readyloads vs filmholders

[raymond_bleesz]

curious to know if there might be a concensus regarding usage of readyload type film holders in the field/assignment? in many cases, one might use the polaroid type film back and process the film at a later date. however, i'm curious about the kodak/fuji readyload backs--the pros and cons of these backs and the types of films which may be limited to either. if one were not to use either polaroid or traditional 4x5filmholders, what is the concensus re: kodak & fuji?

[dan_smith]

Raymond, there is no concensus on these things. Some like them, some

don't. They don't offer the range of films needed and used by many

photographers. If they work for you, fine. I personally find it more

satisfying to waste my money on popsicles than on these things that

are so damn frustrating & seldom work for me.

[alan_gibson]

If you didn't realise, there are a number of opinions under 'older

messages', 'film and holders'. I didn't notice a concensus though.

[n_dhananjay3]

hi

use regular sheet film holders (lisco/fidelity stuff) and fuji

quickloads (some divided opinion on other pages at this site as to

kodak readyloads suffering from ight leaks - i haven't used them, so

can't comment). haven't noticed any dramatic difference between them

though. i load my holders reasonably carefully and have so far

managed to avoid dust problems (lucky, i guess) which appears to be

one of the main advantages of the quickloads. there is a reference on

this site to an article by englander on less sharp images with

quickloads/readyloads - something to do with the degree of tolerence

in the depth of the film holder in manufacture but i haven't noticed

this difference myself. at my level of proficiency, i find more

variability in field conditions affecting the image - in other words,

i think my technique still screws up more pictures/produces more

variability than my equipment. quickloads are more expensive compared

to regular sheet film (roughly $2.5 versus 1.8 or so). my bias is

towards using sheet film holders and having quickloads as a backup

for something that really excites me. there also obviously is a much

more limited variety of emulsions you can use with quickloads/

readyloads which might be an issue depending on your favoured

emulsions. the other pages at this site should have more detailed

info to help you out. hope this helps.

thanks, dj

[ellis_vener_photography]

I have used the Fuji Quickload system almost exclusively for the past

two & a half years, maybe longer. By system I mean the holder &

packets. Prior to that I was using the Quickload film packets in a

Polaroid 545i holder. I switched because testing revealed sharper

images with the Fuji holder, especially at the edges. I probably shoot

something approaching 2 cases per year. I shoot very little black &

white in 4x5 and virtually no color negative in 4x5, so my experiences

are limited to transparency films.</P>Here the advantages to the system

as I see them:</P>1.) weight and bulk, especially in the field or on

location for commercial shoots.</P>2.) Ease of use. As they are

prepackaged I do not have to also take a film changing tent/bag with

me, and I can carry much more film </P>3.) Time savings; no cleaning/

loading/unloading ritual.</P> 4.) Reliability: with the Fuji

QuickLoads, I have had zero failures due to lightleaks and no dust

problems. I have not had any out of focus problems either, even when

shooting wide open and the camera twisted in an anti-Schiempflug

configuration so as to keep the depth of field very shallow with a very

narrow point of focus.</P>The only limitation withthe Fuji system is ,

alas, the lack of a color negative (supposedly Fuji will release NPS in

the Quickload packaging this summer), and unless you are in Europe no

B&W negative.</P>

I have not had good experiences with the Kodak Readyload system, so for

me it is not reliable, but others have had very good experiences.

[doug_broussard2]

While I haven't had considerable experience with ReadyLoads yet, I've

done some testing, and I find that many of the complaints out there

regarding the system may be traced back to unclear documentation on

Kodak's part.

 

<p>

 

I recently began shooting readyload again after watching a

demonstration by Richard Newman from Calumet at a workshop. He

emphasized a couple of key points, illustrated on Calumet's website at:

<a href="http://www.calumetphoto.com/calumet/ShowParent.taf?function=

detail&tblCopyParent_uid1=KODAKREADYLOADHOWTO&_UserReference=

9CFB62B0332377353742DE0E"> this URL</a>.

 

<p>

 

As far as a field-tested experience, I've had much better results

shooting black and white with Readyloads. I cannot emphasize how much

time and aggrivation I have saved because...hey, no dust. (I usually

throw away negs if they would require heavy spotting in the print.)

