There are so many things that can go wrong with the whole film process. Bulk loading is just one extra thing too many for me. Thanks for your excellent posting.
thanks for the information, especially about the loss of frames and the re-usability of production cassettes. Hopefully if I decide on bulk loading I can find a good quality loader.
You're welcome. Since making the video I've found that if the cassette doesn't fit exactly into the loader then there can be a light leak and partial fogging of the film, which looks like stripes, even though everything is tightly closed. So now, once I've set up a cassette in the loader, I put them into a dark bag and wind the film into the cassette in the loader in the dark bag. That sorts that problem out, no doubt there will be other problems. At the moment bulk roll film has not gone up in price but individual 36 exposure rolls have gone up quite a bit :-)
The Lloyds bulk loader he uses here to illustrate his complaints is, I believe, the only loader which passes film through a felt light trap during loading (potential scratching), and also the only one which does not count the perforations to determine film exposures being loaded. So you can avoid many of the complaints here by buying a different loader. The only good part of the Lloyds unit is that it is much easier to load the bulk roll into the loader, which is a significant issue, and oddly, not one of his complaints here. Wearing out cartridges by excessive reuse is certainly a valid concern. One way to get extended life is to buy the cassettes designed to be reloaded rather than using one or another of the tricks to reuse the single use cartridges in which film is sold. Those reload items have heavier felt in their traps. Of course, err on the cautious side.
So, around 4:00, you're recommending a Watson/Weston type bulk loader (the ones with a sprocket that drives a clicker). Only those (unless you do your loading in total darkness -- which I've done, but it's annoying) fog more of the tail, about one to two more frames than the Lloyd style you're handling in this section of the video, *because of the clicker* which takes up space in the cassette chamber of the loader. I would agree with you, that if you're the sort who'll be seriously bothered by frame numbers in the edge marking not matching up with actual frame numbers, you should do one of two things: either don't bulk load, or load only Arista .EDU Ultra, which has no edge markings at all (BTW, this is relabeled Fomapan, I've been using it for years with great satisfaction). One of the big advantages of bulk loading is the ability to load short or odd-length rolls -- and there go your synchronized frame numbers. You can also easily load 40 real frames (not counting the leader and tail fogging) in a cassette (and still fit them in a Paterson type developing reel, if you trim the leader off before you start to load the tank), for those times when you don't know when you'll have time to rewind and reload your camera. But the biggest advantage of bulk loading, still after all these years, is saving money. Once you have a stash of cassettes, you get 17 rolls (give or take one, assuming 36 exposure length) from a bulk roll, which is usually between $25 and $40 cheaper than seventeen factory 36 exposure cassettes of the same film. You'll spend a little up front -- for the loader, and at least a half dozen reusable cassettes (don't fool with trying to tape to a tail left in a factory cassette unless you have a DX-only camera) -- but you'll make that back in about two bulk rolls of your favorite film. Big secret: most of us who bulk load don't really care about exact frame count or where the edge marking numbers fall on the roll. Not sure why you even mention color -- the only color films available in bulk these days are cine films like Vision3 -- which come in 400 foot or longer rolls (won't fit your bulk loader), have remjet (annoying to deal with in processing, and even more so if you happen to run a mini-lab commercially), and are technically ECN-2 process, not quite the same as C-41. I've been trying to find a bulk loader than will take a 400 foot roll (originally, for Double-X 5222); so far, I haven't even found files to let me 3D print one.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I will say that the Watson/Weston bulk loader is not the only one that counts frames, the AP model, which looks like the Kaiser model and the Hansa model, all count exposures and show how much of he 100 ft roll is left, so I was not specifically recommending that brand or that particular type of loader. You ask why mention colour, if it is movie film? Because it can be done and people are doing it, but most bulk loading videos don't mention it, and that's the point of this video. Well colour film has increased substantially in price, colour movie film broken down into 100 ft lengths and then placed in a bulk loader can substantially reduce the cost per frame. I had put a link in the description to a video that shows how to break down a 400 ft roll of film into 100 ft lengths. There are methods to remove the remjet layer if you're going to cross-process it using C-41 chemistry and I've seen ECN-2 kits from Cinestill. Perhaps one day Kodak will provide 100 ft lengths of colour still photography film in 35 mm format like they used to, or so I've been told, which will give even more options. Thank you again for taking the time to set out your experiences. All the best.
