Replacement for Quickloads?

lxdude · Dec 6, 2014

I remember hearing something a few years back about a woman who had come up with a replacement for Quickloads/Readyloads, but that she needed something like $10,000 to get it going. If I'm correct about that, has anyone tried a Kickstarter type of campaign for it?

Ian Grant · Dec 6, 2014

The woman in question seems to have given up.

Why not get a Grafmatic back.

Ian

gone · Dec 6, 2014

Ian has the right idea. I loved my Grafmatic when I shot 4x5. Sometimes (usually), older technology is better. You can load up the Grafmatic with different films too, as long as you keep things in order. Had some interesting results when I would get that mixed up.

lxdude · Dec 6, 2014

Just curious- what with all sorts of stuff being funded that way, and 10 grand not being a huge amount.

TXFZ1 · Dec 6, 2014

I remember the threads on the quickloads. I think 10,000 would be very low. The new55 project may be interested so it appears most of the same components are used with the exception of chemicals.

Grafmatics are still heavy and do not help eliminate the issue with dust. They are not the same as quickloads.

David

rbultman · Dec 6, 2014

Having never seen a quick load or ready load product as I am only just now getting into sheet film, I saw this demonstration on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BU1gTSdZ90. It prompted a few questions...

Of what material were the envelopes made?
Were the envelopes used only one time and then discarded or could they be reloaded by the consumer?
What difficulties did one encounter when using them? It looks like the envelop could be easily bent, damaged, or jammed when reinserting the envelope.
I supposed these made it easy to send in for development. Did people tend to develop the film themselves or send them off? I suppose it was a mix.
If you do self develop, how do you get the film out, with scissors?
Were the Kodak and Fuji products interchangeable or did they require their own backs?
What else was in the envelope other than film? I did a quick search to see what was inside (other than film) and did not find anything.

I have also looked at, and purchased, a Grafmatic back. These are pretty ingenious devices. As with both ready/quick loads and Grafmatics, I assume they could be reproduced again although tooling might be expensive. I don't see an advantage to a reusable (by the consumer) quick load system beyond weight reduction over the Grafmatic. Still, some kind of reusable, quick-load-like cartridge would be neat. I would think a successful KS project would involve producing a reusable envelope that would be sold without film, thereby focusing on the envelope and holder and sidestepping the film issue. The advantages of this over a Grafmatic would be weight and that it would be less than 50 years old.

Regards,
Rob

Trail Images · Dec 6, 2014

This might be the idea that was started by Joanna Carter when she was at UKLF. I rarely visited that site after things changed over time, but do recall her starting a thread on it back then.

http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1158&p=7490#p7490

Now that we've lost the QL's of the 3 Velvia's, Astia, Provia, Acros, etc......I forgot how spoiled I was in alternating shots. Still do it, but not as easy to say the least. Especially with isolating unloads and reloads of cut sheet holders. Oh well, still just glad we can buy film for 4x5 period.

Roger Cole · Dec 6, 2014

TXFZ1 said:
I remember the threads on the quickloads. I think 10,000 would be very low. The new55 project may be interested so it appears most of the same components are used with the exception of chemicals.

Grafmatics are still heavy and do not help eliminate the issue with dust. They are not the same as quickloads.

David

This. One word - dust. I would gladly pay more pet sheet to know none would be ruined by dust not to mention saving the loading time and trouble, including all the anti static brushing.

I have a Graphmatic but it addresses different needs than QL.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Trail Images · Dec 6, 2014

Of what material were the envelopes made? It was a card stock of sorts.
Were the envelopes used only one time and then discarded or could they be reloaded by the consumer? They were sent in for processing intact and discarded by processing group.
What difficulties did one encounter when using them? It looks like the envelop could be easily bent, damaged, or jammed when reinserting the envelope. They worked very well with only slight bit of care on insertion, usage, and removal.
I supposed these made it easy to send in for development. Did people tend to develop the film themselves or send them off? I suppose it was a mix. A mix and it kept dust to a minimum.
If you do self develop, how do you get the film out, with scissors? They were retained in the envelope with a metal end clip, very easy to remove.
Were the Kodak and Fuji products interchangeable or did they require their own backs? Kodak & Fuji had their own setups and were proprietary.
What else was in the envelope other than film? I did a quick search to see what was inside (other than film) and did not find anything. Just the film by type, brand, and ISO.

M Carter · Dec 11, 2014

I used quickloads for location 4x5 commercial work - which I didn't do a lot of as a product shooter, but sometimes there would be things like computer server racks where I needed perspective control. It was much easier to manage on location, and you could just write notes right on the sleeves vs. needing little bits of tape and a pile of empty 4x5 boxes.

