New Envelope System for Quickload, ReadyLoad and Polaroid Holders [Archive]

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 03:26

I have just started negotiations to manufacture a film envelope system that can be used in Quickload holders (and should also work in Readyload and Polaroid holders).

Yes, it means loading the envelopes in the dark but it allows you to use any type of 4x5 cut film that you like in these holders.

The envelope is so designed that you can also add exposure notes and convert it into a storage envelope.

The system allows you to fill your own envelopes before a trip, thus needing only one holder, just as if you were using your favourite Quickload or Readyload envelopes.

Further details to follow.

GPS

11-Aug-2009, 04:10

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 04:18

Unfortunately, as mentioned in a different thread, these envelopes cannot be a true equivalent of Quickloads or Readyloads envelopes as they miss the great advantage of both of them -you will not get the dust free film in them. Pity.
As I mentioned in the other thread, Quickloads may be dust free when they are manufactured but my experience is that dust gets sucked onto the film as soon as you withdraw the envelope in the camera. Just as with DDS or Grafmatics, it is down to how much dust you allow in your darkroom ;)

Struan Gray

11-Aug-2009, 04:20

I'll load mine in my clean room :-)

I reload the Quickchange system at present, but would be very interested to see a DIY single-sheet package. Good luck with the production engineering.

GPS

11-Aug-2009, 04:24

I'll load mine in my clean room :-)

...

Don't forget the clean air too...;) :)

evan clarke

11-Aug-2009, 04:28

I would buy these, dust aside, it would reduce the volume I need to carry...Evan Clarke

GPS

11-Aug-2009, 04:30

As I mentioned in the other thread, Quickloads may be dust free when they are manufactured but my experience is that dust gets sucked onto the film as soon as you withdraw the envelope in the camera. Just as with DDS or Grafmatics, it is down to how much dust you allow in your darkroom ;)

Agreed, that's why your system will not be as dust free as the original Quickloads. One great advantage that will be lost.... ;) :)

Patrick Dixon

11-Aug-2009, 04:31

GPS

11-Aug-2009, 04:42

Good idea - it crossed my mind too. I assume there are no patents to worry about?

I think the big advantage of QL is space/weight rather than (lack of) dust. If dust is a major consideration, I'm sure you could get someone with a clean room to load them as a service.

Sure, my town is full of people with a clean room that load film even into normal film holders, as a service..:rolleyes: How's the situation in your town? :)

Patrick Dixon

11-Aug-2009, 05:04

Do you know GPS that you're a breath of fresh air?

You are the person that keeps everybody's feet firmly on the ground - no, actually I mean stuck in the mud. Where people are enthusiastic and have a can-do attitude, you're the one that batters them into submission by pointing out all the obvious insurmountable problems and pouring cold water on their hair-brained schemes.

The forum needs more people like you.

Gem Singer

11-Aug-2009, 05:20

Doesn't GPS stand for, Ground Positioning Satellite?

James Olson

11-Aug-2009, 05:30

Please keep us posted on your progress. This is something I would love to use.
jim

jb7

11-Aug-2009, 05:44

Sounds interesting alright-
especially if they were no more difficult to load than normal holders-

And re-usable too-

darr

11-Aug-2009, 05:49

Good luck Joanna, I will be waiting to purchase. :)

MIke Sherck

11-Aug-2009, 05:57

Sounds like a good idea. I doubt they'll collect more dust than my ordinary film holders do anyway, and be a lot lighter to carry. I suspect that light leaks will be the one production problem that keeps you awake at night, but I'm also sure that you'll eventually end up with a great product. And we can put any film we want in there, too! I like it!

Mike

Paul Metcalf

11-Aug-2009, 06:06

Joanna - you get my vote for this years Pulitzer Prize (FWIW) if you can pull this off. Now, how 'bout this in 8x10, eh? That would be a big-time score!

Struan Gray

11-Aug-2009, 06:27

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 06:32

Now, how 'bout this in 8x10, eh? That would be a big-time score!
I already thought about this but the idea of about an 8" x 14" envelope flapping around in the breeze whilst trying to expose the film... :confused:

ljsegil

11-Aug-2009, 06:34

Now if only a similar system could be made for the larger formats. Imagine carrying only one film holder device but with as much film as one desires for your 8x10 camera. One might even lose sight of the car. Sigh.
Larry

Ron Marshall

11-Aug-2009, 06:36

Great news Joanna; the best of luck with this venture.

I have been long awaiting such a product, that would allow me to load what I want.

BrianShaw

11-Aug-2009, 06:37

Doesn't GPS stand for, Ground Positioning Satellite?

When one of my maiden Aunties went to her local Radio Shack to get a GPS for her car, she asked what "GPS" meant. She was told by the clerk that it means, "Going Places Safely". :eek:

BrianShaw

11-Aug-2009, 06:39

I have just started negotiations to manufacture a film envelope system that can be used in Quickload holders (and should also work in Readyload and Polaroid holders).

I'd be interested, Joanna... but a lot closer to a committed buyer if the compatability with 545 holder were a hard requirement rather than a 'desirement" as you have stated.

Eric Brody

11-Aug-2009, 06:43

While I hate dust as much as the next person, this interests me for the convenience. When I printed in the darkroom, I had to spot each print. Now that I scan, I spot once and I'm done, so dust is arguably a bit less frustrating.

Eric

GPS

11-Aug-2009, 06:55

It doesn't take much effort or care to keep film clean to my standards when reloading the Quickchange cartridges in a changing bag. I don't see why it would be any more difficult in an envelope system, unless you make the envelopes out of compacted tumble dryer fluff.

...

The idea of using multiple sheet film holders is not new. Grafmatic, Quickchange are just a few of them. Quickloads have the great advantage of dust free film, unlike the proposed system - Joanna and me we agree about this point. Some photographers used the system just for this point and the effortless film loading.
While metal and plastic multi-sheet film holders were in use and later the paper Quickloads too, nobody went into manufacturing re-loadable paper film holders? Why? The weight advantage was always there - or was it? The reason was that paper holders, especially used many times, produce a plenty of paper dust. Loading film into paper holders (or envelopes) introduces more dust on film than doing the same with metal or plastic multi-sheet film holders. To make a reusable paper holder as dust free as metal o plastic holders you would need to use special hardened paper - but then you can make them directly of plastic with almost no weight disadvantage... Quickchange decided for plastic...
While somebody doesn't care, any user of paper re-loadable sheet film holders will soon realize that the advantage of Quickloads dust free film is taken away. Joanna knows that. Some don't care, some do.

