4x5 Quick Loads - opinions please

[simonpg]

Using a Linhof ST V, I find I use 120 roll film in a variety of

holder sizes more than I do 4x5 sheet film.

 

But I was considering using 4x5 Quick loads for convenience, but had

some questions.

 

I wonder if users who shoot 4x5 regulary find Quick loads as

convenient and a satisfactory substitute for conventional 4x5 sheet

film in regular holders.

 

Is there a good variety of tranny film and print film available in

Quick loads (Kodak or Fuji variants)? Are they reliable? Do they

really make shooting 4x5 a lot more convenient? What are the

disadvantages?

 

Thanks for helping me out.

[steve_hamley]

Simon,

 

Disadvantage: cost, some limitation of film types, for example no tri-X, Ilford.

 

Advantages: No dust, lighter (by a lot) if you're carrying them, good variety of Kodak and Fuji films are available, no filmholder cleaning and loading.

 

Get the latest Kodak holder with the black pressure plate and it will use both Kodak and Fuji packets. The Fuji will use only Fuji packets. The Polaroid 545i will use Kodak, Fuji, and Polaroid film although it is heavier and some question film flatness.

 

Yes, packet film is very much as good and reliable as conventional film holders provided you can get the emulsion you want and don't mind the cost.

 

Steve

[dean_tomasula1]

Go with the Quickloads/Readyloads. Dust is a thing of the past. Loading and unloading in total darkness or a changing bag is a thing of the past. Cleaning film holders are a thing of the past. Worrying how to store exposed film in the field is a thing of the past.

 

You get the idea.

[guytal]

Yes, they are very convenient, dust free etc. but I would disagree with Steve about them being lighter. It depends on how many sheets you plan to pack. On a long backpacking trip where you may want to take 100 or more sheets, loose sheets and a small number of holders is a much better way to go.<br>

Also - if you're in the middle of nowhere and your only QL holder gets busted - you're stuck.<br>

So - for most purposes I'd say use QL if you can afford it, but if you plan to be in the wild for extended periods of time, the standard holders are a better choice in my opinion.

<br><br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://www.scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild Photography</a>

[scott___1]

i'm with guy on this one... i started in lf using QL's but have since changed exclusively to traditional cut film holders. i found periodic flatness issues with the QL's (fuji in a fuji holder) and also got quite a few leaks across the bottom of my shots when i failed to seat the packet back into the tab (admittedly, operator error). i've never had any problems whatsoever with cut film. give your holders a good vacuuming after each trip and dust will be a non-issue. as an added bonus, the film is about 1/3rd the cost!

 

scott

[jbq]

On the Fuji side of things, every 4x5 emulsion is available in QL.

 

They're definitely extremely convenient, especially if you like to carry multiple types of film. Take 5 sheets each of acros velvia provia NPS in regular holders and you'll weigh the difference.

[eric_leppanen]

http://www.butzi.net/reviews/filmholders.htm

 

http://www.butzi.net/reviews/readyquick.htm

 

BTW, I use the Kodak single-sheet Readyload holder, which is compatible with both Fuji Quickloads and Kodak single-sheet Readyloads, and is also smaller and lighter than the Polaroid 545i holder. As long as I don't get overly hasty in operating the holder, I have found it to be reliable with both Kodak and Fuji film packets. For me, Quickloads/Readyloads are a joy to use versus constantly unloading/reloading a bevy of reusable film holders.

 

Also, you can write field notes and processing instructions directly on each Readyload/Quickload film packet. This is a major convenience if you frequently push or pull or otherwise selectively develop individual film sheets.

[brian_ellis16]

I sometimes use Readyloads but they're less than perfect. On one trip I lost about fifty photographs because unbeknownst to me the film wasn't staying down in the holder when the envelope was pulled up (this was before Kodak redesigned the Readyload system, it might or might not happen today). On another very recent trip the Readyload holder broke. I would have been out of luck except that someone on the trip with me knew how to fix it (I now carry two Readyload holders). Another person on the same trip had so many problems with his brand new Readyload holder that he had to quit using it.

 

The weight/carrying capacity advantage has been reduced considerably now that Kodak is putting only one sheet of film in each envelope and the cost is high. Since I print digitally dust isn't a problem with normal holders, I seldom bother cleaning my holders any more. For all of these reasons I only use Readyloads on long trips (a week or more) where it just isn't feasible to carry fifty or more loaded holders or to carry fewer holders and have to unload and load film every night or two.

[tedharris]

I shoot quickloads and Readyloads almost exclusively in 4x5 and have had only minimal

preoblems of the type described by others. I was out shooting on the river early this

morning and the session was a perfect example of the advantages of quick/readyloads.

To get to the position from which I wanted to photograph I had to shinny down a couple of

very big rocks. Stuffed a holder and ten Quickloads in one pocket, two lenses in another

draped a loupe and lightmeter around my neck and, with the camera mounted on the

tripod and the darkcloth over the back went on down. I could have done it with five film

holders but it would have been lots bulkier .... I remember once scaling down a 6 foot rock

face to get to the bottom of a waterfall,, sme situation although that time there were mroe

like twent sheets of film in my pack ... not sure that I could have gotten 10 film holders in.

 

Guy does have a point though, on a longish trip in the backwoods you reach a point of

diminishing returns. If you are carrying say 100 sheets of film then a box of film and half

a dozen standard holders are less weight. If you can replenish the film supply every day or

a few times a day then the packet film is better. There is absolutely no doubt that you

have eliminated dust with them.

[pvp]

I use Readyloads once in a while, with a Polaroid 545i holder. My first experience was with the old 2-shot Readyloads. They worked fine except for a few things like the metal clip coming off in the holder and such, which I couldn't definitely pin on the film (vs the holder.) For sure, Quick/Ready Loads do away with 99 44/100% of the dust problem.

 

The cost issue, though, is a big one for me, and I've been buying short-dated sheet film in case lots. I'm still willing to put up with a bit more weight and use a changing bag if it can save me $1.50 per shot...

[always_wanderlust]

I used to own a Fuji Quickload, now I replaced it with a two grafmatic holders and a Photoflex changing tent. It's cheaper, just as light to carry and I don't have the constant worry in the back of my mind about the film not being flat (maybe it's subjective but several people swear quickloads doesn't hold the film as flat as conventional holders and that conventional holders come second to grafmatics in film flatness).

[mark_tomalty]

Are there problems that could be expected with film movement when there is a breeze

or wind present (i.e. along some coastal areas where there is an everpresent wind or when

shooting in inclement or rapidly changing conditions like the leadup to a thunderstorm).

 

Thanks,

Mark

[simonpg]

Thanks everyone. Yes I "get the idea"!

 

Steve, I have the Polaroid 545i back, so I gather all I need now is to put Kodak or Fuji quick load film in it and give it a go.

[daver1]

Mark--

<p/>

Yes, when you have the QL in the "open" position, it effectively becomes a small sail that can flap happily in the breeze. It can (and will, in a moderate breeze) introduce subtle vibrations into your camera that will affect sharpness.

<p/>

The nice thing about film holders that QL can't touch is that I can pull the dark slide completely out, and take the "sail effect" out of the equation altogether.<p/>

 

-D<p/>

 

<a href="http://coyoteimages.com">Coyote Images</a>