When I had leftovers, I could interhchange 'em with sheet holders in the studio. It was a good system (some people worries about flatness of the film plane, but for most location commercial work you were shooting at F45 or whatever, I had zero focus problems). I did a lot of food and jewelry shooting with very limited DOF and used holders and sheets when I felt it was critical.

It was a solid system, but the holders weren't major investments - I still have one somewhere. I don't consider it a major loss (like pos-neg peel apart or the mighty and awesome Polagraph 35) and I'd be surprised to see someone invest heavily in bringing it back. Especially with film holders all over the used market...

lxdude · Dec 11, 2014

Roger Cole said:
This. One word - dust. I would gladly pay more per sheet to know none would be ruined by dust not to mention saving the loading time and trouble, including all the anti static brushing.

That is it for me, too. Out where I go in the desert it is often both windy and very dry. Anything to limit dust is welcome. I have enough trouble with medium format- LF just seems like it would be much worse.

Roger Cole · Dec 11, 2014

If you don't shoot LF but think dust would be worse, believe me: no matter how bad you think it would be, it's worse.

Not much if a problem for those who work in hybrid mode as it's easily fixed with those methods but for optical printers black spots on prints are hard to deal with.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Trail Images · Dec 11, 2014

Not much if a problem for those who work in hybrid mode as it's easily fixed with those methods

You're correct Roger, if it were not for cleaning process in PS I'd never have a clean print. I've only done hybrid for many years now and it just seems to be a part of photography for me. Albeit still a pain no matter how clean the original slide or negative is.

Roger Cole · Dec 12, 2014

My iPhone auto-incorrect seems to think I meant "if" any time I mean to type "of." Now too late to edit. Argh.

Jonathan Van Matre · Dec 12, 2014

While it's true that Kodak and Fuji had proprietary systems, both could be used somewhat successfully in the Polaroid 545i back.

I shot a fair amount of Fuji Quickload through the 545i, and the main difficulty was keeping the film plane flat and true. After some experimentation I managed to establish a process for inserting the envelope that provided me with the sharpest results, but I burned through a couple of boxes of film getting unsharp results 50% of the time before I got there.

Most serious users of Quickload invested in the Fuji back, but since I was primarily a Polaroid Type 55 shooter I didn't.

Still have 2 boxes of Quickload Astia in the bottom of the freezer. I really should get out and shoot them.

Zelph · Dec 12, 2014

Look for MIDO cut film holders. A system some love and others hate.
Very lightweight and reloadable flexible 'septums' and a back piece that went in the film back like a normal film holder. Then you would insert the septum in the back, pull it up to expose the film in camera, do your shot, push the septum back down and remove it with the exposed film inside.

Those who got it working well seemed to really like it. Others tried and just could not get the hang of it.

You might check and fine some and try it as it will keep weight down and is reusable.

DREW WILEY · Dec 12, 2014

Both the Fuji and Kodak dedicated holders badly bent the holders toward the insertion side, so compromised focus a bit. I significantly modifed a 545 holders to dramtically reduce its weight and film flatness and ended up with something highly functional. Unfortunately I've only got one both each left of color neg, chrome, and ACROS b&w sleeves, which I'll probably use up next summer. I loved the system for long-haul backpacking. So now I'm experimenting with 6x9 Horseman roll films backs, and of course could always resort to my Harrison changing tents as well as Mido thin holders. There are pros and cons all around. It's a shame Fuji didn't buy out the rights to the film pak equipment, but I suspect the tooling was getting a bit in need of updated maintenance anyway and they just didn't think it would be worth the cost. It would be rather difficult to offer anything like this again without some analogous industrial muscle.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 13, 2014

lxdude said:
I remember hearing something a few years back about a woman who had come up with a replacement for Quickloads/Readyloads, but that she needed something like $10,000 to get it going. If I'm correct about that, has anyone tried a Kickstarter type of campaign for it?

I remember when quickloads came out. I always saw them as a compromise. I've never had dust issues with regular holders, the quickloads compromise flatness, they were too expensive for dubious benefits; I'll stick to my Riteways.

Roger Cole · Dec 14, 2014

I find it hard to believe that anyone, ever, "never had dust issues with regular holders." That's...almost unbelievable, it's such a pervasive problem for me. I run a HEPA aircleaner in the darkroom. I brush my holders AND darkslides with an anti static brush (and picked up one of those Zone VI electronic ones on eBay so I'm going to try that. I blow out the lighttraps with compressed air, AND I've tried blowing the surface of the loaded sheets with compressed air. I even hold the holder upside down as I close the darkslide so hopefully any dust not statically bound will not settle on the film. I keep my holders (now) in individual anti-static bags in the field. And I STILL have dust. Not every shot, but enough that any time I see something really good on the ground glass, if I have time and the film available, I'll shoot at least two identical sheets in hopes at least one won't be ruined by dust.