Struan Gray

11-Aug-2009, 07:14

GPS

11-Aug-2009, 07:22

Now you're just repeating yourself.

For my use the dust-free aspect of factory packaged Quickloads and Readyloads is almost entirely moot. I'm after savings in weight, and even more critically, bulk.

I'll wait and see what Johanna produces, and if it fits my needs. I agree that dust is a *possible* problem, but I don't see why that should discourage her from trying.

Repeating myself? Only if you read my thoughts... The reason of not manufacturing re-loadable paper holders and choosing rather metal of plastic I explained only once... Did you see it repeated? When?

I don't think Joanna gets discouraged by something she already knows...:)

Bill_1856

11-Aug-2009, 07:33

Good luck! I think that you're doing a wonderful thing!

Sal Santamaura

11-Aug-2009, 07:35

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 07:43

To make a reusable paper holder as dust free as metal o plastic holders you would need to use special hardened paper - but then you can make them directly of plastic with almost no weight disadvantage... Quickchange decided for plastic...
The envelopes are not designed to be re-loadable, just as the original Quickloads weren't, because of the dust problems; and plastic is not desirable due to its inherent ability to attract dust by static electricity.

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 07:50

... I'd be investigating tough, electrically conductive plastic envelopes. No paper dust and no static to attract other dust. A white area would easily accept notes from a "Sharpie" pen that could be removed by a simple isopropyl alcohol wipe.
It had crossed my mind to use such a plastic but I decided to opt for the added value of being able to convert the envelope for archival storage, rather than a reusable, and considerably more expensive, and possibly increasingly less reliable, envelope.

GPS

11-Aug-2009, 07:54

The envelopes are not designed to be re-loadable, just as the original Quickloads weren't, because of the dust problems; and plastic is not desirable due to its inherent ability to attract dust by static electricity.

Thank you for disclosing that detail, Joanna. It eliminates one source of the dust problem, even if the self loading one still remains. But that is not more a problem than a normal sheet film holder.
As to the plastic attracting dust - yes and not, not all the plastic is the same. But even if it attracts the dust (does Quickchange?) it's not bad - the dust is attracted to the holder, not the film.

GPS

11-Aug-2009, 08:00

None of Joanna's posts in this thread say the envelopes will be paper. Were I embarking on such a project, given that they will be reusable rather than disposable, I'd be investigating tough, electrically conductive plastic envelopes. No paper dust and no static to attract other dust. A white area would easily accept notes from a "Sharpie" pen that could be removed by a simple isopropyl alcohol wipe.

Apart from the mistaken supposition I agree with you. Plastic would be a natural choice for re-loadable holders. Somehow the Quickchange system didn't attract too much interest - probably because the dust free Quickloads were regarded as a greater advantage???

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 08:05

Somehow the Quickchange system didn't attract too much interest - probably because the dust free Quickloads were regarded as a greater advantage???
Possibly because of the limit to how many sheets you could get in one holder, before you had to carry another holder, and another holder. Quickload is just so sweet because you only ever need the one holder and then as many sheets of film as you can carry.

Sal Santamaura

11-Aug-2009, 08:19

It had crossed my mind to use such a plastic but I decided to opt for the added value of being able to convert the envelope for archival storage, rather than a reusable, and considerably more expensive, and possibly increasingly less reliable, envelope.I'll be interested to see how an envelope that's compatible with the Quickload holder can be converted for reuse as a storage vehicle. There are established storage systems, e.g. thumb-cut envelopes with interleaving folders and flip-top boxes, that offer great protection in a small space.

The biggest challenge will likely be designing a method to hold film. In Quickload packets, the clip is attached to a short leader which is glued to the film. A trailer is glued to the other end of the film. No reusable configuration that fits in an envelope and is thin enough for holder compatibility comes to (my) mind. Good luck!

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 08:35

I'll be interested to see how an envelope that's compatible with the Quickload holder can be converted for reuse as a storage vehicle.
Of course, you would be wise to put the film into a polyester sleeve as well but my sleeve design should work fine, with the minimum of effort and, what's more the original notes that you made on the envelope when shooting will be preserved.

No reusable configuration that fits in an envelope and is thin enough for holder compatibility comes to (my) mind. Good luck!
Heheh, which is why I've designed it and not you :cool: :p :D

Paul Kierstead

11-Aug-2009, 08:50

Well, I greatly look forward to seeing the outcome, regardless of what some dust crazed photographers think.

Len Eselson

11-Aug-2009, 08:59

This would be of interest to me, and I look forward to testing the Envelope System.
I hope that you are planning to have a US dealer so that we are not faced with large shipping charges.

Len Eselson

Paul O

11-Aug-2009, 09:13

Good luck with this Jo!:)

Paul O

11-Aug-2009, 09:14

This would be of interest to me, and I look forward to testing the Envelope System.
I hope that you are planning to have a US dealer so that we are not faced with large shipping charges.

Len Eselson

Keep it UK-based Jo and charge a fortune for shipping and then.. and then take over the world :D

Steven Barall

11-Aug-2009, 09:25

Good luck.

Would it be worthwhile for someone to look into making some sort of new updated Grafmatic holder? Just a thought.

Nathan Potter

11-Aug-2009, 09:37

Joanna, I've been playing with the same type of "Quickload" device. To obtain compatibility with the Quickload holder using the clip system is not trivial in design or manufacture. Ideally I would want to buy the empty sleeves and load my own sheets. The trick is to insert the film and hold it while the sleeve is removed in the camera then reinsert the sleeve in a light tight condition and extract the assembly. The best I can come up with is a non Quickload type solution but have yet to conceptualize a system that would work easily.

However the idea is so valuable in my mind, for the reasons mentioned above, that I would be willing to pay a premium per shot for a disposable sleeve (say $2.00 per sleeve) but a hefty price for a reuseable one. I think a new type of holder is OK if that is necessary to execute the design. The dust issue is salient, as has been mentioned, but most of us would preload the sleeves at home using at least some techniques we currently employ to control dust. Many large cities have industries that have clean rooms or certainly clean benches that could be contracted to for loading a batch of sleeves.

