Readyload is awesome!

snaggs · Apr 25, 2007

Wow.. just come back from a shoot, first time using the Kodak Readyload system. It is awesome! So convenient and quick to use. I think I'm hooked!

Hoping that Porta 160VC and Ektachrome 100G are as nice as I'm thinking. First time using those films too, I think I might be turning into a Kodak fan.

Anyone else as wrapped in readyload as I am?

Daniel.

Drew B. · Apr 25, 2007

I went to them last year...and will never load film again, I hope. I use both the fuji and kodak with the polaroid holder. Love it....

HerrBremerhaven · Apr 25, 2007

I have both Kodak Readyload and Fuji Quickload holders. My main films are Kodak E100VS and Fuji Astia 100F, though I have tried several other available films. I really wish Ilford made something in this packet system, maybe HP5+ or Pan F 50. My other wish would be for a similar system for 8x10, but I doubt that will ever happen.

I might consider using Kodak 160VC (or NC), but for me C-41 in 4x5 sizes means shipping out of town. I can get E-6 done in about 3 hours locally. When I want to use other films, sometimes I just use a smaller (56mm by 72mm) rollfilm back. I don't use regular film holders at all.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

roteague · Apr 25, 2007

I've used mostly QuickLoads for years. Recently, I've started using cut sheet film again, but I still use more QuickLoad. The reason I've started using more cut sheet film? It is easier to travel with.

Roger Hicks · Apr 25, 2007

HerrBremerhaven said:
I really wish Ilford made something in this packet system, maybe HP5+ or Pan F 50.[/URL]

Dear Gordon,

I've tried to persuade 'em more than once. I fear there's little hope. Kodak & Fuji can (? could) piggyback it on quite large colour runs. Ilford can't. But I have an idea, and I'll try again...

Cheers,

R.

allsystemsfail · Apr 25, 2007

I work at a commecial lab and a few of our clients use both kodak and fuji ready loads and I would have to say there seems to always be a few out of a batch that are not exposed. I guess the holder can malfunction and not grab the fim correctly. One guy was getting about one out of three shots, (he was using kodak) so he finally got a new holder which worked well for awhile but then started messing up on him so he went back to traditional holders. I think they are wonderful for backpacking but would shot two of each shot just in case. Just an observation.
Rich

Alan9940 · Apr 25, 2007

Hello Daniel,

I was pretty much a "ready load" convert way back when I started shooting quite a bit of P/N 55. At that time, I still shot other manually loaded sheet film, too, but couldn't deny I really enjoyed the minimal print spotting that the packet film offered!

I have both the Kodak and the Fuji holders shooting, mostly, T-Max in the Kodak holder and Provia in the Fuji holder. I've heard either can be used for both films, but I like keeping "like with like." For fact, other than 8x10 I haven't loaded a holder in years.

Photo Engineer · Apr 25, 2007

I gave up on readyloads for a variety of reasons.

1. Cost.

2. Failed exposures

3. Fogged film.

So..... I load my own 4x5 holders again.

PE

roteague · Apr 25, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
I gave up on readyloads for a variety of reasons.

1. Cost.

2. Failed exposures

3. Fogged film.

So..... I load my own 4x5 holders again.

PE

Ron,

Sorry you have had so much problems with these. I've used QuickLoad holders and film for years without problems - except once, when the holder broke (I bought a new one, and everything was fine).

Photo Engineer · Apr 25, 2007

I've tried both Kodak and Polaroid holders. No joy!

I get about 10 - 20% rejects. I have a stack of them that I used to teach myself how they were assembled and how they worked to try to solve the problem.

PE

Keith Tapscott. · Apr 25, 2007

I mostly use Ilford films for B&W, although I use Kodak T-Max 100 in ReadyLoads for convenience for my 5x4 Camera. Considering the popularity of Tri-X (400TX) film, I`m surprised that this isn`t also available in ReadyLoads.
I would certainly buy FP4+ & HP5+ if Ilford made them available to be used with the Kodak ReadyLoad holder.