Thank you for an excellent video. Also, there is a greater chance of film scratching with bulk loaded film (more opportunities for dust and dirt to get on those velvet light seals).
Thanks for your kind words. The velvet light trap may potentially trap dust so I store cassettes in a ziplock bag when they are not in use. I keep the bulk loader in its original box when I’m not rolling film. The cassettes are stored in plastic film canisters once they’ve been loaded with film. Dust surely is one of the big enemies of film photography. So far I have not had scratched films. Cheers.
Thanks for your kind words. If it was just to save money I wouldn't bulk load. It's pretty satisfying getting a 10-pack of Tri-X. It took me until most of the first bulk roll to identify that some edge fogging was from a small gap in the bulk loader that appeared to be shut, so it's a journey. Two thicknesses of black gaffer tape sorted that out. So if you're systematic it can all be worked through. But I've ordered my second bulk roll. You see, I like rolls of 30 exposures, that is six rows of five exposures when stored in a Printfile which allows me to make 8x10 contact prints without removing the film from the Printfile storage. I really didn't want to be making 11x14 contact prints or manipulating unprotected negatives into a contact printer. You can also make rolls of different lengths for specific projects. When I added customization and lower amounts of packaging to the cost savings that was a winning deal.
@@billbarendse1918 Thanks Bill.. After some time now, I've taken back what I said and bought a bulk loader and my first bulk pack. Ive watched your video now three times to really let your advice sink in. 😅 Thanks again.
@@AlexOnStreets Thanks Alex, that's kind of you to say so. I've seen some of your YT videos and I particularly liked why you do street photography in Japan. All the best.
I have had great success using a Alden 74 bulk loader with re-usable cassettes. I have only used Arista and Foma bulk rolls. I just think that I would rather buy my Kodak and Ilford films already rolled. I use my bulk loaded films in my mechanical Leica IIIf and Canon L2 cameras.
Thanks for sharing your experience. It is good to hear that people are committed to doing so. I can certainly understand buying Kodak and Ilford films ready rolled, because the savings on bulk rolling for these aren't large. From the footage you can see that it is, nevertheless, Kodak Tri-X that I bulk roll :). Cheers.
The Adlen loaders are the Cadillac of loaders (when Caddys were good). They have a material quality and construction precision which is unequaled by other loaders. Well worth the extra cost (if any) if you plan to bulk load fil regularly.
There is a collateral issue from using bulk loaded cassettes. That issue concerns DX coding of the cassettes to match the film. Some folks reuse regular cassettes which have the correct DX code to match their reload film speed. Some use reload cassettes which have a DX code, which are 100 or 400, but they can be troublesome to locate. Some apply a DX code of choice to reload cassettes, and there are a couple of YT videos suggesting ways to do that. The concern is that most cheaper film cameras, and some not so cheap (my Contax T2), require a DX coded cassette to set the film speed on the camera meter. So if you plunge into reloading, consider which of your cameras you will be able to use them in.
Very informative!. I haven't tried bulk loading yet but I want to. As a general advice I would like to say to you: take the good with the bad. Little annoyances are a good way to make oneself more resilient.
The cost of bulk HP5 plus which is the cheapest film for bulk loading costs a lot more to bulk load with additional film canister costs and bulk loading tools than just buying 36 exp HP5 plus from Illford
Thank you for sharing your experience. Can I suggest that you refill your bulk loader with new film and reuse your reusable film canisters, that will certainly reduce the cost of bulk loading, since they are one off purchases. Nevertheless, if I may correct you, HP5+ is not the cheapest film for bulk loading, it is not even the cheapest film that Ilford provides for bulk loading. Kentmere Pan 400 and Arista EDU (sometimes rebadged Fomapan) is substantially cheaper. Thank you again for sharing your experience. Cheers.