Nate Potter, Chicago IL.

Patrick Dixon

11-Aug-2009, 09:38

Keep it UK-based Jo and charge a fortune for shipping and then.. and then take over the world :D

Absolutely.

In the spirit of many ads here, I look forward to you offering it only to Europe and the non-lower 48. ;-)

Jim Cole

11-Aug-2009, 09:42

Great idea, Joanna and good luck with the manufacture.

SW Rick

11-Aug-2009, 10:14

What a great idea- freedom from a particular manufacturer/film! I'd be on board.

cowanw

11-Aug-2009, 10:15

Absolutely.

In the spirit of many ads here, I look forward to you offering it only to Europe and the non-lower 48. ;-)

Don't forget Canada and Australia and the rest of the world other than Alaska and Hawaii.
Regards
Bill

Paul Metcalf

11-Aug-2009, 10:33

The envelopes are not designed to be re-loadable, just as the original Quickloads weren't, because of the dust problems; and plastic is not desirable due to its inherent ability to attract dust by static electricity.Ok, I lost the bubble on this one with all of the discussions on dust. In your first post you stated "Yes, it means loading the envelopes in the dark but it allows you to use any type of 4x5 cut film that you like in these holders." I was under the impression that these would be loadable by the end-user with whatever film they desired. Are you saying that they are loadable only once? I can't predict your design but I'm having a hard time understanding why these would be limited to a single load. Please amplify! Thanks.

Paul Metcalf

11-Aug-2009, 10:36

I already thought about this but the idea of about an 8" x 14" envelope flapping around in the breeze whilst trying to expose the film... :confused:With the 4x5 Quick/Readyloads in windy conditions I would flex the sleeve a bit (forward/backward) with my free hand during exposure. With a stable platform I never had problems with vibration. A bigger sleeve might be an issue, but I'd like to try it anyhow!

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 10:56

I was under the impression that these would be loadable by the end-user with whatever film they desired. Are you saying that they are loadable only once? I can't predict your design but I'm having a hard time understanding why these would be limited to a single load. Please amplify!
As mentioned in another post, the envelopes are made of card/paper and could be prone to creating dust the more they are used and, due to the size and nature of the clip on the bottom, it may not survive closing the envelope securely more than a couple of times. Although, in theory, you could reuse the system, I wouldn't like to predict how reliable it would be after the first use. There simply isn't the space in the existing holders to make something that bulletproof.

rdenney

11-Aug-2009, 11:27

Joanna, let me see if I understand what you are proposing:

1. One buys the holders.

2. One buys a box of film.

3. The end user loads the film into the envelopes by hand in the darkroom or changing bag.

4. The envelope/film package is, at that point, just like a Quickload.

5. After the exposure, I either tear apart the holder and process the film myself, or send the envelope to the lab and let them handle it just as they would a Quickload.

Given the price of Quickloads compared to boxed sheet film, these holders could still be sold at a reasonable price and still reduce or maintain costs for the end user.

The main requirement for me in using Quickloads is that I no longer have a darkroom or any desire to process my own film. Another primary requirement is reducing bulk and weight. And a secondary requirement is minimizing dust, though that has only been a serious problem for me when loading film holders in the field.

An additional requirement fulfilled by this design is that it could be used for any 4x5 sheet film, instead of just the few films provided by Fuji.

Can you make these for a cost that allows a price that is competitive with existing Quickloads? That will be a key to their long-term survival in market, as I'm sure you already know. And since they are not reusable, a stable source in the long term is what we would need.

Even though I would have to load them myself, which undermines slightly one of my requirements, I think I could live with that to gain access to my preferred films. So, I'm definitely a potential buyer, if I understand what you are suggesting.

Rick "evaluating new technology in terms of requirements" Denney

Stephen Lewis

11-Aug-2009, 12:26

Sounds good to me. However, I'm just wondering if Fuji own the patent for the holder design/mechanism, and, if so, how much it would cost to buy into that design, assuming they would let you. It may be worth approaching Fuji first, before you expend too much time on the design.

Having said that, it sounds fine to me, and is something I would certainly look into. Best of luck with it Joanna. :)

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 12:49

Joanna, let me see if I understand what you are proposing:

1,2,3,4,5 Correct so far.

Can you make these for a cost that allows a price that is competitive with existing Quickloads? That will be a key to their long-term survival in market, as I'm sure you already know. And since they are not reusable, a stable source in the long term is what we would need.
That is the hope, but it will all depend on the number of people who want to avail themselves ;)

Even though I would have to load them myself, which undermines slightly one of my requirements, I think I could live with that to gain access to my preferred films. So, I'm definitely a potential buyer, if I understand what you are suggesting.
Thank you.

Atul Mohidekar

11-Aug-2009, 12:50

Hi Joanna,

This is a great idea if you could pull it off. A system like this one could not only fill the void created by the demise of Fuji Acros QuickLoad film and Kodak ReadyLoad system but also will allow usage of other LF sheet films (with the QuickLoad holder) that were never available in the convenient QuickLoad/ReadyLoad packaging format.

Regards,

// Atul

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 12:53

However, I'm just wondering if Fuji own the patent for the holder design/mechanism, and, if so, how much it would cost to buy into that design, assuming they would let you. It may be worth approaching Fuji first, before you expend too much time on the design.
I have checked the patents that I can find on the IPO site and, as far as I can tell, as long as I don't outright copy their envelope design, which I am not, we should be OK. Also I am not copying the whole system, just providing an alternative envelope that happens to fit, not only their holder but also the Kodak and Polaroid.

Patrick Dixon

11-Aug-2009, 13:02

I think it would be very bad PR for Fuji to sue for patent infringement when they won't (or don't consider it commercially viable) to produce QLs for themselves. I doubt Joanna would be going to the trouble if they hadn't discontinued Acros QL without notice, although her solution might well have other benefits.

