Lloyd's 35mm Film Bulk Loader: How to Use

[@hobozero9966]

Great demo, never seen one of these used with a good camera angle on the action. Now if only they'd sell 100' rolls of Ektachrome...

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and no kidding. I wish all the 35mm films were available in 100-foot lengths.

[@randallstewart1224]

I started bulk loading 35mm film about 60 years ago. At 15, I needed to save every dollar I could. The video says there are two basic types of loader. Actually, there are three types, the third being the most efficient and reliable. The current AP model is an illustration, although it is also the most expensive I know of. The only problem with the Lloyd's model, which is also the first loader I ever bought, is that it passes the film through a slit with felt lips to keep the bulk roll light tight during the loading process. Other loaders use various designs of switchable light trap, which frees the film from such constraint as it is drawn from the bulk roll into the 35mm cartridge. Only the Lloyd's model has the possibility of scratching the film during the loading process, if dirt or grit get lodged in that felt light trap. I've never had that problem with a Lloyd's unit, but the potential is always there.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I always forget about those.

[@mrdasboot45]

Also a small tip when using factory cassettes , remember the DX code on the cassette might not match the film you loaded on them and some cameras don’t have the option to override the DX code (or you forgot to override it). This might result in incorrect exposure .

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and good catch!

[@vincentgraffeo4182]

Really helpful, thank you!

[@39exposures]

So many useful details! Your videos are very hands on. Thank you. It's a cheap, very simple and capable loader. I'm looking into buying one.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@photomukund]

Thank you very much. I have been postponing bulk loading for a while but have all what I need. Your video inspires me to do it finally 😂

[@DavidHancock]

Nice! It does save a LOT of money, especially if you develop at home, too.

[@photomukund]

@@DavidHancock yes...Rodinal is on its way to me as we speak 😂. Had to order anew as the unopened R09 I bought in 2015 seems to have hardened. Laziness has its price 😒

[@GeorgeK356]

I'm a great fan of bulk loading, I bulk loaded in the 70s using a Watson, then when digital came the loader got packed away. I have bought the LPL loader to sit alongside the Watson (now resurrected agan) and have colour motion film in the Watson and B&W in the LPL. I prefer the LPL loader because it has a turn counter, is easier to load in the dark bag and has a smaller footprint. Without bulk loaders I wouldn't be able to shoot as much film, and so many different films, than I do. Nice video, David

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! The LPLs always look like a great option, though I haven't tried one.

[@unknownartdivision]

I'm saving this video, because I still have enough film for a few months, but I almost for sure start bulk loading when I finished my remaining rolls.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and it's a GREAT idea to do that. Bulk spooling 35mm has been one of the things that's made my All About Film videos possible because the cost per roll drops a lot.

[@norbertstepien9185]

Informative video...I've had one for years, but I'd be interested in changing the felt which can become brittle and lose some of it's light trap qualities.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I have tried doing that and never successfully. The replacement felt materials I've found have always been too thick and prevent the film from moving smoothly through the exit. In theory, it should be a simple matter of removing the existing felt, cleaning the area with isopropyl alcohol, and then re-applying a new material. I just don't know what material that would be.

[@geophizz]

Great video! Bulk rolling film is by far the best way to save money on photography. Regarding tape, I'm one of those people who always try to squeeze an extra shot or two out of a roll. I've found that some cameras, particularly Zenits, have poor tactile feedback on the winder when it reaches the end of a roll and will rip film right out of the cassette unless it is strongly held in place. That has made for a few bad days in the field for me. Masking tape, Scotch Tape and Electrical tape are no match for the Zenit. Clear packing tape on both sides of the film is the only thing that I've found that can stand up to it. I know that I could actually look at the film counter and stop, but I like to live dangerously.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and that's a good point!

[@DougHall65]

With recent announcement of Film Ferrania (Ferannia?) P30 available in bulk rolls, I'm ready to take the plunge. Quick question. With 18+ rolls of 36 per roll, what's considered best practice for storing the loaded loader? My best guess is to store in an airtight container (or at least a large ziploc), and store in either fridge or freezer. Appreciate any advice from veterans of the bulk loader. Cheers, Doug.

[@DavidHancock]

Nice! I hadn't even heard P30 was available in bulk yet.

[@DixonLu]

Colored masking/gaffer tape cab be useful to quickly identify film. QQQ:If the film base is thinner, do we need to adjust # crank for the # of shots, and if so, how?

