Demise of QL format: Hope on the horizon

[Thingy]

There have been several threads discussing the forthcoming demise of the Fuji Quickload system, in April 2010, in the UK Large Format Photographers Group (UKLFPG).

Joanna Carter has designed an envelope that can be preloaded with any 5x4 sheet film and used with the QL/Readyload/polaroid holders, but there needs to be more interest and financial backing to lead to manufacture. The advantage this would offer over dark slides is that although one would need to preload the film, any 5x4 film could be used, and the bulk problem encountered with dark slides, especially when ascending mountains and taking one's LF equipment abroad, would be eliminated. Is there any interest here?

See link below, for example:
http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1158&start=15

Steve

 

[SWphoto]

I'd be interested. I'd want to know some of the specifics, but the concept is interesting and could merit support. I think there is already a lengthy thread of interest on the Large Format Photography Forum.

Rick

 

[BenZucker]

I would be all about this if it went in to production.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Sounds great, if it could be put into production. The original Mido holder (before Mido II) was something like this--a reloadable packet system. The main criticism of it was that some people found it hard to load, so if Joanna Carter's system could overcome this, I think it would have a market.

Personally, I'm set for 4x5" with my Grafmatics, so I wouldn't be interested in another system.

 

[canuhead]

I'm interested in this as well and if it could be scaled up so that it would work with 8x10 Polaroid holders, I would be beyond chuffed.

Agree with David in that it MUST be easier to load than the first gen Mido holders.


Fred

 

[Ektagraphic]

I would give it a try if the price was not extremely high....

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

I'd be interested, for sure.

 

[Laurent]

I contemplated Quickloads for the ease of use and less limited capacity on the field (less limited than carrying n holdrs, that is). So I'd be interested if the price isn't too high (and more interested is the system is reusable (in the latter, then the price point could be a bit higher, of course !) )

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One attraction of QL/RL that a reloadable packet system doesn't address is the advantage of factory-loaded dust-free film. This is perhaps obvious, but I don't think I've seen it discussed, and it's something that potential users may want to take into account.

If one just wants a more compact way to carry loaded 4x5" film in the field, Grafmatics already do that, and there seem to be plenty of them out there. Kinematics are even more compact, but they are harder to find and less reliable than Grafmatics. With packets, it's easier to organize and keep track of individual sheets of course, but I've only had one or two sorting mishaps in the years I've been using Grafmatics, which is probably no better or worse than I might have had with any other system.

I don't mean to discourage anyone from pursuing a new way to handle sheet film, since anything that gets more large format shooters out there is a good thing, but I think now would be the time to get all the potential issues out there while it's still all at the drawing board stage.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

I wish Joanne success in her enterprise and will watch the development with progress but for me the whole advantage of RL/QL film was that it was 100% dust free.

I am fine with loading my own Darkslides but for me (and I cannot imagine I am alone here) the major bug-bear of LF is getting dust free film.

I have improved my house-keeping and have a much better success rate but dust remains a persistent problem.

QL/RLs over came the problem being manufactured in a controlled atmosphere

The downs sides were cost and choice of film

However, you paid your money and made your choice of whether QL/RLs were a luxury or a necessity

So if there is a cunning plan in all of this to minimise dust and dirt then I will be very interested.

Martin

 

[cabbiinc]

I'm pretty new to large format myself and the dust thing has me concerned. To me that was more of the reason to buy QL/RL in the first place. You can always carry a changing bag and reload film in the field, but the dust was a big issue. Of course I'm not speaking from experience being new. I've wondered if another company were to make a packet system that you could custom order whatever sheet film you wanted to use. Maybe something like this could spur local business to reload sleeves with the photographers film of choice in a dust free environment. Drop your film sleeves off at your local lab, pick the negs up in 2 days with the sleeves refilled.

Again I'm new so just ignore if I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[DanielStone]

I've never had much of a problem with dust, loading DD holders in the film-loading rooms at school.

they have compressed air hoses in the darkrooms, so being able to load the sheet of film into the holder, then give it a puff or two of air(filtered of course), then quickly(well, carefully), slide the 1/2 opened darkslide in completely. I've got it down to about 5s a side.

after each use, I blow out the holders with compressed air, gets em nice and clean before loading. same with the darkslides, give em a good blasting.

works for me. now, I get a speck or two of dust here and there sometimes, but generally I'm getting 98-99% dust free film. besides, when I sc@n the film, I look over the whole thing at 100% in PS anyway, so I can just spot/clone it out there

-Dan


<edit> I have a QL holder as well, but I'm sorry that I bought it. I only put 2 boxes of QL astia and acros through it each. what a waste of money. I got it used, but it's still $60 down the drain :mad

I'm not much of a backpacker to be honest, but to me, if I were to be going out on an extended hike, or long walks with LF gear, I'd just jury-rig my little bro's big-wheel wagon(inflatable tires), and that can roll pretty much over anything.

