Kodak Readyloads

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

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.


-- Dave Willison (dwillisart@aol.com), May 10, 2001


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.

Good luck

John Bailey

-- John Bailey (Mdwphoto@aol.com), May 10, 2001.

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.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), May 10, 2001.

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

-- Scott Walton (scotlynn@shore.net), May 10, 2001.


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.

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).


-- Kerry Thalmann (largeformat@thalmann.com), May 10, 2001.

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 Santamaura (bc_hill@qwestinternet.net), May 10, 2001.


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).

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.


-- Kerry Thalmann (largeformat@thalmann.com), May 10, 2001.


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.

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?


-- Sal Santamaura (bc_hill@qwestinternet.net), May 11, 2001.

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.)
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!

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), May 11, 2001.

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?

-- Jeff Green (jewgreen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu), June 01, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