Beginner Can you use 24 exposure film in a 36 frame camera?

F

Fuju

Messages
115
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got a Lomo Konstruktor and I'm deciding on film and learning as much as I can. The film I've looked at is 24 exposures and the cameras frame count is 36 - would I load the film and set the counter to 24 instead of 36 or do I have to find a 36 expo film?
 
Last edited:
I can’t see any reason why you can’t shoot a 24 frame film in it. OK, I say that based on 5 minutes of research which included a 2 minute video…

But seeing how the film is loaded it really looks no different from any other basic classic camera.

Once the film is finished you rewind into the canister whether you had 12, 15, 24, 27 or 36 exposed frames.
 
I've never seen a camera where it made a difference if you loaded a 24-shot rather than a 36-shot film. Apart from those single use cameras where the film is already loaded, which usually claim to offer 27 shots, but even there I wonder if you re-loaded it with a 36-shot film (in darkness, because of the way it works) you'd actually get 39 shots?
 
Fuju said:
I've got a Lomo Konstruktor and I'm deciding on film and learning as much as I can. The film I've looked at is 24 exposures and the cameras frame count is 36 - would I load the film and set the counter to 24 instead of 36 or do I have to find a 36 expo film?
Click to expand...
it'll be fine. basically the counter just counts up to 36 (and sometimes past a couple of frames) Winding of the film just stops when there's no more film on the cannister to wind out. Only real safety reason for having a frame counter is quite simply not to just keep trying to wind on when the film's run out because the winding mechanism almost always rips the sprocket holes up at that point, and often means you'll have issues rewinding the film back into the cannister for processing.
 
to expand
35mm is cannister film. Generally you load the exposed tail of the film in the canister onto the take up mechanism and shoot to the end of the roll, winding on after each frame. At the end, you disengage the film take up mechanism, and rewind the film into the cannister. You then remove the cannister.

Some 35mm cameras (usually the later dated compacts) will actually pull the entire roll of film onto the takeup spool when you load the camera, and each frame you take, the picture is actually wound INTO the cannister. This is a good thing in a way because if the back of the camera is opened, any exposed photo's are safely inside the cannister. Of course ALL the rest of the film is knackered, but at least hopefully you've not lost any pictures, just the chance of any more.

120 film is Roll Film, It comes on one film spool, and you need another one in the camera (or film back). You load the open end of the backing paper onto the empty spool, and shoot, winding on each time. At the end, you've wound all the film off the original spool and onto the takeup spool. Seal the end of the takeup, and send it for processing, moving the now empty spool to the takeup position for the next roll. No Winding back into the original involved.
 
Looking at the Lomo site, that seems like a fun kit to build and experiment with. The frame counter on this camera appears to be set manually, and (rather unusually) counts down rather than up. If that's the case then, yes, you should set it to 24 initially and you should be fine. Some reviewers mention it's easy to knock it off the setting, though, so you may want to keep a rough note of how many shots you've taken. If you find you enjoy film photography and want to go further, you can pick up a mainstream SLR with a decent lens (and an auto-resetting frame counter!) pretty cheaply if you shop around on ebay etc. (starting at less than twice the price of the Lomo).
 
I've got an old Kodak Retina camera which, if you don't set the frame counter before you begin shooting, will stop when it gets to zero, regardless of whether there is more film to be used. I think you can bodge around the restriction though. That's a bit of an odd one though, and most cameras* in my experience will let you shoot until there's no film left.

* Some 35mm auto point-and-shoot cameras will read the DX code on the film canister and rewind it automatically as soon as it gets to 24 / 36 exposures shot.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies. I thought I'd just check as I didn't want to go wasting film!

I thought this little kit was a bit of fun as I do like the look of b&w lomo, plus I like to imitate a slight film look in post and thought in order to get better results in post it would be a better idea to actually shoot film and play around with it in a style that I like.

