly room to have an extra frame and room for clips. My understanding is that the industry is attempting to save money in a competitive market by shortening the amount of leader they provide under the justification that the current batch of automatic everything cameras and processing do not require as much leader as in the past where things were less sophisticated and more manual. I think there is some truth to what you say, however, I think the camera manufacturers have gotten together with the film companies to make sure the autoload cameras waste a lot of leader. My films from the Nikon 801s come back with a huge wasted unexposed leader. I once asked Nikon if there was anyway to adjust this to get an extra frame or two from it, but they claimed no way. I'm certain all that film isn't required to thread safely. My wife's Canon Rebel G gets 36 frames most of the time and occasionally 37 (and it uses reverse loading... it preloads the whole film and then shoots backwards until the film is at the beginning), the Nikon 801s 37 and occasionally 38 (always chopped by lab), the Nikon FM and FE, always 38 sometimes 39 (usually chopped by lab). Same film, same lab. Now, those small autoload rangefinder cameras should have no problem getting 39, with current film lengths, but do they? The thing with the autoload cameras is you barely have to pull any film out of the cassette before closing the back, meaning more unexposed film available. The Manual loads usually require keeping the back open until you have rolled the film to the take up reel a few times. People might think I'm crazy to worry about one or two or three frames a roll, but we're speaking about film and processing (and mounting sometimes) and 2 frames a roll for me can be 800-1000 or more frames a year... it adds up. And now, having gone way off topic, I bow out of this discussion. Art
Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)
I pay and have paid for and expect 36 exposure for many, many years - everything over and above that is a gift. Maris - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 7:50 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips) | | | Laurie Solomon wrote: | | Art, | | Interestingly, I have been finding that the length of the film leaders on | both ends of the film have gotten shorter and shorter as time has gone on. | There use to be enough leader to allow for three extra frames plus room to | put clips on the ends of the film; now in some cases there is hardly room to | have an extra frame and room for clips. My understanding is that the | industry is attempting to save money in a competitive market by shortening | the amount of leader they provide under the justification that the current | batch of automatic everything cameras and processing do not require as much | leader as in the past where things were less sophisticated and more manual. | | | I think there is some truth to what you say, however, I think the camera | manufacturers have gotten together with the film companies to make sure | the autoload cameras waste a lot of leader. My films from the Nikon | 801s come back with a huge wasted unexposed leader. I once asked Nikon | if there was anyway to adjust this to get an extra frame or two from it, | but they claimed no way. I'm certain all that film isn't required to | thread safely. | | My wife's Canon Rebel G gets 36 frames most of the time and occasionally | 37 (and it uses reverse loading... it preloads the whole film and then | shoots backwards until the film is at the beginning), the Nikon 801s 37 | and occasionally 38 (always chopped by lab), the Nikon FM and FE, always | 38 sometimes 39 (usually chopped by lab). Same film, same lab. | | Now, those small autoload rangefinder cameras should have no problem | getting 39, with current film lengths, but do they? | | The thing with the autoload cameras is you barely have to pull any film | out of the cassette before closing the back, meaning more unexposed film | available. The Manual loads usually require keeping the back open until | you have rolled the film to the take up reel a few times. | | People might think I'm crazy to worry about one or two or three frames a | roll, but we're speaking about film and processing (and mounting | sometimes) and 2 frames a roll for me can be 800-1000 or more frames a | year... it adds up. | | And now, having gone way off topic, I bow out of this discussion. | | Art | | | |