Byron Worthen · Apr 25, 2007

I have had good luck with my Readyload holder and can point to myself for all the bad ones (not exposed, double exposed, fogged from keeping open too long while waiting for better light, etc). I, too, wish for a faster speed than the T-100 in black and white. Tri-x, T-400, HP5+, anything at all so that I don't need so much light. I like being able to write notes right onto the tab. The fact that other people have done all the right steps and have still had problems makes me wonder if there is a lot of production variability in the holders. I am sure the film envelopes are fine.

I have a Polaroid holder, too, and used to use type 55 in it. It's kind of heavy (it is one of the metal ones) for carrying in a backpack. I am always looking for ways to maximimze the number of photos I can take on a trip while minimizing the amount of weight I have to drag to do it.

Bob F. · Apr 25, 2007

Readyloaded Ilford film would be great. Ilford seem quite pally with Fuji but I doubt it would be practical to have master rolls packaged in Japan and shipped back to the UK, even if Fuji were willing. I'm pretty sure Kodak would not be interested and the cost of producing new machinery would surely never make financial sense these days even if you could get around any patents.

That only leaves Polaroid who are having their own financial problems so perhaps there is an opportunity there...

Unfortunately, just wishful thinking I suspect...

Cheers, Bob.

Bandicoot · Apr 25, 2007

HerrBremerhaven said:
I have both Kodak Readyload and Fuji Quickload holders. My main films are Kodak E100VS and Fuji Astia 100F, though I have tried several other available films. I really wish Ilford made something in this packet system, maybe HP5+ or Pan F 50.

Likewise, but in the mean time there's Fuji Acros.

HerrBremerhaven said:
My other wish would be for a similar system for 8x10, but I doubt that will ever happen.

I'd really like ready/quick load in 5x7, but I suppose that's even less likely to happen. Since the holders have pressure plates, I wonder if film flatness - specifically sag when pointing the camera straight down - would be reduced if such a thing did exist for 10x8. That would be a big selling point for me.

Ciao Gordon,

Peter

HerrBremerhaven · Apr 25, 2007

Hello Pete,

About time you found this place.

The reason for wanting HP5+ is that it turns out so nice processed in DR5. With the desire for Pan F 50, that is mostly because of the amazing grainless results, and because APX100 will likely never show up in Readyloads. If Ilford could get the 20 per box price anywhere under $US 80, then I would be buying some.

With 8x10, I think a holder might need to be slightly different. The film flatness should be okay, but I think the problem area might be re-seating the packet sleeve after each exposure. There might be an issue of bending or wrinkling film. Anyway, probably very unlikely for giant Readyload/Quickload systems to ever become available.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

Kilgallb · Apr 26, 2007

Now for some heresy.

Maybe Ilford could buy the rights to the Kodak ready load system and sell Ilford film in compatible packs.

Photo Engineer · Apr 26, 2007

The patent has probably expired, if there even was one. I have never looked.

Ilford, in either case, would be free to use this technology. The decision would be purely economic. How much would it cost to build the machine or lease time on someone's assembly machine, vs how much revenue would accrue from production.

I doubt if a business case could be made.

PE

PHOTOTONE · Apr 26, 2007

As a slightly off-topic comment...I have been having more and more "issues" with Polaroid film I use for testing in my studio photography. The 4x5 packs will not "catch" and thus when you pull out the paper cover for exposure, the negative comes out also. I can tell when this happens due to a metallic "twang" as the metal lip on the film comes away from its anchor point in the holder. I used to never have this problem, but now it is quite common, and I find that I need to kinda "work" the metal strip on the end of the 4x5 packet, slightly spreading it a bit before inserting, and it works better. I think the metal strips are now made of a softer thinner metal that does not "catch" well in the holders (I have several holders, all exhibit this issue).

roteague · Apr 26, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Ilford, in either case, would be free to use this technology. The decision would be purely economic. How much would it cost to build the machine or lease time on someone's assembly machine, vs how much revenue would accrue from production.

Simon has talked about how difficult it would be to produce, from an economic standpoint. I suspect there isn't as much a market for B&W QuickLoads as there is for color QuickLoads (and ReadyLoads as well).