I do actually have my eye on an OM10 to use alongside my OMD10 but the OM10 does seem fairly pricy for something of its age.
 
Not wishing to pour cold water on your plans but the Lomo Konstructor camera is truly awful and you may be disappointed with the results. On the other hand an OM10 with any of the Olympus lenses will give excellent results, yes, the price for one has risen over the past few years (5 years ago you could pick one up with the 50mm lens for £10-15) but the reason is that they are an excellent camera.
Conversely building the Lomo will give you an insight into how a film camera is made so they are of some use :)
 
To be fair i chose the Konstruktor for its imperfections and quirkiness and it's unpredictable results. I was going to go for a Holga 120 but the DIY nature of the Konstruktor seemed amusing.

I had a look at the OM10's again on eBay and there are some reasonably priced ones for £50, the higher value ones at 200 quid seemed to be the coloured versions.
 
The OM-10 is a nice enough camera but probably wouldn't be my first choice because you can only get manual shutter speeds with a fiddly little manual adapter you may have to buy separately. The OM-20 fixes this. If I were spending >£100, I'd go for an OM-1, which is a real classic. Lots of choice from other manufacturers, of course. Chinon, Ricoh and Cosina SLRs (the latter sold under various brand names) can be very cheap and usually have Pentax K mounts, and you can find well-priced cameras from Pentax itself, especially if you look beyond the ubiquitous K1000. Minolta SLRs tend to be under-priced relative to other high quality brands. Classic manual focus Canon and especially Nikon SLRs can be a bit more expensive, but their entry level and mid range AF SLRs are some of the best bargains of all if you don't mind a bit more plastic.
 
Well I actually ended up going back to eBay and purchasing a Chinon/Prinzflex CX body for £18 as I've got some M42 lenses knocking around so I can use them.

The only issue is the light meter doesn't work which isn't really a problem as I'm sure I can find a battery that will work with it as long as that's the issue. Worst case is I'll use the good ol' Sunny 16 method.

Silly question, once I've finished shooting a roll of film, can I take it out of the canister, cut it and scan it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Fuju said:
once I've finished shooting a roll of film, can I take it out of the canister, cut it and scan it?
Click to expand...
one small step, called developing the film first.


for colour, i'd suggest getting it processed at a lab at least initially, as the colour process is a little more involved, and a hell of a lot more dependent on precision in timing and temperature control.

 
Last edited:
Fuju said:
Silly question, once I've finished shooting a roll of film, can I take it out of the canister, cut it and scan it?
Click to expand...

You can't say things like that just as I take a mouthful of beer. I've been choking for the last five minutes, but thankfully none was spilt. It's the first one in a week . . .
 
I didn't realise the luxury of using a mirror less system .

I've purchased a budget b&w Dev kit for 40 quid and should let me do about 7 rolls before needing more chemicals. They've got some exposed film in the kit to practice with! Wish me luck
 
Make sure the spiral (guessing it's a tank and spiral type kit) is bone dry (or drier!) before trying to load a film.

Good luck!
 
Nod said:
Make sure the spiral (guessing it's a tank and spiral type kit) is bone dry (or drier!) before trying to load a film.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

absolutely - it's bad enough that you're working with your hands in a dark-bag, or in total darkness in a sealed off room, without having the film sticking to the spiral as you load it.
 
Fuju said:
Wish me luck
Click to expand...
Good luck!

For me, finally seeing developed negatives gave me a warm fuzzy feeling that never gets old.
 
Harlequin565 said:
Good luck!

For me, finally seeing developed negatives gave me a warm fuzzy feeling that never gets old.
Click to expand...
exactly - been "souping my own" for over 40 years off and on - still get a kick every time I see something come out of the tank that's actually got an image on it. Ultimate kick though for me is dev'ing E6 and seeing a roll of miniature stained glass windows unfurl...
 
Harlequin565 said:
Good luck!

For me, finally seeing developed negatives gave me a warm fuzzy feeling that never gets old.
Click to expand...
Same for me 57 years ago (aged 8). Did not have to worry about loading onto a spiral as developed the 620 film by seesawing through pudding basins in the pitch black of an attic box room while my brother yelled through the door when to change to the next basin.
 
Last edited:
It's a kit that comes with a double reel Paterson tank, I've watched loads of videos of loading the reel part so I'll definitely have a good number of practise runs first.

I think I might end up trying some prints in the future too.

On a side note. Have any of you guys got more of an economical way of washing the film rather than leaving water running on it? I did see Ilford using 1.5L of water, adding some to the tank, turning the tank a few times, pouring out the water and then adding more. I'm wondering if anyone has tried this method with good results, or have you found another way to do it without using loads of water?
 
Fuju said:
I'm wondering if anyone has tried this method with good results, or have you found another way to do it without using loads of water?
Click to expand...
I've used that method for several decades. None of my negatives have faded or stained since then. I do the following...
  1. Fill tank with water, invert ten times and empty.
  2. Fill tank with water, invert twenty times and empty.
  3. Fill tank with water, invert forty times and empty.
  4. Dry.
Obviously, by "fill" I mean use the same volume of plain water as the developer and fix. :naughty:
 
Fuju said:
It's a kit that comes with a double reel Paterson tank, I've watched loads of videos of loading the reel part so I'll definitely have a good number of practise runs first.

I think I might end up trying some prints in the future too.

On a side note. Have any of you guys got more of an economical way of washing the film rather than leaving water running on it? I did see Ilford using 1.5L of water, adding some to the tank, turning the tank a few times, pouring out the water and then adding more. I'm wondering if anyone has tried this method with good results, or have you found another way to do it without using loads of water?
Click to expand...
I still have negs in good condition I washed using the Ilford method over 40 years ago. 5 inversions, empty out, 10 inversions, empty out, 20 inversions and empty out. More recently to help prevent drying marks I tried an extra soak in water with a drop or two if wetting agent but that can make some spirals sticky so these days I use a salad spinner, balancing the spiral with an empty spiral on a long core.
 
Fuju said:
It's a kit that comes with a double reel Paterson tank, I've watched loads of videos of loading the reel part so I'll definitely have a good number of practise runs first.

I think I might end up trying some prints in the future too.

On a side note. Have any of you guys got more of an economical way of washing the film rather than leaving water running on it? I did see Ilford using 1.5L of water, adding some to the tank, turning the tank a few times, pouring out the water and then adding more. I'm wondering if anyone has tried this method with good results, or have you found another way to do it without using loads of water?
Click to expand...

I've always used the Ilford Method. I just fill a couple of two litre bottles (washed out plastic milk bottles) with tap water before I start developing to make sure I have enough, and then rinse 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 / 25 / 30 inversions. This is twice the amount that the Ilford Method requires, but I like to be thorough. :)

I could just fill the tank from the tap I suppose, but I know that the bottles will have water at the same temp as the rest of the developing process - although I doubt it will make much difference with modern films.
 
Last edited:
Sixty years ago I used 6 changes of water at 5 minute intervals. The negatives are still OK. Some years ago, I switched to the Ilford method, and so far there have been no problems. I suppose that the basic principle is the same, just fewer changes. It's probably worth noting that films back in the 1950s were slightly different. Modern films are described as "thin emulsion" and that's what needs to have the chemicals washed out. I haven't checked whether the term actually means literally that, but if it does, less washing would probably be needed. There's a part of the "Large Format - zero to hero" thread with washing mentioned.
 
I do 10/20/10 inversions. I also do them a lot quicker (not quite "shaking" but not far off) reasoning that the object is to wash the film rather than gentle developer/fix agitations. Not had a problem (yet). Final fill gets a few drops of wetting agent and a bit of a dunk before removing, shaking well to get rid of as much water as possible, then clothes-pegging up on a curtain rail to dry.
 
