New55: ReadyLoads Return

[Fixcinater]

Dead Link Removed

Did anyone here get some before they were sold out???

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

No, I just donated some money directly instead, figuring that would leave more sheets available for fundraising.

Ken

 

[Barry S]

What's Atomic-X?

 

[Ektagraphic]

They are back in stock! A very exciting time!

 

[munz6869]

The postage to Australia brings it up to US$95 - I want to support 'em, but at AU$122 (currently) for five sheets of film, they'll have to settle for the original kickstarter pledge and the t-shirt from me for now

Marc!

 

[rbultman]

So, they are like $10 a sheet?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

If they could cut the price in half...

I might pay $5 a sheet for guaranteed dust-free, don't-have-to-load-it-myself film, considering what regular film costs these days, but not $10 a sheet.

I know it's half fund raiser anyway with half going to New 55, and I'm tempted to buy some on that basis. At half the price it's not bad (assuming the film is good, which I'm thinking it will be.)

 

[rbultman]

What was the premium for ready loads over 'bare' sheet film in the hay day of ready loads? I could see paying maybe 2x the single sheet price but not $5 a pack. For comparison, I'm looking at HP4 4x5 pricing from B&H, which is about $1.30 a sheet. TXP is around $2 a sheet.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[BrianShaw]

How many would you be willing to buy, Roger... a few to experiment with or a whole bunch to shoot with on a regular basis? I, speaking only for myself, never had enough of a dust problem to make me unhappy with loading regular film in regular film holders. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones.

 

[Roger Cole]

Well it depends on a) if I get back to shooting fairly regularly, and b) how much the new electrostatic dust brush helps me. I use pretty elaborate cleaning and de-staticing of the holders, store them in anti-static bags, run a HEPA filter in the darkroom, and STILL get annoying dust. It would also depend on how good the film is and how it matched my tastes. So I'd buy a few to try, surely.

I will probably try one box anyway, IF I ever get time to where I think I'd use them. But I'd also have to buy the holder, adding to the cost.

 

[BrianShaw]

I guess I haven't been following this news very carefully. Holder... a proprietary holder or 545?

 

[rbultman]

The web site states that they work with the Polaroid 545 holder.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[BrianShaw]

Ah... thanks. I'm glad I hung onto mine then.. just in case I may need it in the future!

 

[Paul Cunningham]

Readyloads or QuickLoads are pretty convenient in the studio. Others have said that in the field they are just one more thing for the wind to catch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Readyloads or QuickLoads...k

The title of this thread and subsequent discussion refers to the offered product as "Readyloads" and "Quickloads." However, New55 information indicates its product must be exposed in a 545 holder. That suggests the film is configured similarly to New55 packets of instant film, i.e. like the original Polaroid instant sheet films. If so, perforations connect the negative and must be ripped to separate it. This would not be a standard-size 4x5 negative and would need a special enlarger negative carrier. Also, 545 holders are the only ones into which it will fit. Fuji QuickLoad and Kodak ReadyLoad holders will not accept Polaroid-configured packets, although QuickLoad and ReadyLoad packets would work in 545 holders, albeit with worse performance than in their dedicated holders.

A major drawback: The 545 holder does not position packets with any precision. There are light leaf springs at its edges that loosely press toward the lens, but significant curving of the film can and does occur. This isn't a pressure plate system such as was employed by the Kodak and Fuji holders. Unless shooting at f/22 or smaller apertures, don't expect sharpness even close to what is achievable with a standard sheet film holder or ReadyLoad packets in a late-production ReadyLoad holder, i.e. the ones where all design bugs were worked out and additional internal clearance was added so packet envelopes no longer pushed film away from the lens at the end where they were inserted.

 

[Roger Cole]

That's interesting Sal. I'd heard that the 545 holders were sometimes not as good with Readyloads, but never any detail as to why. And of course I don't know how this film is packaged or how the sheets are extracted. Presumably they come out in light tight envelopes you can take to your darkroom to open.

 

[Ektagraphic]

If they could cut the price in half...

I might pay $5 a sheet for guaranteed dust-free, don't-have-to-load-it-myself film, considering what regular film costs these days, but not $10 a sheet.

I know it's half fund raiser anyway with half going to New 55, and I'm tempted to buy some on that basis. At half the price it's not bad (assuming the film is good, which I'm thinking it will be.)

It looks like the price will eventually be cut in half. The website mentions that out of the $50 for the box of film, a whole $25 is going directly towards the fundraising efforts of the project, so I would hope that in the future, we would see the price drop by something close to $25.

 

[Roger Cole]

If I already had a 545 holder I might spring for a box and give it a try. The extra cost of the holder for film I may not be able to buy more of for a while makes it a rather expensive proposition for one without a holder. I have the 3.25x4.25 holder, forget the number, for the Fuji instant films, but not a 4x5 Polaroid holder.

 

[BrianShaw]

... or a kickstarter for a single-use holder.. the K-cup of LF.