Drew Wiley

11-Aug-2009, 13:07

Hope you do succeed. However, with new ideas if the first batch of a product has
unresolved quality issues, which is frequently the case, you get a black eye, and folks
aren't very forgiving. There's a significant leap from a working prototype to mass
producing something of consistent quality. And you'd need a source for holders. I use
a modified 545 holder because it's more reliable and holds film flatter than the dedicated Kodak and Fuji holders. But by the end of Summer, it looks like my Acros
Quickloads will all be used up, and I"ll either be back to a changing tent or the old
Mido holders, which for me at least, weren't 100% reliable. My priority is getting my
backpack weight down in the mtns. on longer trips. I have a true cleanroom, so
loading film cleanly isn't an issue. Keep us posted!

keeds

11-Aug-2009, 13:07

I didn't think they had discontinued QL Acros. They just weren't importing to the US or UK. I thought it was still available for import in sufficient quantities. 20 boxes into the UK?

Joanna Carter

11-Aug-2009, 13:14

I didn't think they had discontinued QL Acros. They just weren't importing to the US or UK. I thought it was still available for import in sufficient quantities. 20 boxes into the UK?
Unfortunately, no. Fuji have totally stopped production of Acros in QL, preferring to only sell 4x5 in cut sheet packs. That certainly gave me a strong impetus to finalise the design and do something about it.

Struan Gray

11-Aug-2009, 13:16

Joanna, you might want to look into Tetra-pak/Elopak milk and drinks containers for inspiration on envelope materials. They are made of (coated)cardboard-polymer-aluminium-polymer, and are both light tight and ultrasound/heat weldable. An envelope made of this could well be robust enough to be re-used, yet thin enough to fit in existing Quickload/Readyload holders. The packaging companies buy rolls of the ready-printed and laminated card from specialist coated paper suppliers.

I hope this works out for you.

Vick Vickery

11-Aug-2009, 13:17

I'm certainly interested...do you have a timetable in mind??? Keep us posted! :)

Struan Gray

11-Aug-2009, 13:20

PS: IMHO Quickchange failed because it was too expensive for the one-time use Fuji officially supported, but did not have proven robustness (or any guarantee from Fuji) for reloading for professional shooting. For my amateur use it works very well, but for more than 30 sheets or so Quickload is more compact and lighter, so is more attractive for backpacking trips.

GPS

11-Aug-2009, 15:58

I have checked the patents that I can find on the IPO site and, as far as I can tell, as long as I don't outright copy their envelope design, which I am not, we should be OK. Also I am not copying the whole system, just providing an alternative envelope that happens to fit, not only their holder but also the Kodak and Polaroid.

"as long as I don't outright copy their envelope design, which I am not, we should be OK.".
As someone who worked also in a Patent application bureau I can tell you that this supposition could prove itself to be completely wrong. Many patents are worded in such a way that even using the idea that underlines the patent application in a changed way is not possible without infringing the original patent. In fact, not to allow it is one of the main goals of a patent application.
You'd better to consult a professional patent consultant who will read in between the lines of existing patents and inform you about the possibilities of your "changes" in a professional way. Unless you know the rules of patents applications you can not be sure on your own. Good luck.

GPS

11-Aug-2009, 16:16

PS: IMHO Quickchange failed because it was too expensive for the one-time use Fuji officially supported, but did not have proven robustness (or any guarantee from Fuji) for reloading for professional shooting.
...

Really? So plastic was not robust enough. Paper would be???

Harley Goldman

11-Aug-2009, 19:35

Looking forward to seeing your product, Joanna. It would be great for backpacking and hiking. Good luck with the development!

Patrick Dixon

11-Aug-2009, 23:57

"as long as I don't outright copy their envelope design, which I am not, we should be OK.".
As someone who worked also in a Patent application bureau I can tell you that this supposition could prove itself to be completely wrong. Many patents are worded in such a way that even using the idea that underlines the patent application in a changed way is not possible without infringing the original patent. In fact, not to allow it is one of the main goals of a patent application.
You'd better to consult a professional patent consultant who will read in between the lines of existing patents and inform you about the possibilities of your "changes" in a professional way. Unless you know the rules of patents applications you can not be sure on your own. Good luck.
Yes, but Joanna has clearly looked at the patent and concluded that it applies to the design of the envelope.

What did you do in the Patent application bureau - tell them all that what they were proposing wasn't possible and wouldn't work?

joolsb

12-Aug-2009, 00:19

I've been following this with interest as the product would definitely be of interest to me - given the cost of QL which will only continue to increase in future.

One thing that does concern me, and which hasn't already been mentioned, is the securing mechanism and how easy will it be to operate when you're fumbling around in the dark. Current QL envelopes use an adhesive with low peel-apart strength to attach the various tabs to the film but that solution would be awkward for DIY loading. How do you ensure precise alignment?

Joanna Carter

12-Aug-2009, 00:41

One thing that does concern me, and which hasn't already been mentioned, is the securing mechanism and how easy will it be to operate when you're fumbling around in the dark. Current QL envelopes use an adhesive with low peel-apart strength to attach the various tabs to the film but that solution would be awkward for DIY loading. How do you ensure precise alignment?
I cannot yet reveal the details now; suffice to say, I have thought it through and alignment will not be a problem :D

kev curry

12-Aug-2009, 03:11

Phil Hudson

12-Aug-2009, 03:16

The thought of hiking around with one holder and 'unlimited' quantities of film, rather than 8 DDS an aching back and potentially limited quantities of film sounds like a winner straight away.... It would be great to see this getting off the ground.

I completely agree - this might actually be better than (yet) another competing brand specific QL system (such as one from Ilford). Count me in!

evan clarke

12-Aug-2009, 04:31

Have you actually made a prototype?..Evan Clarke

Joanna Carter

12-Aug-2009, 04:43

Have you actually made a prototype?
Yes.

GPS

12-Aug-2009, 05:17

The thought of hiking around with one holder and 'unlimited' quantities of film, rather than 8 DDS an aching back and potentially limited quantities of film sounds like a winner straight away.... It would be great to see this getting off the ground.

A very old thought... At the end of the 19th century Kodak was making roll film in LF for its cameras. Much better than putting cut film pieces into envelopes...:) Somehow this thought was lost, although aerial film in LF were in use much longer.
Nothing beats roll film in user convenience. Those using 6x12, 6x17 or 6x24 roll film formats (closest to the LF) have a good reason to laugh...;)

Joanna Carter

12-Aug-2009, 05:38

At the end of the 19th century Kodak was making roll film in LF for its cameras. Much better than putting cut film pieces into envelopes...:)
Until Ansel Adams came along and taught us the Zone system which required different development for each shot :eek:

GPS

12-Aug-2009, 06:08

Until Ansel Adams came along and taught us the Zone system which required different development for each shot :eek:

Which some of the roll film MF photographers solved with different rolls for different development - just a minor inconvenience as a price for the greater good. :) But of course, there is not one horse for all the people...