 

<p>

 

So, while there may be no consensus here, the two pros I met on my last

workshop (Richard Newman and Seiling) have had good experiences, and

that, plus testing on my part has led me to believe that Readyload will

do the job if you load and unload the holder correctly (see the URL

above).

 

<p>

 

-Doug

[robert_anderson]

As an addition to the above posts, I would like to offer my recent

experiences with film holder-less 4x5 photography.

 

<p>

 

I am a week away from completing a 10 week, 42 location architectural

book project, entirely shot on Fuji Quickload and Kodak Readyload

systems. I have observed the following things over the +800 Fuji

sheets [RVP, RAP, RTP] and +360 Kodak sheets [T-Max 100] used on this

project:

 

<p>

 

- If a film envelope gets jammed, or the film itself becomes lodged

in the holder, or most likely, the metal clip on the end becomes

lodged inside the holder, your basically screwed with either system.

They both require disassembly of the holder to clear the jam. The

Fuji holder, while not overly complex, is worse than the Kodak as far

as "field stripping" it goes. The Fuji seems to have a propensity to

leave things inside the holder when it decides to puke, causing

complete system shut-down, while the Kodak packets just seem to self

destruct when things go wrong, ruining the first exposed sheet [Kodak

uses 2 sheets per packet]. So pick your poison on which is better.

Lesson learned by me was, always pull slow and straight, and ALWAYS

carry a Leatherman tool

- I prefer the way the Fuji system works, especially the single sheet

of film to an envelope. The Kodak system will fog the end of the film

sheets if you are shooting under direct sun light [i.e. the camera

has direct sunlight falling upon it]. This happened more than once,

so now an extra hassle of flagging the entire camera is called for.

+ This job was very tightly scheduled, and held no room for

downloading/re-loading multiple film backs [i estimate I would have

needed in excess of 100 backs to accomplish what I am doing with this

holder-less system, and an additional minimum of 2 hours per day for

film administration]

+ It is such a pleasure to be able to write processing directions,

shot notes, shot ID.'s etc. on each individual piece of film

[packet], and believe me, no matter how good your written notes and

system for cataloging film is, when your shooting every day sun-up to

sunset, for 10weeks, things slip through the cracks, but this system

has eliminated most of the cracks!

+ The ability to make quick changes in plans. Several times we added

shots that were not planned, being able to shoot in a different light

situation than we planned [ tungsten vs. daylight] was definitely

facilitated by this system. Unlike in the past when I would have been

loaded for, say daylight alone, it is now made very easy with holder-

less film, to make the adjustment [and adding shots = more $$$] by

just having an extra box of film along with you for such occasions.

Yes, I could have had extra film holders as well, but it always boils

down to how many are you going to tie up for contingencies, how many

do you want to carry along as extra baggage, and how many do you

really want to own?

+ Very fast shot to shot times. Shooting under changing conditions

this becomes a factor. With the sun ducking in and out from behind

clouds, it's VERY nice to be able to fire off 6 sheets in 90 seconds.

Try that with conventional film holders!

 

<p>

 

All-in-all I am very pleased with both systems [Fuji / Kodak], but

did have to rely on my 545i back as a back-up when one of the others

went down [Fuji]. I have not had time to try cross compatibility

tests between the two holders, but knew from personal experience that

the Polaroid back will work with Fuji Q/L's [Kodak / Polaroid

compatibility also an unknown at this time]

 

<p>

 

Hope this info helps, I'm looking forward to a months-long sleep!!

[gary_helfrich]

Robert said: "With the sun ducking in and out from behind clouds,

it's VERY nice to be able to fire off 6 sheets in 90 seconds. Try that

with conventional film holders!"

 

<p>

 

If I am dealing with changing light, it seems that a Grafmatic is a

better tool for the job. I've tried to fire off Readyloads at a fast

clip, and all it takes is one kink in the cardboard film holder to

ruin the shoot. The Grafmatic and a lens with a press-type shutter

will smoke any other combination when it comes speed. It is not hard

to shoot at a frame every two seconds with a Grafmatic and a Copal

press shutter.

 

<p>

 

I use Readyloads from time to time, and have had good luck with them.

They are hard to beat for dust and hassle free shooting. I also use

sheet film holders (Toyo) and like them. I've found sheet film

holders to be less fussy to use than Readyloads, but there is the

hassle of loading them, cleaning them, unloading them, and the extra

bulk they have in your pack.

 

<p>

 

The Kodak system has a much wider range of emulsions available in the

US. This made up my mind so far as Readyload vs Quickload. I would

base my choice on the films that you like to shoot, and get the system

that suits you best.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Actually Gary, I can think of 4 E6 emulsions that Fuji is currently

releasing in Quickload (Velvia, Provia, Astia & 64T). Kodak has two:

(E100s & 100T.) I agree that in the US Kodak also has a color negative

and a B&W negative material.

[larry_huppert1]

I've read implications from several notes in this forum that the

Kodak Readyload holder can effectively handle both the Kodak

Readyloads, and Fuji Quickloads. Is this indeed true, and if so, is

there any downside to using this approach.

 

<p>

 

To date, I've been a traditional film holder & Grafmatic user. I

have ocassionaly used Fuji Quickloads in a 545i holder, but after

seeing this as unsatisfactory (no light leaks, but major film

flatness issue), I won't use Quickloads anymore until I decide if I

want to get into one or both of the dedicated holders.

 

<p>

 

Has anyone done an analysis about the cost effectiveness of

Quickloads? I've often wondered if for professional use, their

higher purchase cost more than offsets their advangtages in:

 

<p>

 

* no loading time & labor

* less likely to have dust

* superior film management

* higher packing density

[mike_long]

I've just returned from a trip on which I used Readyloads exclusively.

I made the decision to take them because I've had some trouble with

getting boxes of film through security. While they are "supposed" to

hand check them, this isn't always the case and when a security guard

decides he's either going to open the box or run them through the

x-ray machine, there's not a lot you can do.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, I did find it more compact to carry a holder and two boxex of

EPP rather than regular sheet film holders and a box of film. However,

this is mitigated somewhat by the unusual length of the film packets.

You need the right shoulder bag or backpack to carry these with ease.

Without question, NOT carrying a changing bag is an advantage.

 

<p>

 

Dust has never been a problem for me, perhaps due to the high humidity

in FL. However, loading holders in a hotel room and, worse, being in a

new area where you are excited enough to make many exposures but have

to deal with loading holders remotely, are enough to make me glad I

carried the RL's.

 

<p>

 

Because of economics, if I'm to photograph at home or nearby, I'll

carry sheet film holders. For trips, I'll use the RL's or QL's.

 

<p>

 

One secret to using the RL's is to make sure you stick the "exposed"

label over the metal tab so that it holds both sides of the packet in

place. That way you know instantly not to reuse it and it prevents an

accident by pulling the metal tab off. Kodak does not provide enough

"exposed" stickers. If you stick one on side 1 and then later over the

tab to indicate both are exposed, you only have 1/2 the amount you

need. So, I immediately reverse the packet to side 2 and leave it in

the holder. Once exposed, I use the sticker and retire the packet.

This is asking for trouble in my opinion and Kodak should provide 20

stickers (yes, I know I can make my own a

[ellis_vener_photography]

One carrying/storage trick I have found with Readyloads, Quickloads and

Polaroids is to use the Fuji Quickload boxes to carry both my

Quickloads (Readylloads fit too) and Polaroid materials in the Fuji

Quickload boxes.If you carry the Polaroids in the Quickload box there

is much less bulkto carry, trash to dispose of and the unshot Polaroids

are better protected. As I use up the Polaroids and shoot real film,

the emptying box that held the Polaroids gets used as an exposed film

box.

[stephen_willard]

There is a design flaw with the Readyload holder that will cause part

of the film plane to be misaligned with the ground glass plane

resulting in a soft image at one edge of the film. When the paper

slide is in the retracted position to expose the film no provision in

the design was made to account for the paper slides thickness. That

is, the film plane is pushed back away from the perimeter of the 4x5

opening at the end where the paper slide is hidden just out of sight.

This is further exasperated by a velcro-like light stop on the same

end that pushes the paper slide and film even further back away from

the perimeter of the opening that the film rests on.

 

<p>

 

To measure the magnitude of the departure, do the following:

 

<p>

 

1. Set the Readyload film holder down on a table with the 4x5 film

opening facing up and insert a Readyload packet. Slide the paper

slide back to expose the film (Yes you will waste a packet, but it is

well worth it to understand what I am talking about). You should be

able to see where the film is pushed back away from the perimeter

where the paper slide is retracted.

 

<p>

 

2. Take a ruler and set it on edge across the 4x5 opening. Attach a

toothpick perpendicular to the ruler using a spring cloths pin.

Adjust the tooth pick so that it is touch the film surface close to

the edge where the metal clip of the film packet is latched. Now

slide the ruler and toothpick towards the edge of the 4x5 opening

where the paper slide is retracted. This will very clearly show you

the magnitude of how far the film plan is misaligned. In my case it

was about 3/32".

 

<p>

 

You can fix the film holder to get proper alignment. Take the

Readyload holder apart. Move the light stop that rest near the edge

of the 4x5 opening back away from the opening about an inch. There is

a valley in the mold that seems to accommodate the light stop. Now

grind the edge of the applicable side of the perimeter down to allow

for the thickness of the paper slide. Once you think you are there

assemble the holder and apply the toothpick test. If the film

continues to be pushed away then repeat the grinding until the film no

longer is pushed back. You may also have to add some additional

self-sticking velcro to make an effective light stop. You can test

your changes for light leaks by loading the holder with film and

placing it in the camera in full sun with the paper slide fully

retracted for about 10 minutes. Develop the film and check for leaks

adding additional velcro as needed.

 

<p>

 

Good luck!

[brian_c._ellis]

There is a lot of good information in all of these messages. I'll add

my 2 cents. I looked at the Calumet site that someone mentioned and it

is very good. However, if you look at it carefully you'll see that it

says little that the Kodak instructions don't say. I mention this, not

to denigrate the site at all, but just to stress the importance of

following the instructions carefully, meticulously, and to the

letter. I've long suspected that the problems some people experience

with Readyloads is really caused not by the system but by their

failure to carefully follow the instructions in their haste to get the

photograph made. Secondly, I think it's important to keep the film as

perfectly parallel with the holder as possible when inserting the film

into the holder. I've seen people in the field try to load the film by

grasping the holder in their left hand and shoving the film in with

their right. I think you will have better success if you first put the

holder in the camera and then use two hands to gently and slowly push

the film into the holder. Finally, I believe Kodak has made at least

two versions, perhaps more, of this holder. I would buy the holder new

rather than trying to save a few dollars on a used, possibly

older, version.

[michael_j._kravit]

As a newcomer to the Kodak Readyload system I thought I would

contribute my experiences and thoughts.

 

<p>

 

I have now exposed 80 sheets of Koadak T-Max 100 in Readyload

packets. My first 40 sheets had a light leak failure rate of

approximately 50%. Unfortunately most of those were due to a

defective box of Readyloads. It seems that I noticed too late that

the black clips were not seated correctly. If I had noticed it

sooner, I would have returned the box to the store.

 

<p>

 

I found that I was inserting and removing the packets too quickly.

Perhaps this caused the packet end to bind a bit resulting is the

clip not seating properly. I experimented and have found that

inserting and removing the packet slowly results in virtually no

failures.

 

<p>

 

At one point I was so frustrated that I was about to give up. I have

a dozen Riteway holders with which I have never had a single failure.

They are fine for local shooting, but when travelling 4 or 5 boxes of

ready loads take up relatively little room and weight compared to the

cut sheet holders.

 

<p>

 

I believe that with a bit of care in inserting and removing Readyload

packets, this can be a very viable system. Especially for those of us

that shoot primarily B+W in the US where the Fuji B+W emulsions are

not available.

 

<p>

 

One other item, I add my name to the list of those who wish for Delta

100 in Quickload packets. ;-)

[glenn_kroeger]

I have used both systems since they were introduced (yes, I went

through all 3 generations of Kodak holders). Both systems work, but I

have never had a failure with Fuji QL, I have had some failures with

ReadyLoad, although in its latest incarnation, I would put the

failure rate at less than 5% (one sheet per box). As a previous post

noted, the Kodak holder does not put the film in a plane that matches

the focusing gg. One end is pushed back by the strip on each packet.

This curvature of the film plane is visible to the naked eye. In many

cases, it doesn't create a problem with 3D subjects, but I would

never use it for copy work. One advantage of traveling with these,

rather than holder and film boxes, is that you can show airport

security folk the packets.