# Why strips of four?   Rant!



## Actor (Oct 17, 2009)

Archival pages are designed to take 7 strips of 5 frames, or 6 strips of 6 frames.  So why do labs inevitably cut the negative into strips of 4?  I like to archive each roll on its own page.  I'll even waste a couple of frames so I get 35 frames (7 x 5) instead or 36 or 37.  If a roll of 36 gets cut into strips of 4 then I have to use two pages and a lot of space gets wasted.

They will even start off a roll with a strip of 2 then finish it up with another strip of 2.  I've even had them include a strip of 2 from the middle of the roll.

I've given the labs special instructions like "cut in strips of 5" or "do not cut."  In my experience these have a high probability of being ignored.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

If you use pro labs, they'll pay attention to your instructions. If your photos are not worth the expense of a pro lab, are they worth storing in archival pages?


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 17, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> If you use pro labs, they'll pay attention to your instructions. If your photos are not worth the expense of a pro lab, are they worth storing in archival pages?



Even Wal-Mart will do what you want, if you ask them to.

If I don't want prints, I just tell them "Develop only and don't cut the film" and that's exactly what they do.

(They roll it back up and put it in an empty film container.)


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 17, 2009)

Actor said:


> They will even start off a roll with a strip of 2 then finish it up with another strip of 2.  I've even had them include a strip of 2 from the middle of the roll.



They are probably "doing you a favor" and cutting out the "bad" ones.

Did you count the frames?  Strips of 2 frames seems kinda stupid, but if you have less than 36 (or 24, or whatever that roll is) I would ask them why there are missing frames.

If they say they were bad so they cut them out, make it clear to them that _you_ will decide which ones are bad.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> They are probably "doing you a favor" and cutting out the "bad" ones.



No lab will ever do that unless they are really stupid. Can you imagine the law suits 

"Yes your honor, they cut out the best photo to sell it as their own." :lmao:


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 17, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > They are probably "doing you a favor" and cutting out the "bad" ones.
> ...



Yeah, but I bet it's happened before.  How would you even be able to prove it was yours...?



The only other thing I can think of in Actor's case is maybe they couldn't tell where one frame stopped and the next one started.
I could see that happening on a roll of star trails and stuff like that, where the frame is mostly dark.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > O|||||||O said:
> ...




It has probably happened at some drugstore with a new tech who still knows nothing but it has never happened to me. 

In the case of star trails (or whatever is hard to make out the specific frames) I think they would just not cut the film.


----------



## molested_cow (Oct 17, 2009)

Just cut it yourself man, seriously. When I send my negatives to the shop, I always tell them "No print, no CD and no cut!" I do the rest myself.

Get yourself a small paper cutter like this :







You can get them at craft stores. Just be careful about not leaving finger prints on your negatives. Other lessons are, COUNT the frames before you cut. You may also want to consider getting a light box to see the negatives. Otherwise, I use the monitor's screen as my light box.


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 17, 2009)

What do you expect when you take your film to an amateur lab?

And I sure don't want them rolling my film up and putting it in a canister. Talk about scratches. Like cloudwalker said a pro lab will do what you want. Mine will even sleeve them into the archival sleeves if I provide the sleeve. I would never take my film to walmart. Too many bad things can happen. Mainly lack of maintenance on their machines. If the machines aren't maintained, how do you know replenishment rates are correct, the answer is you don't know. Personally my film means more to me than that!

FYI, the reason for strips of 4 is that is what their machine is made to do.


----------



## aerialphoto (Oct 17, 2009)

Ouch - that brings back memories.

I was a service manager and ran photo labs way back when; all the minilabs I dealt with would hang the negs right out of the processor or sleeve them in customer provided sleeves.  Walmart and other labs though?  I generally cringe.


----------



## usayit (Oct 17, 2009)

My lab will put them into a long sleeves, loosely roll them up and use a thin rubber band.... I cut them at home.  They do the same with medium format.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 17, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> FYI, the reason for strips of 4 is that is what their machine is made to do.



And it is made to do that because the strips of 4 fit perfectly in the envelope with the prints. In the age of automation, everything is related


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 17, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > FYI, the reason for strips of 4 is that is what their machine is made to do.
> ...


 
Exactly. That is why they call them minilabs.


----------



## Dwig (Oct 18, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > CSR Studio said:
> ...



The common "standard" photofinishing envelope size, roughly 5x7", has a long history. There is absolutely nothing to do with "minilabs" that has had any influence. The finishing envelopes used in the '30s were very much the same size as those common today. The 4-frame convention is what it is because that's what has fit the finishing bag since the birth of the standardized 135 cassette.