Tim Povlick

12-Aug-2009, 07:06

I am definitely on board with this concept. Do keep us posted.

If you could come up with a design for 8x10 that removed the envelope while taking the image and then it was easily re-attached that would be good.

Best of luck with the project.

Regards,

Tim

Kevin Crisp

12-Aug-2009, 07:45

If you culled the many posts on this forum you can probably find at least 25 suggestions for keeping down dust spots. I found that many of these suggestions were very helpful and made a difference, including adding a HEPA air filter to the darkroom and running it for a couple hours before loading.

Then one day about a year ago I thought "Why not?" and before I closed the dark slide on a freshly loaded sheet I held the film in the holder in front of the high speed discharge of the Hepa filter machine. I was thinking that if a few dust hairs (the ones that are so hard to retouch since they are long and uneven) had settled on the film despite my precautions, this would blow them off. Combined with keeping the camera reasonably clean and pulling the slide slowly, this essentially ended dust spots for me. Try it, or don't.

So with the proposed new product I don't see that dust is an issue that could not be handled and the space and weight saving and choice of films would all make this something I'd be very interested in. Good luck with it.

BrianShaw

12-Aug-2009, 09:58

What did you do in the Patent application bureau - tell them all that what they were proposing wasn't possible and wouldn't work?

Are you serious, or did you forget to use the "dry British humour" smilie? :o

Patrick Dixon

12-Aug-2009, 10:17

The point about "dry British humour", is that it's best said with a very straight face.

Arthur Nichols

13-Aug-2009, 07:30

I applaud this effort and am definitely interested. For hiking wieght is the primary consideration. Twenty convential film holders are a substantial load when you are back packing. The fact that you can make notes on each exposure is also a plus and if they are archival that is also a plus.
Don't let the naysayers discourage you. Some people seem to have a need to put others down when a new idea is presented. You are not the only one receiving this kind of treatment. Keep the faith and stay positive.

FilmIsNotDead

13-Aug-2009, 08:33

Ooooh... I would really be interested in a 4x10 system. Of course, a custom holder would be pricey.

evan clarke

13-Aug-2009, 12:48

Yes.

Then....YIPPEE:D

Larry Gebhardt

13-Aug-2009, 14:43

Sounds like a winning system to me, though cost would have to be low. That's the one thing that stopped me from shooting QL all the time. I have no use to store my film in a different system, so tossing the envelopes seems like a waste. If they could be reused several times that would be great, and would make me feel a bit better about the impact on the planet. For this plastic would be my choice. Though I can see why you wouldn't want them to be reused from a sales standpoint.

mrladewig

14-Aug-2009, 06:21

ljsegil

14-Aug-2009, 09:00

Absolutely interested, and continuing to have dreams of you one day being able to exand the concept to other formats. Now that would be having one's cake and eating it too!
All the best of luck in your endeavour.
Larry

Jeremy Moore

14-Aug-2009, 09:54

rdenney

14-Aug-2009, 11:22

My supply of readyloads is limited and one of my favorite films (new Portra 400NC) was never available in readyload. I looked at (own) the original Mido product, but it just doesn't seem like a worakable solution. I'm definitely interested in this product.

What turned out to be wrong with the Mido product? It was just coming out as my large-format work went into dormancy, and I was interested but never pursued it. I really hated having to change film in the field--it messed up my whole numbering system and I could never keep my hands from sweating in a changing bag. I still have 10 double film holders, and I still remember not enjoying having to carry all of them around. Those were only good for about a day in an interesting place.

Rick "for whom Quickload is currently his only practical 4x5 solution" Denney

Drew Wiley

14-Aug-2009, 13:55

There was another thread a few months back dealing with Mido holders. In summary,
the first style of holders was difficult for many of us to load. The second style resembles an ordinary double-sided holder but is thinner, and uses a clamshell device
to attain specification thickness. These work better and are much more compact to
carry than ordinary filmholders, but certainly not as light as Quickloads. I might use my
Mido holders again in the next two months if my ACROS Quickloads run out. The Mido
concept was good, but light leaks were sometimes a risk, just as with the earlier
Kodak Readloads (the single-sided version). Even with a modified 545 holder (steel
rollers removed), twenty sheets of Quickload amount to about 3/4 lb less wt than 12
sheets in Mido holders. Given even more sheets, the weight difference would itself
increase. Of course, I certainly grateful to what Mr.Mido attempted to do. But it's quite
an effort to patent something and then market it and expect to make money too.
Not easy to do nowadays in a niche market, especially if someone in China clones the
product and doesn't give a damn if they are breaking trade laws. Wal-Mart does this
kind of crap all the time - "go ahead and sue us, you'll go broke trying!"

Sal Santamaura

14-Aug-2009, 14:01

...a modified 545 holder (steel rollers removed)...Is that the extent of your modification? Was it done only to save weight or is there some film positioning benefit too?

Drew Wiley

14-Aug-2009, 15:06

Sal - No. There were several other minor things involved in modifying the 545 to create a light trap once the rollers were removed. I also ground down the pull tab to
make it a little more compact in a box with the film itself. Not all 545's are equal. The
one I chose to modify held the film flatter than several other 545's, and a whole lot
better than the official Fuji and Kodak holders of the era. I also suspect it's a lot more
reliabe in the long run.

Gordon Moat

14-Aug-2009, 22:40

As mentioned in another post, the envelopes are made of card/paper and could be prone to creating dust the more they are used and, due to the size and nature of the clip on the bottom, it may not survive closing the envelope securely more than a couple of times. Although, in theory, you could reuse the system, I wouldn't like to predict how reliable it would be after the first use. There simply isn't the space in the existing holders to make something that bulletproof.

The US retail price difference from pre-packed Quickloads to individual loose sheet film is about $1.18 a sheet. Just on a convenience level of being able to use Quickloads or Readyloads, I would be buying if the price each on a packet system worked out anywhere near $1.25 each, or ideally less. If they ended up closer to $2.00 each, then I would likely only buy enough for when I need to travel for a location shoot.

