Readyload backs, who has the better?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
I am fairly new to LF, and was thinking about getting some readyloads and back. I know that Fuji, Kodak and Polaroid make them. I want to get a Polaroid 545 so I can also do polaroid film proofs, but a sales clerk said he had some customers that did not like them for readyloads. Does anyone have any preferences? Thanks
-- Kenny Dunn (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 29, 1999
The answer to your question can be found within the "Film and Holders Threads" of the site.
-- Larry Huppert (Larry.Huppert@mail.com), June 29, 1999.
kenny - not everyone agrees on this subject, and you need to find what works for you. i have used the kodak readyload system for several years, and i like it. i did have one of the holders fail on me on an out-of-town job, and came back with 60 or so blank negatives - the little metal tab that is supposed to hold the film in while you pull the dark slide portion out was failing to catch. on the other hand, i have shot probably over 10,000 negatives using that system, and i do not wish to switch. i have read that the fuji holder may be better, but it only holds a single neg per packet. i would hesitate to try and mix systems, such as using kodak film in a fuji holder, etc. also, while polaroid is fun, is quite helpful in certain studio situations, and can be an excellent medium in its own right, it is a huge pain in the field, and often tells you nothing helpful about exposure, especially if you are shooting b/w. otherwise, if you prefer fuji film, try their system, and if you prefer kodak film, use the kodak system.
-- james norman (email@example.com), July 02, 1999.
This is not a topic on which you find a whole lot of agreement. However, I think it is fairly well accepted that using Readyload film in the Polaroid holder isn't a good idea, even though Kodak includes instructions for doing so with Readyload film. There is less agreement on Readyload holders. Many people seem to hate them, others seem to love them. There apparently have been several models made. The current version seems to be the best so I wouldn't try to save money by getting a used one. They only cost about $50 new as I recall. I've had no problems with mine. It is important, I think, to follow the instructions meticulously. I believe that some of the problems are attributable to people just trying to jam the film into the holder without paying attention to the instructions. I've seen almost no negative comments about the Fuji holder. I've never used one but virtually everyone who has seems to like them.
-- Brian Ellis (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 03, 1999.
My dust problem finally drove me to buy the Readyload holder despite what I have read about the problems, despite the salesperson telling me she ruins 50% of her shots, and despite the fact TMAX is my least favorite film.
I have now put twenty sheets of TMAX and twenty sheets of Provia through the thing and the only problem I had is one of the Provias lost its metal tab in the box - before I had ever used it. I have had no problems with the holder at all. It seems to work great. I haven't ruined one exposure with it, and I am not the most careful worker in the world. I like the thing a lot, but I do wish they would make a Tri-X readyload.
-- Erik Ryberg (email@example.com), July 06, 1999.
Can anyone offer their experience(s) when using the Polaroid 545i back as a "Readyload" or "Quickload" alternative. I too was told be a sales clerk that the 545i holder can take the Kodak and Fuji readyloads.
-- Robert Ruderman (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 06, 1999.
Robert, Yes you can use them, but my tests with my gear showed an unacceptable amout of unfocus towards the edges. results were definitely sharper with either the Kodak back (and Kodak film) and likewise with Fuji. Sharpest results were with the Fuji Quickload holder and film.
-- Ellis Vener (email@example.com), July 06, 1999.