PDA

View Full Version : Why Kodak Redyloads failed?



Jac@stafford.net
7-Oct-2016, 15:04
Did they make a lot of poorly constructed packets? If not, was the effort too expensive, or was it something else?

I have a lot of them and I suspect poor construction is an issue. Please call me just plain wrong. I am tired of wasting my time with them.

What a beautiful idea, gone now.

Kevin Crisp
7-Oct-2016, 15:15
I never had one fail, if by that you mean come apart or malfunction. I thought Polaroid was involved in making the actual sleeves, then its problems made production impractical. I think I heard that here.

If you really don't like them and they've been well-stored, sell them.

BrianShaw
7-Oct-2016, 15:22
It was a nice idea but never gained any attention from me simply because the cost was more than the convenience was worth to me.

Two23
7-Oct-2016, 15:42
I never bought ready-loads from either company simply because I saw them as too expensive.


Kent in SD

Drew Wiley
7-Oct-2016, 15:50
The sleeve & holder concept was first designed for Fuji 4x5 film for use in Polaroid 545 holders. Somewhat later this was improved as what became known as the
Quickload system. Kodak tried to upstage this with a double-film sleeve, which was prone to light leaks. So they essentially copied Fuji with an analogous one sheet sleeve called Readyload, which was quite dependable. I know that the sleeving of Fuji's film was done by Polaroid, and it is probable that Kodak's was too. Polaroid obviously went into a financial tailspin, so it was a question whether or not it was financial worthwhile for either Kodak or Fuji to buy out that equipment or do the necessary R&D to replicate it, or whatever. Someone else might know more details that I do. But they both decided, No, and placed their bets on digital. It's a shame, because these sleeve systems were a dream come true for a backpacking addict like me. I can obviously resort to a changing tent; but one simply does not always have the right conditions at the right time. Weather changes fast, you crawl into a tent dirty and grubby, and film changing is fussy clean work. I've personally resorted to 6x9 roll film holders on long treks. I already have more than my fair share of full 4x5 and 8x10 chrome and negs, and am routinely adding more during day hikes. Quickloads themselves started getting unreliable toward the end, so my hunch is that the original machinery itself needed retooling, and that kind of thing is always expensive and tricky.

Peter De Smidt
7-Oct-2016, 16:03
I loved the later single-sided Readyloads and Quickloads. They made backpacking with 4x5 much more fun.

Corran
7-Oct-2016, 18:35
Are you using the second-generation holder? The one with the red button. I've heard that one works better - it's the only one I've used and never had a problem.

The only issue with any of the packets I had was trying to use the Polaroid 545 with the Fuji/Kodak packets. Another bit of anecdotal wisdom was that the Polaroid worked for both, but what it did in my experience was NOT work with either! So I just use the Fuji/Kodak holders. It's really helpful for shooting just a couple sheets of color. Have a bunch of Fuji packets left.

Bruce Watson
7-Oct-2016, 19:31
Why Kodak Redyloads faild?

Kodak Readyloads didn't fail. Kodak outsourced the making of the packets to Polaroid. Polaroid declared bankruptcy. So Polaroid ceased making the packets for Kodak.

Kodak analyzed what it would take to obtain the machines and tooling and move it to a Kodak facility and decided the cost was too high; that they'd never be able to pay for it through sales of boxes Readyload film packets. So, they declined.

People looked into obtaining the equipment and making the packets independently of Kodak and Polaroid. No one thought they could make enough money to pay off the startup expense.

Boom. End of Readyloads.

That said, they worked flawlessly for me, and delivered outstanding negatives that were completely dust free. I've drum scanned quite a few -- hardly any dust to be found. I would have continued to use them for that reason alone, more or less regardless of price. The extra price per sheet easily paid for itself by reducing my spotting time to nearly zero.

It was a shame they couldn't get the packets to work reliably with high speed (400 ISO) films. Doesn't matter any more I guess. Sigh...

Two23
7-Oct-2016, 21:17
You would think that Polaroid would have sold of the machinery cheaply to a start up. It all likely ended up selling for scrap.


Kent in SD

vdonovan
7-Oct-2016, 22:40
Ready-loaded film for the Polaroid 545 holder is still available from New55 for a variety of emulsions:
http://shop.new55.net/collections/frontpage/products/1shot?variant=1194818235

BobCrowley
8-Oct-2016, 01:55
Most of Polaroid's assembly equipment was sold as scrap and some was even pushed off the second floor and crashed onto the parking lot. Along with instant sheet film, Polaroid packaged and sold various 4x5 sheet films in single-use envelopes that could not be recycled. In 2015, New55 started selling 1SHOT tm ready loaded film with several types of black and white films in a recyclable format. http://shop.new55.net/

Roger Cole
8-Oct-2016, 08:50
Ready-loaded film for the Polaroid 545 holder is still available from New55 for a variety of emulsions:
http://shop.new55.net/collections/frontpage/products/1shot?variant=1194818235

Yeah at over eight bucks a sheet for HP5, seven for their film and I was afraid to look at color.

No thanks.

Peter Gomena
8-Oct-2016, 12:13
Fuji Quickloads were great, we used them extensively for commercial location shoots. Never failed.

Armin Seeholzer
9-Oct-2016, 13:45
I used booth Fuji Quickloads and Kodak Readyloads from 100 shots I had maybe 1 failure I still have 2 packs of each in the freezer!

And I still would buy them!