The advantage for me of packet systems has never been the dust issue, though if any dust level was equal to using my Linhof holders, then that is quite good enough. The lower packing density of Quickloads and Readyloads is a great travel advantage, and I would not look forward to changing to regular film holders. However, the greatest advantage I see in Quickload and Readyload is that there is a pressure plate in the holder; I don't want to give up that film flatness.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Kirk Keyes

15-Aug-2009, 10:14

I'm interested as well.

And dust was a big concern for me - have you tried loading holders in Death Valley in your tent during a windy spring visit? I did, and got dust on everything. Readyloads came out the next year, and I haven't loaded a holder (for 4x5) in over 20 years now.

But I'm still interested in this!

Steve Gledhill

16-Aug-2009, 10:58

All power to your elbow Joanna. I'm very interested to get Tmax400 into an envelope type system.
Can you share your timescale with us please?

Drew Wiley

16-Aug-2009, 15:29

Kirk - Death Valley can certainly be the acid test of filmholder cleanliness, especially
aroung the clay playas. When I used a metal camera (Sinar) I would ground the
camera back using a length of speaker wire, an alligator clip, and a nail at the other end, to push into the ground. And the filmholders were sprayed with antistatic
fluid of course. I got real good at changing film in a Harrison tent, but in a place like
Death Valley the clay dust gets everywhere, espcecially in the Spring when the winds are active. Much better to clean and load everything in advance. Two years
ago I took the 8x10 there in similar conditions and didn't get any dust on my
exposures whatsoever. Since I was mostly shooting color film, one gets paranoid
at the potentially dollar loss of carelessness. And in my case, because I print
optically, there's no second chance with Photoshop.

BarryS

16-Aug-2009, 20:35

This sounds like a great idea. I've found traveling with a bunch of double dark slide holders to be a big pain in the field. If the cost were reasonable enough, I'd buy a large quantity. Polyester 4x5" storage sleeves cost about $0.20 each and while I wouldn't expect quickload sleeves to be as inexpensive, I look very closely at my total shooting costs. I pay about $1.10/sheet of film and doubling the cost of shooting would be prohibitive to me.

I've been doing some research on Tyvek for a project and it might be a good choice for making reusable sleeves. It can be antistatic-treated and it's very durable.

SW Rick

17-Aug-2009, 10:19

While cost would be a factor, B&W Quickloads seem to have been running $2.75-3.00 toward "the end". If this system were as effective as QLs have been, I don't think it unreasonable to expect to have a bottom-line cost somewhere in that neighborhood (and you would have many more options for type of film). If that's what it takes, so be it. No need to use them for everything (unless one wishes), but they are/were worth their weight in gold when you needed them. YMMV.

David Hedley

18-Aug-2009, 02:56

This looks very interesting, and I'd be interested in knowing more details as and when you can reveal them. I'd also be willing to 'road test' a prototype, hiking in the Swiss Alps, if that would be helpful to you.

Reading through the thread quickly, there are several good points coming through around dust, weight, materials choice, reusability, film flatness, cost and intellectual property, which I hope you can resolve. Fuji Quickload seems to have been the only system that has worked consistently reliably and effectively - Kodak struggled to emulate it - and I never understood why Ilford didn't try to license Quickload from Fuji (may be they did try but failed, or had bigger problems to tackle).

Eric Leppanen

18-Aug-2009, 09:14

...I never understood why Ilford didn't try to license Quickload from Fuji (may be they did try but failed, or had bigger problems to tackle).

Historically Ilford did, but the effort did not make sense financially; see Simon Galley's post at APUG:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/39715-ilford-quickloads-2.html#post476491

As for Ilford packaging their film in Readyload-like packets given Kodak's recent withdrawal from that market: even if Ilford obtained the packaging equipment for free, it is questionable as to whether it would be cost-effective for them. Per John Sexton's discussion with Kodak, Kodak got out of Readyloads because the production volumes were no longer there, see:

http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter06-2008.html#anchor02

My take is that Ilford has concluded that they would not make money from an "Ilford-load" project.

Nathan Potter

18-Aug-2009, 09:46

Comments above have involved patent issues. I would suspect that any patents involving the use of a sleeve using a capture clip and application to the temporary protection of light sensitive film has run out since the device has been around for a long time by both Polaroid and Kodak. Any new patent would need to be a non obvious application and/or a new device design. Challenging the marketing of the old device would be expensive, and to what purpose, since at this point it is an obsolete antique. However if Joanna has a fundamentally new design and which is an improvement on the old system then I would recommend filing a disclosure with an eye toward international patent protection.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Joanna Carter

18-Aug-2009, 10:31

However if Joanna has a fundamentally new design and which is an improvement on the old system then I would recommend filing a disclosure with an eye toward international patent protection.
Unfortunately, Joanna doesn't have the odd £10,000 it could well cost to employ patent lawyers.

It is doubtful whether the cost of patenting would be recoverable without setting the unit price of the envelopes at a level that would make most people choke. So, I am just going to hope on people's honour that nobody is immoral enough to steal the design when it becomes available. But, if that were to happen, at least we would still have the solution to carrying more film in less weight.

OTOH, anyone got a few spare thousand pounds they would invest? :D :cool:

David Hedley

18-Aug-2009, 10:42

I look forward to seeing your presentation in the Dragon's Den, Joanna!

Joanna Carter

18-Aug-2009, 10:45

I look forward to seeing your presentation in the Dragon's Den, Joanna!
Not a chance! :rolleyes: For the kind of return they want on investment, I doubt if I would end up with the bus fare home ;)

Patrick Dixon

18-Aug-2009, 11:04

Unfortunately, Joanna doesn't have the odd £10,000 it could well cost to employ patent lawyers.

AFAIR you can file a patent application for relatively little. If you then go on to actually file the patent, and to file it in all the regions where you'd need to protect it, it costs a small fortune - plus you probably would have to give in if any large company ignored it anyway.

What you should do, is to document your invention with verifiable dates, so that if anyone tries to sue you for breaching their later patent on the same thing, you have the proof to make them go away.

Joanna Carter

18-Aug-2009, 11:32

If you then go on to actually file the patent, and to file it in all the regions where you'd need to protect it, it costs a small fortune - plus you probably would have to give in if any large company ignored it anyway.
Plus the problem that, should a Chinese company wish to copy it, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it; some of them will even steal your brand names if they want.

