Ilford Quickloads ?

[david b]

Any chance I'll see FP4+ in 4x5 quickloads in my lifetime?

 

[Mark_S]

There is a discussion of this going on over in the Ilford forums now:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/photocommunity/forums/theforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7665

My opinion is that the best chance is that Kodak will withdraw from the LF film market completely, or at least the readyload business. When they do so, it is possible that the equipment and intellectual property enabling readyloads will become available at a reasonable price, and either a company like Ilford would acquire it, or some third party which would use the technology to package film from a variety of vendors in Readyloads.

Personally I would like to see HP5 in Readyloads (or Quickloads).

 

[George Kara]

ilford and readyloads

Kodak would not have to withdraw in order for Ilford to produce an equivilent. It seems that licensing the technology would be fairly straightforward. Perhaps Ilford doesnt see a big enough market to invest in such an arrangement.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

A withdrawal by Kodak from making Readyloads would be a disaster for anyone using their colour films. Besides, at whatever point the line and equipment are shut down, I doubt they would be moving it to the UK at any reasonable expense.

I thought there was a comment about this not long ago on another thread here about the IP expiring on the technology this year. That would mean it was open to use. However, the issue would still be having the packets produced. I would think Ilford would need to cut a deal with either Fuji or Kodak.

If you look at what Fuji and Kodak produce in B/W films in packet systems, then it seems that there is room for an ISO 200 or ISO 400 packet film on the market. I don't know what is the best seller at Ilford, though that might be the logical choice to put into a packet system.

A guess is that HP5+ is the best seller, which I would definitely use in a packet system. If the retail price was anywhere near $US 80 or less for a box of 20, I would gladly buy it.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[david b]

Well...I doubt I would pay $4 a sheet but I would pay $2.50.

And yes, we do need a 400 speed QL or RL.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Just took a look at Badger Graphic Sales Quickload and Readyload prices. The Kodak TMax100 Readyloads are $59.95 and Fuji Neopan 100 are $54.95. If Ilford could get close to that with an ISO 200, or ISO 400, B/W film, then I think that would be reasonable. Anyway you look at this, it is over $3.00 per packet (including shipping costs). There are no $2.50 per packet choices, unless you want to buy short-dated or expired deals on film. This is the downside (for some) of packet systems, they simply cost more to use.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[david b]

Actually, I've found fresh Acros QL for $45.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Great price. Is that a regular price, or some special? Would you care to share the vendor here?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[Bruce Watson]

Kodak would not have to withdraw in order for Ilford to produce an equivilent. It seems that licensing the technology would be fairly straightforward. Perhaps Ilford doesnt see a big enough market to invest in such an arrangement.

No licensing required. I believe the readyload patents are expiring as we speak. Once the patents expire, Ilford is free to make and sell readyload packets. If they so choose. I hope they will, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I would be very pleased if they did too, but cannot see it happening. Tmax 100 IMO a ghastly film and Acros much better, but still very modern, ultra fine grained and so not neccessarily an all rounder. FP4+ in quickload would be truly wonderful. As it stands I have to shoot someone elses brand if I want packet film. I would rather that was not the case as I would prefer to shoot the same film in all formats and cirumstances. I would shoot FP4+ in all areas if I could.

tom

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

Very easy to answer this one :

Even at the very maximum volumes we sold of sheet film it was not economical for us to buy the equipment neccesary to construct readyloads, the equipment cost alone was more than £ 1,000,000 several years ago, as I am sure you can imagine we contacted both KODAK and FUJI at the time ( as we did over finishing 220 film ) and they were not willing to contract finish, I certainly am not 'blaming' them as they made the commitment by putting in the kit, but they can use it for colour and mono to get the return, we can only do mono.

So you will not see our products in readyloads...sorry

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[david b]

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

:confused:

 

[davekarp]

Perhaps Polaroid might be interested to do it under contract? Could its packet technology be adapted without the chemical package?

 

[gr82bart]

Perhaps Polaroid might be interested to do it under contract? Could its packet technology be adapted without the chemical package?

Kodak Readyloads can be used with Polaroid backs and they don't have the chemical packets.

Regards, Art.

 

[davekarp]

Kodak Readyloads can be used with Polaroid backs and they don't have the chemical packets.

Regards, Art.

Yes, that is true. I have used both Fuji and Kodak packet films in my 545 holder.

But, the question is can/would Polaroid manufacture the film packets that have no chemical package with another manufacturer's film? If yes, then perhaps that is an avenue for Ilford film to become available in packets. So many of us have 545 holders, probably way more than either Kodak or Fuji holders.

Since Polaroid could probably use another way to make money, and they are not really in competition with Ilford, perhaps this might be a good partnership. On the other hand, if Ilford were worried that Polaroid might not be around for the long haul, Ilford might be reluctant to introduce a product that they could not continue.

 

[Roger Hicks]

There's also a wonderful letter from Ilford to Edwin Land to the effect that while his new invention was brilliant, Ilford saw no commercial future in it and declined to manufacture film for him...

At least, it's reputed to exist. I've never seen it.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[pentaxuser]

There's also a wonderful letter from Ilford to Edwin Land to the effect that while his new invention was brilliant, Ilford saw no commercial future in it and declined to manufacture film for him...

At least, it's reputed to exist. I've never seen it.

Cheers,

Roger

Quite likely, I'd have thought. I remember some serious discussions in the very early days of word processors about whether they represented any improvement over good secretary/typists with electric typewriters.

As long as the arguments were couched in terms of good secretary/typists and given the state of play with primitive word processors, it wasn't or didn't appear to be a "no-brainer" to switch.

Reminds me of the end of a Jimmy Edwards comedy episode on the BBC many years ago in which, as the head of Micklethwaite's (gas) Mantles he was telling the board that he had given short shrift to an American inventor with a preposterous idea which he explained.

"Quite right" they all said. Then one of them, as an aside,asked "Who was he?"

"Somebody Edison" Jimmy replied before returning to the meeting's agenda.

pentaxuser