The common archival filing pages evolved many decades later from completely different roots. They evolved to mimic the cut pattern used by hand darkroom workers to fit a roll of film onto a standard 8x10 print for contact printing. There are several variations with 5, 6, and 7 frame strips to deal with the various compromises involved with fitting binders, holding a whole 36 exposure roll with the inevitable extra frame or two, and fitting the images on an 8x10 sheet of paper.


----------



## aerialphoto (Oct 18, 2009)

On a positive note, be glad they're sleeving and not just shoving them in with the paper strip on the bottom like the huge factory labs do.


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 18, 2009)

Dwig said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > c.cloudwalker said:
> ...


 
Actually it does have something to do with it. The minilab is where the automation came into play.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 18, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Dwig said:
> 
> 
> > CSR Studio said:
> ...



I didn't think it worth to correct you the first time but if you insist on being wrong: minilabs were the result of decentralization of the processing and printing so as to make photos available to the customers faster. Automation of this processing started in the factory-labs such as Kodak in Rochester which used the common photo-finishing envelope before the advent of minilabs.


----------



## CSR Studio (Oct 19, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > Dwig said:
> ...


 
Unfoirtunately you are the one that needs correcting.

The reason that is was the automation is because of the amount of people and machines it took before the minilab to get the same job done.

I will break it down for you.

1 printer for 5" paper and 1 person to print.
1 printer for 6" paper and 1 person to print.
1 printer for 8" paper and 1 person to print.
Paper processor and 1 person to process the paper.
Print cutter and 1 person to cut the prints.
Sort the orders and 1 person to sort them.

Then you have the minilab that can print 4", 5", 6", 8" and 10" paper, then process it, cut and sort the prints into orders.

That is the very definition of automation. 1 person can run the entire machine. And the large wholesale labs like Kodak and Qualex have gone to more and more minilabs instead of the 6 or so different machines that it takes for a minilab to do the same job.


----------



## Dwig (Oct 19, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > CSR Studio said:
> ...



Regardless of how you define "automation" and what you consider the increase in automation brought on by mini-labs the following is still true:

1. Mini-labs didn't introduce automation to photofinishing labs
2. Mini-labs and any automation that they may have introduced have *absolutely nothing* to do with the topic of this conversation.

Mini-labs did not introduce the 4-frame strip cutting pattern. It was the convention in photofinishing labs decades before the introduction of the first mini-lab equipment. The longer 5 to 6-frame strips have been solely the habit of manual darkrooms where making contact sheets is/was common practice.

Even in manual darkrooms, when they existed as primarily mass-market photofinishing labs as was common in the 1930's when 135 cassettes were introduced, the convention was 4-frame strips so that the film fit the same envelopes that were used for the larger roll film finishing.


----------



## apertureman (Oct 30, 2009)

I don't mind if they cut it however they want, because generally, I don't archive all frames taken, per se. I pick and choose the ones I like the most, cut them out myself and archive.
Besides, I have all of them scanned, too, at a high resolution so I archive most of them digitally.


----------



## aerialphoto (Oct 30, 2009)

You cut out _single frames_ off of negative strips??


----------



## Josh66 (Oct 30, 2009)

apertureman said:


> I don't mind if they cut it however they want, because generally, I don't archive all frames taken, per se. I pick and choose the ones I like the most, cut them out myself and archive.
> Besides, I have all of them scanned, too, at a high resolution so I archive most of them digitally.



Why?

What do you put them in?  Sleeves are made to hold strips, not single frames...  Plus, what's the point?  What is the benefit of throwing frames away?


----------



## apertureman (Nov 2, 2009)

aerialphoto said:


> You cut out _single frames_ off of negative strips??



Yes, I used to with a knife I use for cutting paper.



O|||||||O said:


> Why?
> 
> What do you put them in?  Sleeves are made to hold strips, not single frames...  Plus, what's the point?  What is the benefit of throwing frames away?



Oh.. I don't use archival books, I just keep them in a plastic file in a binder. But recently I stopped doing that, because I just have them all scanned at hi-res and saved on my portable HDD.

There is no benefit of throwing frames away, it just helps not to waste storage space, I guess. I don't really want to save the whole strip if there is only 1 good frame on it....  I don't know, it's just me, I guess. You don't have to go that route. I'm a nerd.


----------



## aerialphoto (Nov 2, 2009)

Wow.  I used to have people come into my lab now and then with negs cut like that.  They'd drop dozens of single frames on the counter and say "print these".  I'd smile and politely say "no".