What you should do, is to document your invention with verifiable dates, so that if anyone tries to sue you for breaching their later patent on the same thing, you have the proof to make them go away.
That is something I have taken care of.

GPS

18-Aug-2009, 11:46

Unfortunately, Joanna doesn't have the odd £10,000 it could well cost to employ patent lawyers.

It is doubtful whether the cost of patenting would be recoverable without setting the unit price of the envelopes at a level that would make most people choke. So, I am just going to hope on people's honour that nobody is immoral enough to steal the design when it becomes available. But, if that were to happen, at least we would still have the solution to carrying more film in less weight.
...

There is a whole army of people specializing in stealing new ideas or products that have no legal protection. Invention exhibitions are full of them, they are like birds of prey there. Even reputable firms will gladly use ideas taken from trusting amateurs that approached them with their inventions. Immoral? Ask the firms what they think about it...:rolleyes: The standard reply to these amateurs is -" thank you for you idea but we have already something similar in development..." Some time after the trusting amateur sees "his" idea in "their" product... Happens all the time. If a firm sees they could take the unprotected idea and make some money with it they will not hesitate to do so. :(

DJGainer

18-Aug-2009, 13:59

Any chance this will be on the market by Thursday? I have a backpacking trip planned and I'd love to try out the system. :)

Drew Wiley

18-Aug-2009, 16:28

Filing a patent isn't terribly expensive, but running a patent search in advance, writing things in such a manner that it is sufficiently broad yet specific, and having the ability to defend the patent afterwards does cost dearly! Typically around fifty
grand. Plus there's startup and marketing expenses. Fortunately, no big manufacturer
is probably interested in stealing something like this, especially since they seem to be
in a big hurry to throw their own thin holders down the drain as fast as possible!

Nathan Potter

18-Aug-2009, 16:35

Another point for Joanna. Publishing the details of your device or filing a disclosure with the US Patent Office, discloses the design to the public and puts it in the public domain. In that event you get no patent protection of your design of course and others can manufacture the same device but you cannot be prevented from marketing your version because it has already been disclosed to the public. BTW filing a disclosure is cheap - something under $ 100.00 in the USA.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Gordon Moat

18-Aug-2009, 20:09

Struan Gray

19-Aug-2009, 00:09

You might want to spend a couple of days researching startup incubators in your area. In most of the parts of Europe I've worked local authorities, education ministries and even unemployment bureaus, have all had funds available to help with patent applications and small-scale startups. My experience has been with university startups and science parks, where a reasonably good idea can quite easily get a national or European patent filed entirely from grants (reckon on around €10k as a basic budget). If you're outside the cushy world of higher education it can be harder, but the Liverpool area has no shortage of bodies promoting new businesses. If you want to gain entrance into the higher education world, and don't mind sharing a bit, courses on manufacturing engineering and packaging design are always looking for suitable degree and masters projects.

GPS

19-Aug-2009, 02:30

You might want to spend a couple of days researching startup incubators in your area.
...

Indeed, you might. Just beware of the fact that many of them are run by the mentioned army of people specializing in stealing ideas from exactly same trusting amateurs like you...:( And yes, they will even help you with writing the patent application - somehow, the final advantage will stay with them though... You have your patent, we have the money from manufacturing...:) These "bureaus" will even find you and offer their service if only you happened to contact some institution to get help for you patent. They are very good at it and they behave very professionally to get your idea before anyone else does. After all, it's much easier to steal ideas than to have them...

Joanna Carter

19-Aug-2009, 04:34

Just beware of the fact that many of them are run by the mentioned army of people specializing in stealing ideas from exactly same trusting amateurs like you
What Struan is talking about is government run bodies, not commercial.

z_photo

19-Aug-2009, 04:56

The lower packing density of Quickloads and Readyloads is a great travel advantage, and I would not look forward to changing to regular film holders. However, the greatest advantage I see in Quickload and Readyload is that there is a pressure plate in the holder; I don't want to give up that film flatness.

yes! and now how about a complete 5x7 solution as well?!? :D

Struan Gray

19-Aug-2009, 04:59

What Struan is talking about is government run bodies, not commercial.

True.

The bodies I, my family and my colleagues work with haven't derived any direct benefit whatsoever. Their purpose is to stimulate innovation for various economic and political reasons. Given that they exist, anyone wanting a slice of the action (rather than a fee) to help you file an IP registration should be viewed with suspicion.

From what I've seen, the scum tend descend en masse once you need to raise more capital than a mortgage or bank loan can provide.

I am sure there are exceptions, and horror stories, but securing intellectual property for small startups is, for the moment, a political priority in Europe, so it might be easier than many here think for Joanna to protect her ideas.

FilmIsNotDead

19-Aug-2009, 05:49

yes! and now how about a complete 5x7 solution as well?!? :D

Ooooh... now I'm getting excited. :)

Nathan Potter

19-Aug-2009, 08:24

Yes, Struan has a good idea for funding through a government agency or the like. I recently used a US National Science Foundation grant money to develop a MEMS hermetic package resulting in US Patent 7,576,427. Various agency support can work quite well if you can find a fit of interests. I write my own patents using a couple of books detailing the procedures although it is not a trivial process. Look on Amazon for such books. The actual filing costs range around US $500.00. Subsequent maintenance fees are much higher.

BTW my previous comment was inaccurate about filing a disclosure with the Patent Office, at least in the US. A disclosure is kept confidential to the Patent Office until the full patent is filed. Then the patent is published as a patent application by the Patent Office and becomes in the public domain.

In Joannas case her effort may best be executed through a job shop contract since it may ultimately yield a small market. In such case the sleeve mechanism may be put together by hand or with relatively simple machine aids by a job shop. If a new type of holder is needed then that might be a machine shop job for someone like SK Grimes or equivalent.

Joanna we need you to come up with something so best of luck.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Lenny Eiger

19-Aug-2009, 13:43

Joanna - don't give up on 8x10. Personally, I don't care one bit about dust. Spotting in PhotoShop is easy and one has to do it only once. Carrying enough holders for 15-20 shots in 8x10 keeps me way too close to the car... about a mile or two. Readyloads would take the weight down to the weight of 1-2 holders, which would be very easy to manage. It's a much larger benefit than replacing 4x5 holders.

