Re: filmscanners: OT: Film lengths was: Cleaning slides (PEC tips)

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

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