[ChrisPlatt]

Opening the cartridge to the remove exposed film is always the preferred method.
Every trip through the cassette felt light-trap is another chance to scratch your film.

This is a problem particular but not exclusive to reusable cartridges used for bulk loading.
However it can occur with single use factory-loaded cartridges.

Years ago I ruined several rolls with horizontal scratches that ran the entire length of the roll.
They were impossible to fully hide using standard negative retouching methods of the time.

Chris

---

Last edited by ChrisPlatt; 02-03-2019 at 06:22 AM.

[Alex645]

Best practice is to not rewind the film fully into the canister.

Agreed but some cameras auto rewind the film entirely or like the Canon Rebel series, will shoot backwards and completely put the film into the canister after the last shot.

The main reason I rewind the film fully is to ensure that that roll won't be mistaken for a fresh roll and reloaded. Yes, anyone paying attention will note the leader tongue (on manual advancing cameras) will be curled in the opposite direction, but there is confidence that a canister with no film sticking out has been shot and exposed.

I avoid all this by shooting 120 medium format!

[texandrews]

I avoid all this by shooting 120 medium format!

Yes. That and sheet film. It's a bit mystifying to me why anyone would be using 35mm film now.

[Wheatfield]

Agreed but some cameras auto rewind the film entirely or like the Canon Rebel series, will shoot backwards and completely put the film into the canister after the last shot.

This is Pentax Forums not Canon Forums. Why anyone would be using a film Rebel these days is pretty mystifying. They were junk cameras in the 1980s and I strongly doubt they have aged well since then.

The main reason I rewind the film fully is to ensure that that roll won't be mistaken for a fresh roll and reloaded. Yes, anyone paying attention will note the leader tongue (on manual advancing cameras) will be curled in the opposite direction, but there is confidence that a canister with no film sticking out has been shot and exposed.

I avoid all this by shooting 120 medium format!

I can't speak to poor organizational skills regarding keeping exposed vs unexposed film seperate. I always put a crease in the tongue as it came out, and then put the exposed stuff in a different pocket from unused.
With cameras that want to rewind fully, just pop the back open when you hear the motor speed up, indicating it is no longer pulling the take-up spool in reverse.

I didn't shoot much 35mm B&W after I got my 6x7 and I shot less of each after I bought my Tachihara. It doesn't matter what format you are shooting, if you don't have some sort of plan in place for keeping exposed film seperate from unexposed, you will at some point run into problems.

I've seen people start loading exposed 120 film, actually have it in the camera and pulling the paper across the camera before it twigs on them that they are having a brain fart. On occassion I was saved from double exposing sheet film by the fact my film holder management was solid. It's fairly easy to forget to flip the dark slide over before putting it back into the holder. It's better to have a seperate compartment in your bag for used holders.
If you don't practice good film management, no matter what format you are shooting, it will come back to bite you at some point.

---------- Post added 02-03-19 at 12:39 PM ----------

Opening the cartridge to the remove exposed film is always the preferred method.
Every trip through the cassette felt light-trap is another chance to scratch your film.

This is a problem particular but not exclusive to reusable cartridges used for bulk loading.
However it can occur with single use factory-loaded cartridges.

Years ago I ruined several rolls with horizontal scratches that ran the entire length of the roll.
They were impossible to fully hide using standard negative retouching methods of the time.

Chris

This is easily mitigated by keeping the inside of the camera clean, not opening the film can until you need the film and returning the film to the can immediately upon taking it out if the camera.
In the mini lab industry, film was always pulled out of the cannisters by the film processor. I was in that end of the business for 15 years and can assure you that scratches from cassettes was so rare as to be statistically non existent.
If you ruined several rolls pulling film out of the cans for processing, your problem was not with the cassettes, it was really bad housekeeping on your part. Film is kind of delicate, we need to pay more than lipservice to cleanliness of the film paths.




---------- Post added 02-03-19 at 12:41 PM ----------

Film extractors work ok to?

If you can get a roll of extractor tape from a lab supplier that is the best.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 02-03-2019 at 11:47 AM.

[Alex645]

This is Pentax Forums not Canon Forums. Why anyone would be using a film Rebel these days is pretty mystifying. They were junk cameras in the 1980s and I strongly doubt they have aged well since then.

