Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eastman Double X is 18 cents a foot, and it is available in the form of remnants at the end of motion picture rolls. I have to admit that, when I watch things on TV like Perry Mason and Twilight Zone, I end up looking more at the grays, the highlights, and the bokeh instead of the storyline. I recall from the 1970's that motion picture film doesn't have a scratch coating on it, so remnants of color motion picture reels had scratch problems. But I also had scratches (longitudinal) on my Plus X from the late 60's that I loaded. There are two loaders out there, a Lloyd and a Watson. I used the Watson way back then. The Lloyd costs about twice as much. Is it a better loader? Jeffery Smith New Orleans, LA http://www.400tx.com http://400tx.blogspot.com/ -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Didier Ludwig Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:35 AM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Anyone out there load cassettes from bulk film? Only a little cost effective when you buy newly produced bulk rolls, but strongly cost effective, when you can find rolls which are shortly outdated or will be it soon. Since a year, I get them as soon as they're outdated, from a local wholesaler which seems to be glad someone buys them, for approx. $0.60 per 36 frame roll of HP5+, FP4+ or Tri-X. But another issue of bulk film is the higher risk of having horizontally scratched negs. Some of my best italy rolls in 2004 were scratched from a-z though I had used brandnew cans. Didier >And yes, for me, it is still cost effective, to the person who >wondered. Bill _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information