Bulk loading is not for the type of photographer who shoots three or four rolls a year. If that's the case, sure, buying individual rolls may be better. But bulk loading is to save money in the long run when the photographer uses a lot of film. The entry cost may be higher, but bulk loading isn't a short term prospect.
I prefer to bulk load film without a bulk loader. Direct from the can into my cassette, all within my dark bag. Of course I can't exactly know how many frames I will have on my film but I just shoot until the end. On Fomapan 100 bulk you don't have film numbers so that's also no issue.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I also have loaded film into a cassette in a dark bag without using a bulk loader, and if you've done a bit of dark bag work you can see with your fingers. It's not the most convenient thing if you don't mind me saying. I know of at least two reports where people have bulk loaded in a dark room without a bulk loader. They work out the required length by having two nails hammered into the bench 5' 3'' (1.61 m) apart to give enough film for 36 exposures with the added advantage there's no fogging of the tail of the film.
@@billbarendse1918 I just wind film on the spool until it's full and I don't mind if the number of shots isn't exactly 36 or so. Personally I don't need a bulk loader but we all must use what we like most.
This might sound stupid, but could I take a normal 36 roll film, open it, put it in a bulk roller, and use it to make multiple really short rolls of film? I know there will be a lot of waste, but I want to just shoot a few shots on multiple cameras to test them. My idea is essentially that I'd be able to test four cameras per roll, at maybe 4 shots each. Would there be enough film to load 4 rolls with 4 shots each? (16 total) with the remaining 20 shots for waste? Testing four cameras on a single roll sounds a lot better in the long run (I already have about 20 cameras that need to be tested after a few months of garage sales and I find new ones all the time) than spending a minimum of $7 a roll for each camera. Then the cost to test is only $1.75.
that certainly is possible but at the end I say what I would do. It's possible and you might not need a core or spool because the length of film is only about 1.6 metres. The film might move around from side to side because it's so short. I have not done this myself, but the last roll out of the bulk loader can be short, only enough for a handful of shots, so I know it can be done. If you don't have a bulk roller but you do have proper reloadable cassettes, then you can chop up your film in a dark bag or your nice dark room :-). I would do something different, which wastes less film and doesn't need a bulk roller or a dark bag/room. I would load the film into one camera, shoot your small number of shots, note the number of shots on the shot dial, rewind the film, put it into the second camera, put the lens cap on, shoot until you go one shot past the previous camera, remove the lens cap, take your shots, rewind and repeat until you've finished the film. For each camera, one of the shots could be something to identify the camera. Then you only have development costs for 1 film and you remove the variation that occurs from one development to another. I use this method for testing new films on my cameras and lenses. This works ok for cameras with backs that swing out, but going from bottom loading cameras, eg. Leicas, to swing back cameras needs a bit of calculation but still works. Hope this is of some use. Cheers.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W1D5 | Fall | เก็บแต้มของจริง คือวันนี้](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EciIAlCXg5k/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8kldrPPsDZs/mqdefault.jpg)
There are so many things that can go wrong with the whole film process. Bulk loading is just one extra thing too many for me. Thanks for your excellent posting.
Thanks for your kind words. Cheers.
It's always nice to come across these hidden gem of a videos.
Very useful and informative!
Thank you!
Thank you for your kind comment. Cheers.
Great info. Thank you.
I used to bulk load back in the 70s. I'd forgotten most of the points that you mention here. 👍🏻
Thanks for your kind comment. Cheers.
thanks for the information, especially about the loss of frames and the re-usability of production cassettes. Hopefully if I decide on bulk loading I can find a good quality loader.
You're welcome. Since making the video I've found that if the cassette doesn't fit exactly into the loader then there can be a light leak and partial fogging of the film, which looks like stripes, even though everything is tightly closed. So now, once I've set up a cassette in the loader, I put them into a dark bag and wind the film into the cassette in the loader in the dark bag. That sorts that problem out, no doubt there will be other problems.
At the moment bulk roll film has not gone up in price but individual 36 exposure rolls have gone up quite a bit :-)
I get empty film canisters/cassettes from my local lab for free. They just throw them out after development so I can get 50+
@@billbarendse1918could you explain again the loss of frame part? I don’t fully get it from the video
The Lloyds bulk loader he uses here to illustrate his complaints is, I believe, the only loader which passes film through a felt light trap during loading (potential scratching), and also the only one which does not count the perforations to determine film exposures being loaded. So you can avoid many of the complaints here by buying a different loader. The only good part of the Lloyds unit is that it is much easier to load the bulk roll into the loader, which is a significant issue, and oddly, not one of his complaints here. Wearing out cartridges by excessive reuse is certainly a valid concern. One way to get extended life is to buy the cassettes designed to be reloaded rather than using one or another of the tricks to reuse the single use cartridges in which film is sold. Those reload items have heavier felt in their traps. Of course, err on the cautious side.
Bulk loading video we needed, yet haven't deserved for.
So, around 4:00, you're recommending a Watson/Weston type bulk loader (the ones with a sprocket that drives a clicker). Only those (unless you do your loading in total darkness -- which I've done, but it's annoying) fog more of the tail, about one to two more frames than the Lloyd style you're handling in this section of the video, *because of the clicker* which takes up space in the cassette chamber of the loader. I would agree with you, that if you're the sort who'll be seriously bothered by frame numbers in the edge marking not matching up with actual frame numbers, you should do one of two things: either don't bulk load, or load only Arista .EDU Ultra, which has no edge markings at all (BTW, this is relabeled Fomapan, I've been using it for years with great satisfaction).
One of the big advantages of bulk loading is the ability to load short or odd-length rolls -- and there go your synchronized frame numbers. You can also easily load 40 real frames (not counting the leader and tail fogging) in a cassette (and still fit them in a Paterson type developing reel, if you trim the leader off before you start to load the tank), for those times when you don't know when you'll have time to rewind and reload your camera. But the biggest advantage of bulk loading, still after all these years, is saving money. Once you have a stash of cassettes, you get 17 rolls (give or take one, assuming 36 exposure length) from a bulk roll, which is usually between $25 and $40 cheaper than seventeen factory 36 exposure cassettes of the same film. You'll spend a little up front -- for the loader, and at least a half dozen reusable cassettes (don't fool with trying to tape to a tail left in a factory cassette unless you have a DX-only camera) -- but you'll make that back in about two bulk rolls of your favorite film.
Big secret: most of us who bulk load don't really care about exact frame count or where the edge marking numbers fall on the roll.
Not sure why you even mention color -- the only color films available in bulk these days are cine films like Vision3 -- which come in 400 foot or longer rolls (won't fit your bulk loader), have remjet (annoying to deal with in processing, and even more so if you happen to run a mini-lab commercially), and are technically ECN-2 process, not quite the same as C-41. I've been trying to find a bulk loader than will take a 400 foot roll (originally, for Double-X 5222); so far, I haven't even found files to let me 3D print one.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I will say that the Watson/Weston bulk loader is not the only one that counts frames, the AP model, which looks like the Kaiser model and the Hansa model, all count exposures and show how much of he 100 ft roll is left, so I was not specifically recommending that brand or that particular type of loader.
You ask why mention colour, if it is movie film? Because it can be done and people are doing it, but most bulk loading videos don't mention it, and that's the point of this video. Well colour film has increased substantially in price, colour movie film broken down into 100 ft lengths and then placed in a bulk loader can substantially reduce the cost per frame. I had put a link in the description to a video that shows how to break down a 400 ft roll of film into 100 ft lengths. There are methods to remove the remjet layer if you're going to cross-process it using C-41 chemistry and I've seen ECN-2 kits from Cinestill. Perhaps one day Kodak will provide 100 ft lengths of colour still photography film in 35 mm format like they used to, or so I've been told, which will give even more options. Thank you again for taking the time to set out your experiences. All the best.
This is the most valuable advice I could find on the topic.
Thanks for your kind comment.
Thank you for an excellent video. Also, there is a greater chance of film scratching with bulk loaded film (more opportunities for dust and dirt to get on those velvet light seals).
Thanks for your kind words. The velvet light trap may potentially trap dust so I store cassettes in a ziplock bag when they are not in use. I keep the bulk loader in its original box when I’m not rolling film. The cassettes are stored in plastic film canisters once they’ve been loaded with film. Dust surely is one of the big enemies of film photography. So far I have not had scratched films. Cheers.
You take a very scientific approach!
I've thought about bulk loading but I don't know if I can justify spending money on bulk developing!
Ha ha. Seriously though it's not so bad when you develop at home.
The most costly thing with it is the time it takes. But it helps having one or two large 8 roll or 5 rollpatterson tanks.
A nice clear helpful video.
thanks, I appreciate your comment. Cheers.
Thanks for the bulk loading advice. Very useful!
You are most welcome
Wow great information. Thank you. To be honest, I am feeling quite deterred now though about bulk loading..
Thanks for your kind words. If it was just to save money I wouldn't bulk load. It's pretty satisfying getting a 10-pack of Tri-X.
It took me until most of the first bulk roll to identify that some edge fogging was from a small gap in the bulk loader that appeared to be shut, so it's a journey. Two thicknesses of black gaffer tape sorted that out. So if you're systematic it can all be worked through.
But I've ordered my second bulk roll. You see, I like rolls of 30 exposures, that is six rows of five exposures when stored in a Printfile which allows me to make 8x10 contact prints without removing the film from the Printfile storage. I really didn't want to be making 11x14 contact prints or manipulating unprotected negatives into a contact printer. You can also make rolls of different lengths for specific projects. When I added customization and lower amounts of packaging to the cost savings that was a winning deal.
@@billbarendse1918 Thanks Bill.. After some time now, I've taken back what I said and bought a bulk loader and my first bulk pack. Ive watched your video now three times to really let your advice sink in. 😅 Thanks again.
@@AlexOnStreets Thanks Alex, that's kind of you to say so. I've seen some of your YT videos and I particularly liked why you do street photography in Japan. All the best.
I use a Watson bulk loader without issues.
I have had great success using a Alden 74 bulk loader with re-usable cassettes. I have only used Arista and Foma bulk rolls. I just think that I would rather buy my Kodak and Ilford films already rolled. I use my bulk loaded films in my mechanical Leica IIIf and Canon L2 cameras.
Thanks for sharing your experience. It is good to hear that people are committed to doing so. I can certainly understand buying Kodak and Ilford films ready rolled, because the savings on bulk rolling for these aren't large. From the footage you can see that it is, nevertheless, Kodak Tri-X that I bulk roll :). Cheers.
The Adlen loaders are the Cadillac of loaders (when Caddys were good). They have a material quality and construction precision which is unequaled by other loaders. Well worth the extra cost (if any) if you plan to bulk load fil regularly.
There is a collateral issue from using bulk loaded cassettes. That issue concerns DX coding of the cassettes to match the film. Some folks reuse regular cassettes which have the correct DX code to match their reload film speed. Some use reload cassettes which have a DX code, which are 100 or 400, but they can be troublesome to locate. Some apply a DX code of choice to reload cassettes, and there are a couple of YT videos suggesting ways to do that. The concern is that most cheaper film cameras, and some not so cheap (my Contax T2), require a DX coded cassette to set the film speed on the camera meter. So if you plunge into reloading, consider which of your cameras you will be able to use them in.
thank you yes, that is a valuable point. Thanks for noting it. Cheers.
I use DX code stickers. You can find them on freestyle photo
Very informative!. I haven't tried bulk loading yet but I want to.
As a general advice I would like to say to you: take the good with the bad.
Little annoyances are a good way to make oneself more resilient.
Thanks for your kind words. I hope that you do try bulk loading and that it works out for you. With your attitude it will be a success. Cheers.
Thanks a lot for sharing these caveats!
Thank you.