Alan9940 · Apr 26, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
I gave up on readyloads for a variety of reasons.

1. Cost.

2. Failed exposures

3. Fogged film.

So..... I load my own 4x5 holders again.

PE

Cost is certainly a consideration with any ready load packets. However, what's your time worth cleaning and loading standard film holders and spotting prints?

In all my exposures on Ready- or QuickLoads, I've never had a failed exposure. I have had a couple of sheets of fogged film due to incorrect re-seating of the external envelope, but I'm talking < 1% of all film shot.

I have heard from other photographers that using the "wrong" film in the "wrong" holder can cause issues; for example, loading Kodak Readyloads into the Fuji holder or vise-versa. But, since I own both and use Kodak with Kodak and Fuji with Fuji I can't confirm this theory.

Practice with a few packets and your issues will probably go away. Earlier on I had to take apart a packet of each film type I use to see how it was put together so I could disassemble it properly in the dark. In my early days of using P/N 55, for example, I tore the neg more than once. These are the growing pains we all must endure.

Photo Engineer · Apr 26, 2007

Alan;

I can't say I disagree with anything you said. I usually have failures in the film clip not catching on the end or fog at the end with the lip. I have problems when I use a Polaroid holder, but less with a Kodak holder.

But, cost is a big issue with me as I'm retired, so I do have time to do these 'cleanup' chores.

PE

jeroldharter · Apr 26, 2007

I use a combination of TMAX 100 Readiloads and regular sheet film.

I like Readiloads for hiking and travelling because of the weight/space savings. However, the holder can be finicky, especially in cold weather. I have had minor problems with static discharge when removing the film from the backing. Am I the only one who thinks they are too expensive?

I remember Simon responding to the Ilford readiload issue at a conference stating that the presumed demand would not justify the expense and I think he said that the technology is proprietary also.

Bandicoot · Apr 26, 2007

HerrBremerhaven said:
Hello Pete,

About time you found this place.

Well, my ISP seems to havve dropped RPE35, for whatever reason, and hardly any one posts to RPEMF and RPELF anymore... :-(

HerrBremerhaven said:
With 8x10, I think a holder might need to be slightly different. The film flatness should be okay, but I think the problem area might be re-seating the packet sleeve after each exposure. There might be an issue of bending or wrinkling film. Anyway, probably very unlikely for giant Readyload/Quickload systems to ever become available.

I agree, there is the 10x8 Polaroid holder and that seems to work very well, but in a way that avoids the need to reseat the envelope. Maybe the best way for anyone to make 10x8 ready/quick loads, if it ever did happen, would be to make them for the existing holder though.

We can live in hope!

Peter

Alan9940 · Apr 27, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Alan;

I can't say I disagree with anything you said. I usually have failures in the film clip not catching on the end or fog at the end with the lip. I have problems when I use a Polaroid holder, but less with a Kodak holder.

But, cost is a big issue with me as I'm retired, so I do have time to do these 'cleanup' chores.

PE

Hello PE,

Ayup, failure at the clip is where I've had my few problems. Now that I think about it I've had more issues with P/N 55 packets than either the Kodak or Fuji packets combined. The outside sleeve, at least for me, just doesn't seem to seat properly back into the clip. I've never totally ruined a neg, but fog has certainly been an issue.

Being on a somewhat fixed income certainly is a consideration cost-wise. I still use standard film holders, too, because very few emulsions are available in Ready- / QuickLoads. And, sometimes I just like to "play" which is something I wouldn't even consider with packet film!

Have a great day...

genecrumpler · Apr 28, 2007

Ready Loads

I talked with a fellow at a LF workshop last year and he told me he lost a weeks worth of images using ready loads. I've been reluctant to try them since cut film is easy and cheaper! And more variety! Just be sure to stay at motels that don't have windows in the bath room:>)

For me ease and portability = "Hasselblad"! I don't ever plan to stuff a 4x5 in an airline overhead bin on an overseas flight. Getting too old.

Man,I miss Tech Pan

Readyload is awesome!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency