Kodak discontinues readyloads

[butterfly]

I've ordered a shed load on my credit card and will deep freeze them. Should last me a few years. By then maybe there will be affordable 4x5 sensor digital backs.. :-0 Even then it wouldn't be the same would it?

I really can't see large format film in any shape or form being around in a couple of years from now. Compared with 35mm users, I wonder what the user base is for large format, in terms of actual numbers of photographers worldwide? Collectively we cannot be using the stuff at the rate that Kodak thinks it is profitable enough to continue to produce.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I really can't see large format film in any shape or form being around in a couple of years from now. Compared with 35mm users, I wonder what the user base is for large format, in terms of actual numbers of photographers worldwide? Collectively we cannot be using the stuff at the rate that Kodak thinks it is profitable enough to continue to produce.

Well, you should consider that ALL SIZES of large format sheet film are manufactured from ONE master roll of a given film type. It is just cutting and packaging it in different sizes. If you consider this, large format film may last longer than you think. 120 film and 35mm film require more manufacturing steps.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Loading sheet film into sheet film holders is very easy. It is also easy to get dust free holders. I have been loading and using various sizes of sheet film for 40 years. Like all things, it is a learned skill, an easily learned skill, much easier than loading a stainless steel processing reel in the dark with 35mm or 120 film. I shot almost 70 sheets of 5x7 b/w yesterday (35 holders). Took me about 3/4 hour to clean and load all those holders the day before.

 

[KD5NRH]

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

That's pretty much what I was thinking; not only did they not keep up with the digital market, but they've been slowly dumping their film standbys for a while now. They used to have a really impressive market share in the imaging industry, but they've pretty much killed that off now.

 

[2F/2F]

I like Quickloads for many reasons: 1. Total lack of dust. I have never had a single visible speck of dust on any piece of Quickload film...EVER. 2. They are extremely light and compact. 3. Total lack of risk of any light leaks whatsoever; no need to cover the camera back when shooting in the sun. 4. Speed. 5. Don't need to lift ground glass to make duplicate shots; less risk of bumping the camera out of focus.

Never liked Kodak's version as well as Fuji's, though. I do not use them under normal circumstances, but if I am traveling, or if I can bill them to someone else....

I just wish Ilford would make some to go into the Fuji holders.

An interesting (and annoying) situation for Fuji users is that 160C in 4x5 is ONLY available in Quickload form; not as loose sheets. This one I just do not understand.

Also, they do not make their 400 film available in ANY sheet film size. This is the one that hurts me more than anything else. I highly prefer their color films to Kodak's, but I need to use Kodak for color 400.

What I want more than anything is a 400-speed tungsten negative film that is available in sheet sizes. Fat chance. But they could at least give me its daylight-balanced brother....

Oh; let's also not forget that we no longer have Portra Endura or Ultra Endura. 99% of folks must be fine with a 160s/160NC-type film, which they scan and then tweak to suit their desired saturation and contrast. Ugh. Whatever happened to just committing to something in camera?

Then there is Portra 100T...I am still sore about this one big time. I shot my last eight sheets the other night. I hate not having any of that film on hand.

Another I am so sad about is 320T. I absolutely loved that film to death.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

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.

I also use 100TMX in Readyloads and I haven`t had the holder very long either. Kodak should offer a partial refund IMO.
Fuji 100 Acros Quickloads are over twice the price of 100TMX in the UK and I prefer the Kodak film in 35mm and 120 as well as 4x5.

 

[keithwms]

I wonder if the quickload packages are reusable, hmm..... That would be a nifty way to take film on the road, no?

I will experiment.

 

[MikeK]

I also use 100TMX in Readyloads and I haven`t had the holder very long either. Kodak should offer a partial refund IMO.
Fuji 100 Acros Quickloads are over twice the price of 100TMX in the UK and I prefer the Kodak film in 35mm and 120 as well as 4x5.

I agree that Kodak should provide a refund. I just purchased another to replace one I sat on and destroyed - silly me!

I will have to take the Fuji route as my knees have developed a painful problem and carrying a bunch of film holders is too much weight for me to bear.

Mike

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I agree that Kodak should provide a refund. I just purchased another to replace one I sat on and destroyed - silly me!

I will have to take the Fuji route as my knees have developed a painful problem and carrying a bunch of film holders is too much weight for me to bear.

Mike

I think you can use the Kodak readyload holder (the current one) with Fuji quickloads, so your purchase can still be used.

 

[MikeK]

I think you can use the Kodak readyload holder (the current one) with Fuji quickloads, so your purchase can still be used.

Agreed and I have already taken that route with Astia - the only locally available chrome in ready/quick loads

But still upset with Kodak

Mike