Kevin Crisp
10-Oct-2016, 07:52
I was really encouraged by this and then noticed it was over $10 per sheet? Wow.

bill2424
10-Oct-2016, 08:25
I used Readyloads and Quickloads for years with a failure rate of 1% or less. For me they were worth every penny I spent on them. They were much easier and lighter than film holders for travel especially for overseas. I would continue to buy them if available today.

Drew Wiley
10-Oct-2016, 08:34
The flatness of the film in the dedicated holders wasn't ideal, especially on the insertion side. I ended up highly modifying a select 545 holder (sorting through
several of those), which has served me well with all the film sleeves, both brands. I used up the last of my sleeves a year ago, except for one full box of E100G
still in the freezer. I'd be interested in hearing any real-world feedback about this new startup system, since it apparently would also work in holder.

jnantz
10-Oct-2016, 09:11
i used them, they were great, also used the holder for
other ready load packets ... i stopped buying them
not so much because they didn't work but because
i really couldn't justify the trash/waste associated with
the product. im trying to lessen my footprint, and unfortunately
a few months ago, after exposing IDK 100 sheets of 100E all my
efforts were pretty much erased ...

Ivan J. Eberle
18-Oct-2016, 09:41
Quickloads and Readyloads were great for commercial photographers because the "real" film could be run in the same holder moments after getting the art director to sign off on the lighting and set-up on an instant B&W Polaroid in the same holder, without displacing the camera, changing backs, etc. The then~$3/sheet cost for color 4x5" E6 chrome film was an expense, and the net cost to the photographer was zero, as the cost of consumables was passed along. But all that flipped with digital medium format backs by the mid-late 1990's. Good enough for most uses, providing instant feedback, no 1-hour E6 lab needed, and especially no drum-scanning pre-print costs, all of which when added up completely disrupted commercial studio photography workflows, and in particular, it cratered Polaroid. Commercial uses of film once far, far eclipsed hobbyist use of large format.

But fortunately by the time this all unraveled, QL and RL use was pretty well established or even entrenched among a niche of backpacking nature photographers, and among those who traveled through airports (The darksleeved film was particularly well-suited to TSA hand-inspection of film). E6 and C41 Readyload and particularly Quickload hung on a good while longer; Astia 100F and Pro 160S Fuji QL were available with current freshness dates until 5 or perhaps 6 years ago in the USA and a bit longer in Japan, B&W Acros hung in almost but not as long, as I recall. A few enterprising folks hoarded and froze what they could find, and there was for a time a cottage industry on EBay of dealers seeking to double or triple what the films originally cost.

It was this last gasp, I think, that has set the bar so high for the present pricing, but it seems pretty absurd to me, especially considering most users today can't simply pass off the cost of consumables to a client. Too, when scanning for printing hybrid, dusting and spotting has become relatively trivial in Photoshop and Lightroom (even if boring and time consuming to do) contrasted with dust ruining a frame for optical Ilfochrome/ Cibachrome printing. The number of tasks that dark-sleeved 4x5 negs and chromes once were essential for dwindled to economic nothingness for the film manufacturers, evidently.

I came to LF late in the aughts and one of the reasons I dove in was that Quickloads were still available new in my favorite E6 emulsions. The later version of the Kodak single-sheet holder with the pressure plate was what I used and it was great, with never a film flatness problem.

Found I really, really needed Quickloads when shooting in dusty desert conditions, blowing sand, and static-ky low California arid conditions. While I've trashed a few frames (mostly where the clip didn't re-engauge the sleeve to light seal the assembly after exposure, there's a tap-tap-tap trick specific to that, yet doesn't always work) but I've also killed 6 frames at a time in a Grafmatic, on balance, and also wrecked a lot of Ektar and Portra in Grafmatics due to the static charge attracting dust, at places such as Pinnacles.

Personally, I would love to see a revival in the single-shot QL and RL form factors for existing color neg films. Ektar never was available in it, nor newer iterations of Portra.

Drew Wiley
19-Oct-2016, 15:52
I did fine in the desert using anti-static spray on my holders, and by literally grounding metal cameras with an alligator clip, a bit of speaker wire, and a nail I could push in the soil. But March winds - nope - I simply gave up on those, esp on clay or alkali playas. More a Nov thru Feb strategy. High desert, like most of
the Colorado Plateau canyon country, has never given me any headaches - and actually relieved quite a few headaches, at least until I had to leave and come back
to work.

BobCrowley
21-Oct-2016, 05:46
Once again, 1SHOT is a recyclable product. Readyloads failed when Polaroid stopped producing them. Our product is different as you can reload them, if you wish to try to save money. We sell them to people who specifically asked for them. http://shop.new55.net

jnantz
21-Oct-2016, 08:13
Once again, 1SHOT is a recyclable product. Readyloads failed when Polaroid stopped producing them. Our product is different as you can reload them, if you wish to try to save money. We sell them to people who specifically asked for them. http://shop.new55.net


that's great to know that it can be re-used.
i looked on the link/website but really couldn't find
information on re-using the single shot packets.
sounds like a perfect idea, much thinner than a film holder !

BobCrowley
23-Oct-2016, 13:24
that's great to know that it can be re-used.
i looked on the link/website but really couldn't find
information on re-using the single shot packets.
sounds like a perfect idea, much thinner than a film holder !

Once you take off the supplied film another one can go in its place. 1SHOT is a fairly durable paper and stainless steel product and should last several uses. But the reason it exists is purely because some people asked us for it. The color films sell more apparently because people just need a couple of sheets therefore the cost of the job doesn't include leftover film that may or may not be used.

http://shop.new55.net

jnantz
23-Oct-2016, 15:30
thanks !