Dust is everywhere. Dust is EVIL.

lxdude · Dec 14, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Dust is everywhere. Dust is EVIL.

Dust never sleeps.

Trail Images · Dec 14, 2014

Dust is everywhere. Dust is EVIL.

I cannot imagine trying to keep things dust free with darkroom work. All my work is hybrid and it is still a pain to deal with. I also use antistatic brush cleaning holders and such. Thank goodness for Dust & Scratch command, Healing Brush, Clone Tool, and Content Aware in PS. I use all of them.

Roger Cole · Dec 14, 2014

Often enough the light is changing quickly enough that even with shorter exposures two shots are impossible.

I agree with Michael - dust in printing is a constant battle but one that is usually won without too much herculean effort and, even if it's lost, another try is only minutes away. But dust on sheet film negatives is a madness making battle, one that has often tempted me, in spite of how much I enjoy using a view camera, to simply get an RZ67 and a few lenses and forget the 4x5.

DREW WILEY · Dec 17, 2014

Roger - in my opinion dust is a far bigger problem with MF SLR's than view cameras. For one thing, smaller film obviously needs a greater
degree of enlargement, so any minor dust or film flaws which might be present are much more conspicuous. Then given the fact that Zone
expansions cannot be fine-tuned per individual shot like sheet film, there arise a lot more instances when you need to resort to harder paper grades, which in turn exaggerate any issues on film or neg carriers etc. Now the mechanical issue: Big SLR's have a lot of moving stuff - a big mirror, a curtain shutter very close to the film. So if any little bits of film get inside the camera, like when changing lenses, they tend to get moved around quite easily and hence onto the film itself. Believe me, I'd rather shoot and print sheet film any day of the week. But tonite I'll probably start spotting some spectacular prints I did take with a P67 SLR recently. In one instance it was a roadside shot where the dramatic light was shifting so fast I simply didn't have time to set up and focus the view camera. In other recent instances,
the shots were taken on what was really my wife's vacation, when a slow and methodical view camera would be annoying to her. In this
case, I got off several shots I really wanted with the 6x7 while she was taking some snapshots herself. I don't have the same dust issues
when shooting 35mm film simply because I only make very small prints from 35mm. With 120 roll film there's an inevitable temptation to
make 16x20's which simulate large format prints, even though they really aren't.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 17, 2014

Roger Cole said:
I find it hard to believe that anyone, ever, "never had dust issues with regular holders." That's...almost unbelievable, it's such a pervasive problem for me. I run a HEPA aircleaner in the darkroom. I brush my holders AND darkslides with an anti static brush (and picked up one of those Zone VI electronic ones on eBay so I'm going to try that. I blow out the lighttraps with compressed air, AND I've tried blowing the surface of the loaded sheets with compressed air. I even hold the holder upside down as I close the darkslide so hopefully any dust not statically bound will not settle on the film. I keep my holders (now) in individual anti-static bags in the field. And I STILL have dust. Not every shot, but enough that any time I see something really good on the ground glass, if I have time and the film available, I'll shoot at least two identical sheets in hopes at least one won't be ruined by dust.

Dust is everywhere. Dust is EVIL.

It's true. I vacuum them regularly and keep them in ziplocs except for when they're in the camera or being loaded/unloaded. Compressed air and brushes just move the dust around, use the vacuum. Keep your camera interior spotlessly clean too, vacuum there too and be careful of the bellows. Pulling a darkslide can generate static electric charges and all the dust in the camera will stick to your film.
When loading, I slide the darkslide back about two inches and insert the sheet while holding that side down and the holder over my head.
For 8x10 I put together a set of the old Kodak / Folmer & Schwing wooden holders with disassembleable lightraps - it's amazing how much crud can accumulate in a trap that big.

DREW WILEY · Dec 17, 2014

I almost never get a dust spot on sheet film, and I've been doing outdoor and wilderness photography with both 4x5 and 8x10 for decades.
It's a process of elimination - where is the dust coming from and how do you control it. One step at a time until each culprit in the workflow
is identified. Of course, I always prefer to load holders in advance in my own cleanroom in the lab, but even in the field, I do know how to
use a changing tent with virtually no dust issues. Then after every outing, I clean the camera itself too, making sure to blow the bellows clean too. But my vision of hell is having a view camera set up alongside some dusty trail and all of a sudden a horse string needing to pass (grab a big plastic bag fast and pull it over everything), or trying to shoot near a dirt road and some wild jeep buzzing past. I try to
avoid those scenarios to begin with.

Replacement for Quickloads?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency