Kodak discontinues readyloads

[Sal Santamaura]

Read it and weep:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...n.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.27&lc=en&_requestid=5111

 

[unibonded]

just when you get into Portra 160vc this goes and happens :-(

 

[david b]

yikes

 

[Jeff Searust]

Never did like the Kodak ready-loads anyway. Got tons of the Fuji stuff in the fridge. And I never had a problem loading my own film.

 

[jd callow]

I never liked readyloads or quickloads. Kodak's double sided version had potential. I'd rather carry grafmatics or even standard filmholders then pay more for marginal return.

 

[msage]

I never liked readyloads or quickloads. Kodak's double sided version had potential. I'd rather carry grafmatics or even standard filmholders then pay more for marginal return.

jd
I am with you, grafmatics and standard filmholders are the norm for me. However, if they had ever come out Tmax 400 or Tri-x, I would have been a big fan.
Michael

 

[butterfly]

Well this is really bad news for me :-( I love readyload film, and went to it now I can't get polaroid Type 55. I am rubbish at loading sheet film into DDS's! I now have 2 options, load up my credit card on what stock of Tmax in readyload and freeze it, or persevere with loading the dark slides. I will have to black out my kitchen as I have no darkroom, and trying to load them up in a changing bag doesn't help..

Any tips for loading successfully Dark slides much appreciated.

I just wonder now how long all 4x5 film has before it is discontinued??

Steve

 

[jd callow]

I think 4x5 is safe. I'm more worried about 120 and E6 in 120. I think the market for 4x5 is stable, but small and the manufacturing is easiest of all formats. I think the selection will slowly dwindle and the price increase. I'm less confident for 120 in E6. Oh and I'm only guessing as I have no hard facts to back my opinion.

 

[jeroldharter]

That stinks re TMAX 100.

Maybe now Ilford could buy the technology from Kodak?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've also always preferred Grafmatics for 4x5". QL and RL are easier to use, obviously, save loading time and are dust free, but they never made Tri-X in Readyload, and for carrying a significant amount of film QL and RL are bulkier than Grafmatics.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is another thread on this going. Perhaps they should be combined.

PE

 

[jd callow]

I've had dust issues with ready and quick loads. I'm sure they are better than hand loaded film holders, but they still seemed to suffer from static electricity. I never found them any easier to use and if anything somewhat more fidgety. The operation of any filmholder is simple and ease is generally not an issue with me. They do not require loading like the grafmatics or regular filmholders, but that is not a game breaker for me. Having to carry around the box(es) of 20 and the film holder was a PITA especially after I stopped shooting polaroids. It is easier to carry neatly stacked traditional film holders even though they are more bulky and far easier to carry the grafmatics.

 

[jd callow]

There is another thread on this going. Perhaps they should be combined.

PE

Unless i'm missing the thread, I only see this one and asking about the holders.

PE If you were to point me to the thread or 'report a post' on the other thread i'l l be able to find it and merge the two.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Unless i'm missing the thread, I only see this one and asking about the holders.

PE If you were to point me to the thread or 'report a post' on the other thread i'l l be able to find it and merge the two.

I think he's referring to this thread

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

in which SWphoto made a post concerning the Reayload discontinuation. The thread, however, is about inter-system compatibility.

 

[MattKing]

Unless i'm missing the thread, I only see this one and asking about the holders.

PE If you were to point me to the thread or 'report a post' on the other thread i'l l be able to find it and merge the two.

I think he is talking about this one (the relevant posts are near the end):

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Matt

 

[sergio caetano]

Kodak itself has already been discontinued for us. Forget it.

 

[Early Riser]

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...n.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.27&lc=en&_requestid=5111


bummer.....

 

[Kirk Keyes]

By Jupiter, I hope you'll all pray to the Gods that Fuji does not have to do the same thing with their Quickload films.

So, please go and buy some Quickloads and shoot them. It does not matter what you shoot, as long as they see demand for the product.

(Really, I'm serious.)

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

%$#!!!
sigh.

 

[Ole]

Threads merged.

 

[RobC]

They say four films discontinued so what is actually left in readyloads?

 

[Trevor Crone]

Oh bugger!!! TMX100 Readyloads was my favourite combo. I could easily carry 40 sheets and a Readyload holder on an excursion. Now I've got to revert back to 20 bloody holders with their inherent dust problems. 99.9% of my TMX100 Readyload negs were spotless.

I'm not a big fan of Fuji Acros in QL's plus at over £50 for 20 sheets its too damn expensive.

 

[John Kasaian]

After reading the comparison between TMX and the new TMY in View Camera I've got to wonder why Kodak keeps making TMX?
\BTW loading film holders isn't so tough!

 

[Photo Engineer]

John;

Y'all complain when Kodak discontinues a product and now complain because they keep making one?

Just a thought provoking comparison.

PE

 

[Drew B.]

screwed again....! I guess I'll have to get them while they last....