That's really not a very smart way to store negatives.  I'll give you credit for having scanned them but if you're going to bother saving them at least do it right.


----------



## apertureman (Nov 2, 2009)

aerialphoto said:


> Wow.  I used to have people come into my lab now and then with negs cut like that.  They'd drop dozens of single frames on the counter and say "print these".  I'd smile and politely say "no".



Why? Is it because of the way processor works? If that's the case, I might as well just go ahead and toss my negs (accept for my slides). 



aerialphoto said:


> That's really not a very smart way to store negatives.  I'll give you credit for having scanned them but if you're going to bother saving them at least do it right.



Now that you're saying that, I'm in trouble... well, sort of. I actually haven't had a need to make any reprints of the negs I saved so far, I only have one plastic file almost full.

I guess I will not cut them up from now on. Thanks for the pro tip to a non-pro


----------



## aerialphoto (Nov 2, 2009)

apertureman said:


> Why? Is it because of the way processor works? If that's the case, I might as well just go ahead and toss my negs (accept for my slides).



It depends where you take them and who does the printing.  Labs that use larger production machines can't put a single neg into the negative carrier without splicing it to something else.  Other labs might be able to get the single neg in the carrier, but depending on the design of the machine and the carrier the sides of the negative may not have any support.  Without support on the sides the negative might curl a little and will throw the center of the neg out of focus (which also depends on how the lens is set up, etc).

On top of the actual difficulties in getting a print single frames can sometimes be extremely difficult to clean and carry.  Since there's no film on the either side to grip (even by the edges) then carrying, centering, and cleaning all have to be done while touching the negative with the image on it - what's worse is that _might_ require actually touching the image to get the negative to move around in the carrier.  Presumably a good printer will be wearing gloves, but that still means the glove can leave marks on the negative (it shouldn't, but it's a risk).

Finally - if negatives are worth keeping they're worth keeping in decent negative pages and kept flat to prevent curling.  Not only does the archival characteristic of the page keep the negative from breaking down chemically and physically, it also keeps the negative free of dust, dirt, and scratches.  Even the edges of another negative can cause scratches.

Scanner and software technology is always getting better.  Even a negative with a slight scratch can produce a quality image later so I wouldn't toss the negatives, but treating negatives right from the get-go is the right approach.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 2, 2009)

If strips of four were a problem for Actor, imagine what he'd have to say if his 36-exposure roll came back chopped into 36 separate, discrete frames of film! Man, when I think of all the notebooks I filled with archival quality negative filing pages containing entire,complete rolls of film! And to think, all those years, I could have been cutting out and saving my best images as single frames, and I could have simply thrown away all the other images. Man...that would have save me a TON of materials...I could have archived my entire library of film images in one,single notebook. That way I wouldn't have had to look back on all those old family gatherings, with long-departed relatives,and I would never have had to sort through multiple pictures of Christmas Morning 1977 to get to the single good picture I had saved. I am soooo peeved that I kept entire rolls of negatives! How stupidly I behaved!


----------



## apertureman (Nov 2, 2009)

Derrel said:


> ...I am soooo peeved that I kept entire rolls of negatives! How stupidly I behaved!



Not everything's lost, pal, you can always start over 

But... seriously... dude, it's entirely up to you if you choose to save all your rolls, I don't see anything wrong with that. Obviously I don't have such a long standing in successful photography as you do, so at this point many of my shots are simply not worth keeping, 'cause they didn't turn out :/
But no worries, I'll get there someday!


----------



## apertureman (Nov 2, 2009)

aerialphoto said:


> Scanner and software technology is always getting better.  Even a negative with a slight scratch can produce a quality image later so I wouldn't toss the negatives, but treating negatives right from the get-go is the right approach.



Thanks for the info and valuable tips, aerialphoto! I'll store them right from now on.

I guess, back to Actor's original discussion! I'll let you guys with tons of experience to elaborate on that...


----------



## RancerDS (Nov 11, 2009)

Am going to do a lot of extrapolated guesswork here.

4 negs per cut strip (possibly because most rolls have 12, 24 or 36 exposures) with the lowest common denominator as being... uhm, 4?  And the reason they cut them is because handling small strips versus an entire roll of negatives... in which case are they more likely to touch the exposed negative itself?  Yes, it would be nice if you could get the processing lab (or mini-lab) to roll your negative strips back into the original canisters; assuming someone doesn't mind rolling them in and out completely to reprint one frame.  If you aren't using them for archiving, then you must be either not saving them or having scans done.  The scans make it a moot point entirely.