 

[Mike1234]

I always used Dust-Air to clean mine and never once had a dust problem. I also occasionally wiped them down inside and out with a weak solution of PhotoFlo and distilled water.

 

[Steve Hamley]

I never liked compressed air. The dust just goes somewhere else and it builds up over time. Sooner or later you're going to have to actually remove dust from your environment. A HEPA filtered vacuum for the large jobs (be careful where the exhaust blows - it can get a lot of dust airborne) and painter's tack rags (wax impregnated cheesecloth) are the first choice for me. I even use the tack rags for dusting in the house. Once a vacuum or tack rag gets the dust, it isn't going back into the environment.

Cheers, Steve

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The methods of avoiding dust, though, aren't particular to reloadable packet systems. They apply equally to conventional filmholders, Grafmatics, bag mags, or any reloadable system. Factory loaded packets were attractive to people who had dust problems due to their environment, backpackers and travel shooters who didn't want to reload holders on the trail or while traveling, and professionals who just wanted to remove one source of problems from the workflow.

 

[Pupfish]

Dust is the bug bear, but really only in a traditional enlarging workflow. But that's pretty much everybody posting here on APUG.

(Dust is particularly hideous with smaller format materials that cannot easily be spotted out e.g. black spots that show up from dust when printing from transparency to Ilfochrome).

Much less of a problem for those who adopt a hybrid workflow. But even where dust isn't at issue, do other rationale exist for this sleeving method v. Grafmatics? One that comes to mind is with travel and QL. These are/were relatively easy to get hand inspected/explosive sniffed without X-raying... previously. (Don't know about in the new environment since the Christmas Crotch Bomber, though).

Boxed sheet film, I'd expect that it's probably not such a good idea to fly with it these days. If the new QL replacement sleeve regime it helps with this, they've found a niche and might have a future.

 

[2F/2F]

I'd be extremely interested if they were 1. reusable, and 2. held the film at the proper plane...at least as much so as Quickloads. My only troubles with dust have come when using changing bags, which also means not being able to blow out holders before loading them.

 

[DanielStone]

2f,

you can blow the holders out before you load them the first time(when they're already empty). if you keep your changing bag/tent(my preference) clean, then there should be little or no problems with dust. more though, than if you blow off the film after its been loaded INTO the holders, before re-inserting the darkslide.

-Dan

 

[2F/2F]

I should have said, "...which means not being able to blow them out before re-loading them in 'the field'." I always clean them well when loading them initially, and do not load them using a bag at this time.

I can't figure out a way to get a changing bag nicely clean. I have even used a brand new one, vacuumed, etc. I always get dust when using a changing bag for loading sheet film.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Have you tried a tent? By keeping the fabric from contacting the film or the holders, they reduce dust problems.

 

[Moopheus]

I'm not a regular QL user--I use them when I can get them cheap on ebay, otherwise they seem too expensive. It seems to me the main advantage is that they're preloaded clean, and if they're not, then why bother? Might as well just use a regular film holder or grafmatic. Personally, I'd rather see someone bring out new Grafmatics than new quickloads. Or at least new septums.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Have you tried a tent? By keeping the fabric from contacting the film or the holders, they reduce dust problems.

David, I have a Harrison Changing Tent and its far better than a changing bag - but I still have problems with dust.

I like to wet dust the bag a while before I start - which helps but doesn't completely cure the problem

I am also at something of a loss to explain where the dust comes from, as it seems to accumulate as the unloading/reloading session progresses.

Martin

 

[eclarke]

it would be great if Joanna can get this going because the compactness of the system is desirable. The problem is that film photographers just aren't spending enough to make Quickloads financially viable and I don't think there are enough sales to make her thing work...Evan Clarke

 

[DanielStone]

you'd have to pre-sell EVERY system made, in order to make it work.

depending on tool and die costs, you'd be looking at probably 10k-15k MINIMUM. not to count in material and operator costs.

this could be very expensive. but hell, if everyone who participated were to get say 20-30 'holders', with 2 sides to each 'holder'

I'm think Doubld-Sided Mido holders here, with a 'back', similar to the QL and RL holders. or, something like Dean(Razzeldog in AU, google him if you don't know of him), he made a thin 4x5 back for his Polaroid 900 and 110 conversion cameras. very thin, and lightweight.

I'm thinking a hybrid of the two. so, a marriage of "old style RL packets(2 sided) with a holder to match).

just with the lightweight of the MIDO holders.

-Dan

 

[Steve Hamley]

Anybody thought of copying a Grafmatic using lightweight composites and materials? That's conceptually what Dick Phillips did with the 8x10 and he succeeded in converting the mahogany-and-brass behemoth into a light camera. The advantage of course, is that there would be no design work and people seem pretty satisfied with them within reason.

Cheers, Steve