Demise of QL format: Hope on the horizon

[David A. Goldfarb]

Fuji Quickchange (not Quickload) was the modern Grafmatic. They didn't do much to market it beyond Japan, and they didn't market is as a reloadable system, but if you didn't reload, it was an expensive way to buy film, so people figured out how to reload it. For those who bought in just to reload anyway, it was more costly than Grafmatics, so given all these factors, it didn't last very long.

 

[Mike1234]

Steve... That's a great idea but so much more complicated. The process would be astronomically high so each pice would likely cost (a guess) $300 or more. With used Grafmatics available for $60-100 the new ones wouldn't sell well enough to cover R&D and manufacturing. Now... if some company in China were to steal the idea???

 

[Steve Hamley]

Mike,

I had the same thought, but also thought that the entire thing may not need to be fabricated. If only the large heavy pieces were lightened and the rest of the parts swapped out, there could still be what I would consider success since there are tons of Grafmatics around. There is of course, no compelling reason re-manufacture a small part because the weight savings would be essentially zero.

Of course, we could do what the drag racers do and drill large holes in them... Oh wait, that's a bad idea.

Cheers, Steve

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

As a point of reference the Fuji Quickchange system was about $150 for the holder and around $70 for a loaded 8-septum cartridge that could be reloaded, as I recall.

 

[Laurent]

I had some thoughts on this this afternoon, and just realized that reflexions about the "price point" might be biased : I own 20 holders, they were not all bought new, nor bought at the same time. But if I look at the money I should put on the counter to get 20 new holders, this would be 800€ (French rices, I agree they are a bit inflated, that's why some came from NY )

So, if a reloadable system was available, even if a bit expensive, it could be a good thing !

 

[Mike1234]

I think it's a great idea but, unfortunately, I'll not be shooting 4x5 sheets because my 4x5 system is dedicated soley to 6x12cm RF becasue I prefer the longer format. It it was available in 8x10 (I'll crop 8x10) I would buy without hesitation. Imagine the weight savings vs. a plethora of 8x10 DD's!!

 

[Joanna Carter]

Hi folks

I don't often pop in here due to the fact that I use a hybrid analogue/digital/analog workflow but Steve mentioned that this thread was getting some attention so I thought I would risk a moderator's wrath

The system I am proposing is a replacement for the Quickload/Readyload style of film envelope that can be loaded with whatever 4" x 5" film you care to choose, for use in Quickload/Readyload/Polaroid holders - Quickload being the recommended choice for film flatness.

The envelopes are intended to only be used once and then converted into a storage envelope, complete with all the notes you might have taken whilst shooting. In theory, it might be possible to re-use an envelope but, if folks are only ever going to buy a small number to re-use, I might have problems justifying the setup costs, which, as someone indicated could be around £15,000.

Apart from making the envelopes for people to fill themselves, there is also a possibility of providing them pre-filled, with certain films, in a cleanroom.

It all boils down to whether people are prepared to support this venture, as to whether or not I can afford to get the tools setup and suitable materials manufactured.

So far, over three forums, I reckon I might be able to count on selling a couple or three hundred but, unfortunately, the minimum quantity to make the product viable, at a price point that people are prepared to pay, could well be around the 5000 level.

Please continue to spread the word about this system - the more that want it, the more viable it would become.

As for 8" x 10", this may not be the greatest of ideas. Have you ever tried to stop a 4" x 5" envelope from vibrating n the breeze? Can you imagine the wind resistance 80 sq. ins. would impose and the distance your camera could fly? :rolleyes: It would also mean designing and manufacturing a holder system from scratch.

Mind you, if the funding were forthcoming, I would certainly give it a go. Any philanthropists out there with a a large wallet?

 

[Mike1234]

But, but, but, but... we want 8x10....... tears welling up..... bottom lip quivering.

 

[mpirie]

But, but, but, but... we want 8x10....... tears welling up..... bottom lip quivering.

Tsk, tsk, some people are never happy!

You're not satisfied with having a superior image size, but you want the convenience of 5x4 Quickloads too? :rolleyes:

 

[Mike1234]

Tsk, tsk, some people are never happy!

You're not satisfied with having a superior image size, but you want the convenience of 5x4 Quickloads too? :rolleyes:

YES... 8x10 QL's!!

 

[mpirie]

.....The envelopes are intended to only be used once and then converted into a storage envelope, complete with all the notes you might have taken whilst shooting.....

Joanna, if you need around 5000 single-use to make it commercially viable, I would have though it'd be quite easy to reach?

I've used about 150 sheets over the past year and I doubt I'm a heavy user. Looking in my freezer, I have another 400 sheets waiting to be used and just placed another order of 100 today........have I missed something?

Mike

 

[Ektagraphic]

Any update as to if this will actually ever happen?

 

[nickandre]

What's the cost per paper sleeve?

Try taking reservations.

 

[SWphoto]

Joanna,

I'm supportive of the objective (and have posted so), but this is the first I was aware of it being single-use. That's not necessarily a deal-killer, but we'll need to know a bit more about the process to make a decision. If the price per sheet will come in as "reasonable" vis-a-vis the cost of the old QLs (which weren't cheap, but now seem somewhat reasonable given regular sheet film is now running US $2.25-2.50/sheet in 4x5). I doubt there are many competitors out there, given the niche market, so I don't think sharing a bit more about the concept will result in piracy.

 

[Thingy]

Well I've offered Joanna a £500 donation on the UKLFPG Forum. Any other interested sponsors?

Even with the free NHS over here, the costs of putting our one's back are still high in terms of frustration, etc, and dark slides = back trouble, so far as I'm concerned. I write as someone disabled with back trouble.

Mike, there was some discussion about the desirability of 10x8 QL holders and film on the UKLFPG Forum last year*, but it all depends upon how many people would use it and whether designing and manufacturing a holder and film envelopes would be economically feasible.

* see: http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1158&start=18

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Joanna, I am interested in your proposal for clean room pre-loaded film packets

Volume as ever it is cost dependant - Kodak RLs were aprox film + £1 (which was a bargain - no wonder Kodak dropped it) - Fuji works out to be about £4 ~ $4.50 per sheet (inc VAT + delivery) - which is too expensive for me to use regularly

For the pre-loaded packets, it would need to be one or more of the Ilford products - HP5, FP4 & Delta

Are you thinking of doing something similar to the Ilford ULF film request - every so often (annually/twice a year/...?) put out a call for orders

More info would be useful

Thanks

Martin

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Keeping the System Clean.

The system I am proposing is a replacement for the Quickload/Readyload style of film envelope that can be loaded with whatever 4" x 5" film you care to choose, for use in Quickload/Readyload/Polaroid holders - Quickload being the recommended choice for film flatness.

The envelopes are intended to only be used once and then converted into a storage envelope, complete with all the notes you might have taken whilst shooting. In theory, it might be possible to re-use an envelope but, if folks are only ever going to buy a small number to re-use, I might have problems justifying the setup costs, which, as someone indicated could be around £15,000.

Apart from making the envelopes for people to fill themselves, there is also a possibility of providing them pre-filled, with certain films, in a cleanroom.

It all boils down to whether people are prepared to support this venture, as to whether or not I can afford to get the tools setup and suitable materials manufactured.

So far, over three forums, I reckon I might be able to count on selling a couple or three hundred but, unfortunately, the minimum quantity to make the product viable, at a price point that people are prepared to pay, could well be around the 5000 level.

Please continue to spread the word about this system - the more that want it, the more viable it would become.

It seems to me, that a single use envelope would be just the thing to minimize dust.

But, if you're going to re-load them in a cleanroom anyway, you could make the envelopes recyclable in order to minimize production. Then have the company reload " your envelopes " in the cleanroom & return them to you.

If you take the second approach, you could sell the envelopes, pre-loaded,
with the film of the purchaser's choice.

This way you could charge a service fee, for the loading & reloading as well as
for the sale of new envelopes.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

It seems to me, that a single use envelope would be just the thing to minimize dust.

But, if you're going to re-load them in a cleanroom anyway, you could make the envelopes recyclable in order to minimize production. Then have the company reload " your envelopes " in the cleanroom & return them to you.

If you take the second approach, you could sell the envelopes, pre-loaded,
with the film of the purchaser's choice.

This way you could charge a service fee, for the loading & reloading as well as
for the sale of new envelopes.

I have some experience of clean rooms - they are all one way traffic only - stuff inside goes out & doesn't ever come back without full and thorough decontamination

Decontamination of stuff from an uncontrolled source is an expensive business - far more than the cost of a new envelope.

Add onto that the cost of, you returning the envelopes together with managing “your” envelopes through the re-loading system.

The whole cost and degree of difficulty of re-using envelopes goes through the roof.

Also, I assume we are all going to want a quality assured product - which effectively means control of the whole process - hence no returns.

These are the same very good reasons why Kodak & Fuji RL/QL envelopes were a disposable product.

Martin

 

[Pupfish]

Quickloads were designed for the studio, not location photography. More useful still would be a system that contains a light trap to permit withdrawing the dark sleeve completely (as with a darkslide), and which repositions itself accurately it upon reinsertion-- so that the sleeve does not act as a flag in the breeze.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Starting from scratch, something like Mido II might be better for 8x10" and larger formats, since the darkslide can be removed in the normal way. These load like regular filmholders, but they're about 1/3 the thickness and they are lighter. They are used with a clamshell spacer frame to correct the film plane distance. They are a little more finicky than regular filmholders, since you have to use the spacer, and the thin design requires a little more attention when replacing the darkslide after the exposure, so I still like regular 8x10" filmholders in the studio, but they let me carry a lot more 8x10" film into the field.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Quickloads were designed for the studio, not location photography. More useful still would be a system that contains a light trap to permit withdrawing the dark sleeve completely (as with a darkslide), and which repositions itself accurately it upon reinsertion-- so that the sleeve does not act as a flag in the breeze.

That's funny, because I have only used Fuji Quickloads (and Kodak Readyloads) on location, always outside. I find they are ideal for airplane travel with my gear, since I can pack many shots. I also like that I can drop off my exposed film at the lab, and still have my film holders, without needing to do any darkroom gymnastics. Basically, I like the convenience.

I would welcome a newer packet system, because the weight, space, and convenience are important to me. The other aspect I like is that the Quickload film holder has a pressure plate built in. In addition, I can leave the holder in the camera, and easily and quickly shoot multiple shots with minimal movement of the camera (far less movement than if I was flipping double darks).

The other thing I don't get about some negative comments is a dust issue. If you load your own double darks, then you are dealing with the same dust potential as loading a newer packet system. So I think ease of loading comparisons would be a more valid argument, yet I have yet to see anyone comment about that.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

P.S. - Total reply not specifically to you, but you gave me a good launch point.

P.P.S. - Thanks!

 

[jbbooks]

I really liked having Readyloads in T-Max 100 and Ektachrome 100 EPP when traveling, but I hardly ever used one at home. What I liked were the elimination of dust problems, the weight and bulk of film holders and the inconvenience of having to reload film holders when I was much more interested in going out for a drink and something to eat and too tired when I got back to the room to do anything but go to bed.

These advantages would be what I would be looking for in a substitute product and I would be happy to pay a reasonable premium for them. As to something that I would have to load myself, I would have no interest. If I have to load the film in a holder, myself, I would just as soon use regular film holders.

 

[Pupfish]

That's funny, because I have only used Fuji Quickloads (and Kodak Readyloads) on location, always outside. I find they are ideal for airplane travel with my gear, since I can pack many shots. I also like that I can drop off my exposed film at the lab, and still have my film holders, without needing to do any darkroom gymnastics. Basically, I like the convenience.

Me too.

But just about every time I expose film outdoors (to date, using Q/Ls almost exclusively) I find myself having to hold the paper darksleeve to keep it from flapping around in the breeze.

 

[Steve Smith]

Please continue to spread the word about this system - the more that want it, the more viable it would become.

If it turns out that it is not viable, would you be prepared to make it public knowledge for others to try your design?

I have a laser cutter, a CNC router and an XY knife cutter at work and we are used to cutting, laminating, etc. so I think I could make them in small batches.

Mind you, if the funding were forthcoming, I would certainly give it a go. Any philanthropists out there with a a large wallet?

I'm so poor, I haven't even got a wallet!


Steve.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Me too.

But just about every time I expose film outdoors (to date, using Q/Ls almost exclusively) I find myself having to hold the paper darksleeve to keep it from flapping around in the breeze.

Worst I ever had with that was for a time exposure at night. I walked away from the set-up, and suddenly the wind was blasting at 25mph. The flap on the Quickload packet was moving like crazy. So I completed the shot, then loaded up another packet, and re-shot with my hand on the packet sleeve. After both shots were processed, and inspected under a 10x loupe, I could find no difference in the exposures nor detail. I think the pressure plate prevented adverse effects.