Kodak Readyloads

I made the mistake of buying a box of Kodak Readyloads. I was placing

an on-line order and thought I selected a regular 25-sheet box of Tmax

100. I have a polaroid filmholder but I'm afraid that the

readyload/polaroid combination might not offer enough precision for

close-up studio work. Is it feasible to remove the sheet film and

place it in a traditional plastic holder? Are there other possible

options short of buying a readyload/quickload holder? Thanks.

<p>

............................................

Did you get the double sheet or single sheet film (the single sheet

being the latest version)? In a conversation with Kodak yesterday,

they said they were about to begin shipping the single sheet Tmax

(the irony is that the B&W is shipping first since they weren't even

certain they were going to make B&W in the single sheet readyload

when the new products were announced). From what I have heard the

Polaroid filmhold will work well-whether or not for exact precision

work obviously will be up to your requirements and your eye. As to

putting it in a traditional film holder, the Kodak web site shows how

to remove the clips and paper for development so it might be possible

to do so for reloading. Since single sheet readyloads are a rare

commodity until the supply lines fill, you may want to try to sell it

to another user and buy what you were originally seeking.

<p>

Good luck

<p>

John Bailey

In a group test of filmholders, done by a UK magazine some time ago,

the Polaroid 545i/readyload combination gave better registration than

quickloads or readyloads in their own holders. This was still behind

the accuracy of a normal DDS. The Sinar precision holder came out

tops, by a small margin.

The film can easily be taken out of the readyloads and have regular

notches. I do think, as stated, you will be fine with the Polaroid

holder.

Cheers

Pete,

<p>

Could you provide the name and publication date for that UK magazine

article. The results run contradictory (at least WRT to the Poloroid

holder) to a similar article by Joe Englander published in Camera &

Darkroom several years ago. I'm not doubting your statement, but I'd

like to read the original article and view the results of their tests.

<p>

It is my understanding that the new Kodak single sheet Readyload

holder, when available (in a month or so) will offer superior film

plane registration with their new single sheet Readyload packets.

That is supposedly one of the reasons behind the total re-design of

the Kodak holder (since the new packets seem to work reliably in the

Rev. IIII double sheet Readyload holder).

<p>

Kerry

Kerry, do you mean that whoever provided you with your understanding

indicated the new holder will take packet thickness into account at

its packet insertion end? This would be unlike Fuji's Quickload and

the three previous Readyload holders (per Englander and my

measurements), and would make me a very happy camper, since I've been

bugging Kodak - - from its CEO on down - - to make that improvement

for over five years!

Sal,

<p>

Although I've been discussing the new Readyload holder with some folks

at Kodak, I have not received, from them, a definite answer to this

question. I have, however, heard from other photographers dealing

with Kodak that the new single sheet Readyload holder will indeed take

into account the packet thickness at the insertion end of the holder.

Keep in mind you're basically getting this third hand (at best), and

I have not been able to confirm this. I certainly hope this "rumor"

turns out to be true (like last summer's "rumor" that Kodak was going

to announce a new single sheet Readyload system).

<p>

Given that the pressure plates in the Kodak and Fuji holders are

spring loaded, it would be nice if the film plane location was

accurate (with the film actually in the position for exposure). With

a spring loaded pressure plate, it should be possible to achieve both

better film flatness and film plane location than in conventional

holders. I don't have Englander's article in front of me, but I

believe he concluded that this was more of a problem in the older

style double sheet style Kodak holder (due to the added thickness of

the second sheet of film) than with the Fuji Quickload holder. That's

from memory, so if someone has the article handy and wants to look it

up, please do.

<p>

Kerry

Kerry,

<p>

Should you ever want to refer to Englander's article, it's available

at Tuan's "A large format photography home page." A google search of

the site for Englander will get you there in a flash.

<p>

I've just looked over Joe's table. It indicates that degree of

departure from ideal emulsion location differed depending on whether

one used double-sheet T-Max in a Kodak or Fuji holder, but was in

either case worse than Velvia in a Fuji holder (which wasn't too great

in and of itself). In the event that a single-sheet Readyload holder

with appropriate design for packet thickness becomes available, it

will presumably be able to provide optimum film flatness and

positioning with Fuji Quickloads as well. If that turns out to be

true, anyone want to guess how long it will be before Fuji improves

its Quickload holder the same way?

<p>

Sal

Hi Kerry. It was an article in 'Photo and digital Pro' (now defunct I

think), from around 1995. I don't have the issue to hand, but if you

give me a few days, I'm sure I can find it. (No. I don't live

surrounded by piles of rotting magazines, they're all in very good

condition, well... mostly, and anyway, they have great sentimental

value, and they'll be collectors items one day, you'll see.)<br>Come

to think of it, I don't know why I bothered to keep that issue at

all. It's yours for the price of the postage!

Yeah, but when oh when can we actually buy this new holder? And who

from? Will Calumet or B&H have it first? Is there another and better

source?