Very helfull! Thank you❤
The cost of bulk HP5 plus which is the cheapest film for bulk loading costs a lot more to bulk load with additional film canister costs and bulk loading tools than just buying 36 exp HP5 plus from Illford
Thank you for sharing your experience. Can I suggest that you refill your bulk loader with new film and reuse your reusable film canisters, that will certainly reduce the cost of bulk loading, since they are one off purchases. Nevertheless, if I may correct you, HP5+ is not the cheapest film for bulk loading, it is not even the cheapest film that Ilford provides for bulk loading. Kentmere Pan 400 and Arista EDU (sometimes rebadged Fomapan) is substantially cheaper. Thank you again for sharing your experience. Cheers.
Bulk loading is not for the type of photographer who shoots three or four rolls a year. If that's the case, sure, buying individual rolls may be better. But bulk loading is to save money in the long run when the photographer uses a lot of film. The entry cost may be higher, but bulk loading isn't a short term prospect.
Good to know!
you're welcome. Cheers.
Some camera like nikon shoot only 30/s on frst 2 frames :/
I prefer to bulk load film without a bulk loader. Direct from the can into my cassette, all within my dark bag. Of course I can't exactly know how many frames I will have on my film but I just shoot until the end. On Fomapan 100 bulk you don't have film numbers so that's also no issue.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I also have loaded film into a cassette in a dark bag without using a bulk loader, and if you've done a bit of dark bag work you can see with your fingers. It's not the most convenient thing if you don't mind me saying. I know of at least two reports where people have bulk loaded in a dark room without a bulk loader. They work out the required length by having two nails hammered into the bench 5' 3'' (1.61 m) apart to give enough film for 36 exposures with the added advantage there's no fogging of the tail of the film.
@@billbarendse1918 I just wind film on the spool until it's full and I don't mind if the number of shots isn't exactly 36 or so. Personally I don't need a bulk loader but we all must use what we like most.
Useful information!
if you have a lot of 35-frame negative sleeves, bulk load is the only way that help you use these sleeves...
very helpful thanks!
Thank you for you kind comment. Cheers.
This might sound stupid, but could I take a normal 36 roll film, open it, put it in a bulk roller, and use it to make multiple really short rolls of film? I know there will be a lot of waste, but I want to just shoot a few shots on multiple cameras to test them.
My idea is essentially that I'd be able to test four cameras per roll, at maybe 4 shots each. Would there be enough film to load 4 rolls with 4 shots each? (16 total) with the remaining 20 shots for waste?
Testing four cameras on a single roll sounds a lot better in the long run (I already have about 20 cameras that need to be tested after a few months of garage sales and I find new ones all the time) than spending a minimum of $7 a roll for each camera. Then the cost to test is only $1.75.
that certainly is possible but at the end I say what I would do. It's possible and you might not need a core or spool because the length of film is only about 1.6 metres. The film might move around from side to side because it's so short. I have not done this myself, but the last roll out of the bulk loader can be short, only enough for a handful of shots, so I know it can be done.
If you don't have a bulk roller but you do have proper reloadable cassettes, then you can chop up your film in a dark bag or your nice dark room :-).
I would do something different, which wastes less film and doesn't need a bulk roller or a dark bag/room. I would load the film into one camera, shoot your small number of shots, note the number of shots on the shot dial, rewind the film, put it into the second camera, put the lens cap on, shoot until you go one shot past the previous camera, remove the lens cap, take your shots, rewind and repeat until you've finished the film. For each camera, one of the shots could be something to identify the camera. Then you only have development costs for 1 film and you remove the variation that occurs from one development to another. I use this method for testing new films on my cameras and lenses. This works ok for cameras with backs that swing out, but going from bottom loading cameras, eg. Leicas, to swing back cameras needs a bit of calculation but still works. Hope this is of some use. Cheers.
@@billbarendse1918 Thanks, I'll give that a shot.
Is Nikon F4,5,6 capable of winding 44 exp?
Sorry I have no experience of these cameras. If they have automatic rewind then it may not be possible but it may be worth giving it a go.
Alden loader and nikon an1 cassettes.
Thanks for sharing your practice. Cheers.
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏📸tip