[@DavidHancock]

Good point and good question. I had to bust out Excel and do some quick formulae to figure this out. Film base thickness ranges from 0.11 to 0.18mm, and let's assume all emulsions are the same thickness as the variations there are around 10 microns thick, so even if there's a 50% variation in that figure it doesn't affect the math. So given 31 cranks to reach 36 frames, the total spooled-film thickness would be between 3.41 and 5.58mm, a total difference of 2.17mm. So I don't think that's enough of a difference to affect the number of frames per crank. Even if we take the cumulative amount (0.07 for crank 1, 0.14 for crank 2, etc,) out to 31 cranks for a 36-exposure roll, then we're only at 34.72mm, which is less than a frame. Given that most people are going to add a crank or two anyway, it's likely not to have a real-world effect. But strictly speaking, I suppose that yes a very thin film like an Astrum would possibly spool at 35 frames instead of 36.

[@mnoliberal7335]

I have three different kinds of bulk loaders. They all have advantages and shortcomings. The winder can get lost on these!

[@borisgalos6967]

Definitely go with the Watson if you have the choice. The Lloyd was much harder to use and more fragile.

[@DavidHancock]

These are definitely a bit more fragile.

[@Austinite333]

I love my bulk loader. Do buy decent cartridges though. The felt on the cheap ones can shed strings that can ruin an image or more.

[@DavidHancock]

Good point. I have some good cartridges that have been in use for decades and they're great. But cheap ones usually fail and get recycled after five or six uses.

[@geophizz]

@@DavidHancock Do you know if the metal reuseable cartridges are available anywhere? I can only find the plastic ones or recycled ones..

[@DavidHancock]

@@geophizz Probably only used on eBay now. I think they went out of production about 13 years ago (I recall a camera store owner I talked to then selling them for a dime a piece -- I bought 100 -- because they were no longer being made.) I am not a particular fan of the plastic ones, either.

[@johnkaplun9619]

I have one of these and bought a roll of hp5 for it and I have lightleaks like crazy. Super annoying. Still have 70 ft of film in there I'll probably never use.

[@geophizz]

Try wrapping gaffer tape around the lid. Or even try loading cassetes in a dark bag. Both of these have worked for me in curing light leaks.

[@DavidHancock]

Ouch. I haven't run into that, though I did once see one of these with a WILDLY warped lid. As Geophizz noted, black tape can help. So can tin foil around the seam. If the loader hasn't been sitting out in the light, the film may still be good enough to use after a roll or two. In about a month I'll release a video on the Watson loader. Those have much different light baffling and may be a better option.

[@cecilsharps]

i enjoyed this video almost as much as my wallet did

[@DavidHancock]

:D

[@cecilsharps]

@@DavidHancock the best jokes have an element of truth. i ran the numbers in excel. that loader pays for itself fairly quickly.

[@DavidHancock]

@@cecilsharps try the numbers with Kodak motion stock, though getting the very long spools down to 100 feet can be a pain.

[@cecilsharps]

@@DavidHancock oh i ran em on chopped rolls. I could actually afford to shoot the ecn2. I imagine cinema length spools would get more savings because of the extra labor involved in chopping. I still have very limited interest in shooting color. The italian youtuber i watch released a 30 minute video on pre-visualization. I guess that's what i do. I shoot very simple portrait compositions. I know what i'm going to get before i push the button with black and white. I don't have that skill with color so i tend to avoid it. I have a phillips pcs. I assume it's possible for me to print color. Never actually used it. Picked it up in 2017 shortly after came the 60 and 70 hour work weeks.

[@cecilsharps]

@@DavidHancock the company i just ordered metal cassettes from sells a 3d printed daylight loader that can hold the 400 foot rolls. Price is to rich for my blood but it's good to see innovative small batch manufacturing for a niche product.

[@jsollowsphotography]

Something is odd with your bulk film. The hole in any I've every bought is just the right size for the loader. In 40 years of loading bulk film, I've never seen a bulk film spool with such a large hole that the film bangs around loosely inside the loader.

[@DavidHancock]

It was probably cine stock, based on the perf shape.

[@amdfanatyk]

I've returned mine because gap between casette chamber and loader case with doors closed was so big that I have light leaks on film. Maybe original MADE IN USA Lloyd's loaders were good but chineese clones are of very bad quality.

[@DavidHancock]

That's a bummer.

[@atruceforbruce5388]

Tape is cheaper than film per square inch.

[@DavidHancock]

@@atruceforbruce5388 that sounds about right.