Fuju said:
It's a kit that comes with a double reel Paterson tank, I've watched loads of videos of loading the reel part so I'll definitely have a good number of practise runs first.
Click to expand...

Yes, lots of practice is a good idea, you don't want to get stuck and not be able to do it once you're working on an exposed film. :runaway:

I find 120 film a lot easier to get on the spool compared to 35mm, so keep your eye open for a camera that takes it. It's better anyway - well I think so.

A worthwhile download for the future would be this: https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php

Good luck and have loads of fun. :)
 
35mm is easy to load onto the spiral IF you can leave the leader exposed (or retrieve it) after rewinding the film so you can get them started in the light before transferring them into the changing bag. 120 is easier in the changing bag though IMO.

Once on the spiral, my main issue with 35mm is resistance when winding on. It doesn’t happen all the time but sometimes, as I get closer to the end of the roll, I’m having to make lots of very small twists to avoid kinking the film.
 
Last edited:
I forgot to add that I finished my Konstruktor today and gave it a test drive with an APX 400 film. Despite it being plastic it's actually quite sturdy but the shot counter moves too much when winding on so if you're not paying attention you'll not know where you are. Suffice to say I ruined my first film because I forgot to wind it back but it at least lets me play around with loading and rewinding etc! I'm definitely glad I purchased the Prinzflex though.
 
Fuju said:
I forgot to add that I finished my Konstruktor today and gave it a test drive with an APX 400 film. Despite it being plastic it's actually quite sturdy but the shot counter moves too much when winding on so if you're not paying attention you'll not know where you are. Suffice to say I ruined my first film because I forgot to wind it back but it at least lets me play around with loading and rewinding etc! I'm definitely glad I purchased the Prinzflex though.
Click to expand...
You can sometimes save most of the film if you've just opened the back very briefly, as the earlier shots will be protected by the film wrapped around them (don't ask how I know this!). The CX should be easier to use, but be aware of the dangers of addiction to acquiring classic cameras. A Pentax Spotmatic might also go well with those M42 lenses...
 
I'd actually thought after that I could probably have saved some! Oh well.

I've got a feeling using film will definitely turn into an addictive labour of love! I'm looking forward to getting the chemistry and having a go with developing the film. I'm sure you'll all see my masterpieces soon .

Thanks for all the advice!
 
If you include a reflection in your latest roll and you could enter the FPOTY!
 
Ooooh. I got the Prinzflex CX today, however I'm not sure if there's a problem with the VF. When I try and focus nothing actually appears in focus, I've used a few other lenses but I've not seen a difference. Am I used to super sharp images in modern a VF or am I doing something wrong?
 
have a look at the manual - https://www.butkus.org/chinon/chinon/cx/cx.htm

to be honest, most 35mm slr film cameras have a really bright clear viewfinder - is there some sort of Depth of field preview lever on the camera (check the manual) that's set wrongly / potentially stuck ?? (i'm just throwing ideas here, as I've never handled one of those cameras)
 
I had a browse though the manual and I don't appear to have missed anything. When twisting the focus ring it does appear to start to focus but there is halo/feathered blur on subject like you're just a little off with focus. Infinity focus doesn't appear sharp anywhere in the VF either. I'm not sure about tearing down these cameras so I've attached an image in case there is something someone else can see that I cannot.
 

Attachments

  • 20220318_172533.jpg
    20220318_172533.jpg
    65.9 KB · Views: 10
those two concentric circles are basically the focusing aids - the main ground glass surface shows things as normal, then the outer ring will probably be a gentle magnification and the centre dot is usually some form of surface effect that serves to really enhance contrast and fine focusing - this is what we used for years before computerised "in focus" lights came on in the viewfinder.

probably not the best example, and the presenter is obviously in love withherself and profoundly irritating, but it was the first google threw up that showed the effect fairly clearly -
View: https://youtu.be/abxTvVjtyrA?t=161
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top