I only mention this because I am a photo teacher and Canikons are common in the film class and some of my students, ex-students, and friends are also PF members and, like me, shoot another brand in addition to Pentax.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Rebel fan, but like the AE-1, they were super popular and a lot of students still shoot them. Beginners like the lightness and the above average auto focusing and reliability (surprisingly, they have aged well in terms of functionality). If it was up to me, I'd wish my film students started with a Pentax KX or Nikon FM.

To tie back to the OP's thread, if you're going to develop your own film and plan on shooting a lot of Tri-X, you can economize by shooting bulk film and rolling your own film. $86 for 100' (roughly (24) 24-exposure rolls) comes out to $3.59/24-exp. roll vs. the factory load at $4.49/24-exp. roll. Arguably the best economy is shooting 36-exposures at $5.49/ roll and not spend on $ on a bulk loader or reloadable cassettes.

The achilles heal of the Canon Rebel is a weak film advance motor that often doesn't have the torque to advance bulk loaded films.

[Vendee]

The achilles heal of the Canon Rebel is a weak film advance motor that often doesn't have the torque to advance bulk loaded films.

I have a Canon EOS 3 which is quite a bit more advanced. It has a custom function which leaves the leader out.

[Alex645]

I have a Canon EOS 3 which is quite a bit more advanced. It has a custom function which leaves the leader out.

Yes, most of the advanced models had these custom functions, but I don't remember seeing this with the likes of the entry-level Rebels or Nikon N55/F55.

[abruzzi]

Yes. That and sheet film. It's a bit mystifying to me why anyone would be using 35mm film now.

Mostly portability. My 6x4.5 camera has a 100-220 zoom (equivalent to 60-135) that weighs almost 2kg. Most of the primes are between 500 and 900g, not counting the 4kg 500mm lens.

Then there is lens speed. Specifically lenses are generally a stop or two slower on medium format, which helps in low light.

[ChrisPlatt]

This is easily mitigated by keeping the inside of the camera clean, not opening the film can until you need the film and returning the film to the can immediately upon taking it out if the camera.
In the mini lab industry, film was always pulled out of the canisters by the film processor. I was in that end of the business for 15 years and can assure you that scratches from cassettes was so rare as to be statistically non existent.
If you ruined several rolls pulling film out of the cans for processing, your problem was not with the cassettes, it was really bad housekeeping on your part. Film is kind of delicate, we need to pay more than lipservice to cleanliness of the film paths.

Nonsense. Normal precautions were always taken yet somehow it occurred. Perhaps it was a bad cartridge or defective light trap felt.
In any case pulling the film through a second time - against all that extra resistance - surely couldn't have helped.

In manual processing - i.e. non-minilabs - loading reels is much easier with the spool removed from cartridge.
This must be done anyway in the case of reusable/reloadable cassettes.

Chris

[Wheatfield]

Nonsense. Normal precautions were always taken yet somehow it occurred. Perhaps it was a bad cartridge or defective light trap felt.
In any case pulling the film through a second time - against all that extra resistance - surely couldn't have helped.

In manual processing - i.e. non-minilabs - loading reels is much easier with the spool removed from cartridge.
This must be done anyway in the case of reusable/reloadable cassettes.

Chris

We can agree to disagree, but I have the handling of literally 10s of thousands of rolls of film with no issues on my side, you have an anecdote that points to extremely poor housekeeping on your part on yours.
Oh, and my experience running a successful dedicated B&W lab as well. How many years did you spend doing it for a living again?

[dsmithhfx]

Yes. That and sheet film. It's a bit mystifying to me why anyone would be using 35mm film now.

Several reasons: cost and portability of gear and film; unobtrusiveness (flaunters may find this undesirable); availability of film; and # of shots per roll.

Probably related to the reasons you don't shoot large format, if you can dig it.

[Xmas]

But on topic the choice is
D400 or Tmax400 or
HP5 or Tri-X

Or if you can get it
Kentmere 400

Forma 400
Ditto

[Russell W. Barnes]

Agfa APX400? Or is this the same as Kentmere? Ah-HA!

[Xmas]

Agfa APX400? Or is this the same as Kentmere? Ah-HA!

It might be an Ilford/Harman film yes, and it not easy to get any of the original APX Leverkusen film nowadays!

[pres589]

I don't think the shots I've seen of APX400 look anything like Kentmere. APX400 does look kind of nice and definitely different from other mainstream films.