----------



## Torus34 (Nov 11, 2009)

Temporary fix:

Use 24 exp. rolls.

Permanent fix:

Process your own negatives.


----------



## Dwig (Nov 11, 2009)

RancerDS said:


> A...
> 4 negs per cut strip (possibly because most rolls have 12, 24 or 36 exposures) with the lowest common denominator as being... uhm, 4?  ...



That shows a lack of knowledge of the history of 35mm and the discussion of labs. The four frame strip convention dates from way before the adoption of the more modern 12/24/36x roll length pattern. For a long time, the pattern was 20 & 36 exposure lengths, no 12 or 24. This dominated the post-WWII through mid-'70s period. 

The original Kodachrome, a slide film so not directly part of this discussion, came in shorter lengths (8 exposure ?) at first because of its expense and only later in longer rolls. It was never returned as cut strips. It was originally returned as an uncut roll and later as mounted slides. In later years, boxes of mounted slides, Kodachrome or Ektachrome, would contain a few unmounted images when those images were misspaced preventing automated mounting. When this occured, the film was either left uncut or, if the unmountable images could be cut shorter, they would be cut to 2 frame strips to fit the box. The strip length was chosen _*to fit the existing package*_ just as the four frame negative strip was chosen to fit the existing package.


----------



## RancerDS (Nov 12, 2009)

Dwig said:


> <snip>
> That shows a lack of knowledge of the history of 35mm and the discussion of labs. <snip>



Actually shows a lot of ignorance on my part.  Lowest common denominator is 2.  Greatest common is 12.  Yes, yes, believe it fitting the package of processed prints has lots to do with it.  The other numbers of exposure settings do help confirm "4" as being a magical number.  And from left field... the history of hot dogs having 10 per package when buns come 8 to a package.

History is a wonderful tool, in seeing what mistakes we need to avoid.


----------



## apertureman (Nov 12, 2009)

Dwig said:


> That shows a lack of knowledge of the history of 35mm and the discussion of labs. The four frame strip convention dates from way before the adoption of the more modern 12/24/36x roll length pattern. For a long time, the pattern was 20 & 36 exposure lengths, no 12 or 24. This dominated the post-WWII through mid-'70s period.
> 
> The original Kodachrome, a slide film so not directly part of this discussion, came in shorter lengths (8 exposure ?) at first because of its expense and only later in longer rolls. It was never returned as cut strips. It was originally returned as an uncut roll and later as mounted slides. In later years, boxes of mounted slides, Kodachrome or Ektachrome, would contain a few unmounted images when those images were misspaced preventing automated mounting. When this occured, the film was either left uncut or, if the unmountable images could be cut shorter, they would be cut to 2 frame strips to fit the box. The strip length was chosen _*to fit the existing package*_ just as the four frame negative strip was chosen to fit the existing package.



Why do they make predominantly rolls of 36 nowadays? You can get plenty of multi-purpose film with 24 frames per roll, but most professional films run 36. Why? Why don't they still make the 24- and 12-exposure canisters?
My first guess is to reduce the cost.... but I'm not sure.
On some occasions I wish I had a couple of 12-exp. rolls of various speed, so I don't have to waste the remaining frames or rewind mid-roll in case lighting conditions change. ???


----------



## Actor (Nov 12, 2009)

apertureman said:


> Why do they make predominantly rolls of 36 nowadays? You can get plenty of multi-purpose film with 24 frames per roll, but most professional films run 36. Why? Why don't they still make the 24- and 12-exposure canisters?
> 
> My first guess is to reduce the cost.... but I'm not sure.
> 
> On some occasions I wish I had a couple of 12-exp. rolls of various speed, so I don't have to waste the remaining frames or rewind mid-roll in case lighting conditions change. ???


Cost is the overwhelming issue.  Every roll has 10 inches of waste film.  With 36 exposures you get 16% waste.  With 24 exposures you get 22% waste.  12 exposures, 36% waste.

If you want 12 exposure rolls just bulk load your own.  I've bought 36 exposure rolls and cut them in two, giving me two 15 exposure rolls.


----------



## Smith2688 (Nov 19, 2009)

I didn't read all the comments, but all labs around me, including CVS, etc., will cut in different lengths if I ask them.  The reason they always cut them in strips of four is because they have a device that holds and cuts the negatives but can only hold four frames.  They just do it by hand instead of using the device if you request it, which is always a bit of a gamble.


----------