If the extra 4 inches on the end flaps in the breeze, one can always fix a little black tape on it and tape it to the camera...

If you can manage this, you might become St. Joanna! At least for us 8x10'ers.

Best of luck.

Lenny

Rider

19-Aug-2009, 18:26

I would be interested if it's easy to load in a changing bag, not too pricey and reliable.

Ben Syverson

19-Aug-2009, 22:49

I second the 8x10 suggestion. I can carry as many 4x5 double darks as I would ever possibly need for a trip, but the same is certainly not true for 8x10.

jb7

20-Aug-2009, 01:00

But-
the delivery system for 4x5 already exists,
I don't think Joanna is contemplating designing a new holder-

If an 8x10 packet was to be added, what holder would it fit in?

Steve Wright

20-Aug-2009, 06:36

GO FOR IT! WE WANT IT! How cool it would be since Fuji bailed on us.
Steve

Rider

20-Aug-2009, 06:52

GO FOR IT! WE WANT IT! How cool it would be since Fuji bailed on us.
Steve

When did Fuji bail? I thought they still made Quickloads.

Joanna Carter

20-Aug-2009, 07:15

When did Fuji bail? I thought they still made Quickloads
They do, it's only Acros that they have stopped selling in QL, but not in loose sheet.

Tim Povlick

20-Aug-2009, 12:10

I am interested in 8x10 if at all possible. The holders are expensive and to heavy to carry adequate amounts in the field.

_ .. --
TiM

Andrew O'Neill

20-Aug-2009, 16:38

I too would be interested in an 8x10 envelope system.

jeroldharter

20-Aug-2009, 16:52

I'm in for both 4x5 and 8x10. Especially 8x10 where the weight (and space) advantage would be amplified.

jb7

20-Aug-2009, 17:00

Am I missing something?

Does the holder for 8x10 packets already exist?

Nathan Potter

20-Aug-2009, 19:13

Am I missing something?

Does the holder for 8x10 packets already exist?

No, but many are hoping that if Joanna could get something functioning for say 4X5 it might be extendable to other formats. Of course larger formats will be more difficult due to film flatness considerations once the sleeve is removed. I'm guessing that she would like to make something compatible with the existing 4X5 QL back first.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

jb7

20-Aug-2009, 23:45

Thanks Nate-

now there's a design challenge...

Mike1234

30-Aug-2009, 19:16

Any update as to if/when this will come to fruition? Also, there is still no plan to produce larger (5x7 and/or 8x10) holders and packet systems, right?

ljsegil

31-Aug-2009, 08:48

Oh please, let's have larger formats available! I would think that some of our LF innovators (such as Ritter, Canham or Wehman just to toss around a few people who come readily to mind) could work cooperatively to scale up the technology needed to develop envelopes and holders for larger formats. Sweet dreams.
Larry

guyrish

31-Aug-2009, 21:57

Joanna,

Let me start by thanking you for the effort.
I've only recently gotten into LF and it seems that every time I become aware of something cool the manufacturer is it killing off; I've become increasingly frustrated. I only found out today that Fujifilm killed the Acros QLs. I was going to stock up for a trip I'm taking in two weeks only to find that no one is carrying anymore! And I just bought a box in July! Now I need to reconsider my whole packing effort, Omaha to San Francisco with a fat stack of Riteway film holders. Hauling it all to the top of Lombard Street isn't exactly hiking through the hills/mountains - but it's still a bit of a hump nevertheless.
It's encouraging to see that other people are sufficiently frustrated that they are working on a solution.

I'm sure you know what my next line is, the (tired?) refrain: when?
I, for one, wouldn't mind beta testing a system. And I'm happy to sign an NDA to protect your sweat equity. I am _imminently_ more interested in a solution.

rish

S. Preston Jones

3-Sep-2009, 06:52

Joanna,
I hope you can get this project working. While I do use some 4x5, my main camera is 5x7, with some use of 4x10 and 8x10. Please include them and the many other sizes that people are using. Once you get the first size made, it might not be too hard to scale to other sizes. This envelope would be a great space saver even if the envelopes are not reusable for more than a couple of times. Going out into the field with 20 loaded 5x7 or 10 loaded 8x10 holders in my backpack is something I can no longer do.

As to if one should have a Patent Agent or Patent Attorney look at possible infringement of someone's patent, that is always a good idea. I worked in the patent field for 43 years, but one should not be led to think that everything is old and that you will automatically infringe others work.

I look forward to this project getting off the ground. When Mido was around, I had hoped it would work. I am in your corner.

Preston

Joanna Carter

3-Sep-2009, 08:22

While I do use some 4x5, my main camera is 5x7, with some use of 4x10 and 8x10. Please include them and the many other sizes that people are using. Once you get the first size made, it might not be too hard to scale to other sizes.
Don't forget, I am only working on an envelope that can be used in an existing holder system. Unless there already exists a Quickload/Readyload/Polaroid holder for the sizes you mention, it becomes slightly more of a task than to simply upsize the envelopes.

As to if one should have a Patent Agent or Patent Attorney look at possible infringement of someone's patent, that is always a good idea. I worked in the patent field for 43 years, but one should not be led to think that everything is old and that you will automatically infringe others work.
Since the cost of patent lawyers is likely to be nothing short of £10,000, I figure it's got to be cheaper to apologise and withdraw the product than to employ a lawyer.

As to protecting my own IP, I just hope folks who are mad enough to lug around these great sacks full of gear have enough integrity not to stab me in the back whilst my LF gear is not attached :D

Of course, if anyone is willing to lay some hard cash on the line to help with the development of holders for the larger sizes.....

Mike1234

3-Sep-2009, 08:41

Don't forget, I am only working on an envelope that can be used in an existing holder system. Unless there already exists a Quickload/Readyload/Polaroid holder for the sizes you mention, it becomes slightly more of a task than to simply upsize the envelopes.

So 8x10 isn't out of the question? :D

As to protecting my own IP, I just hope folks who are mad enough to lug around these great sacks full of gear have enough integrity not to stab me in the back whilst my LF gear is not attached.

Sadly, and not to discourage you, but this is far too optimistic. People are people and this is not always a good thing. :(

Of course, if anyone is willing to lay some hard cash on the line to help with the development of holders for the larger sizes.....

This is a good idea but people are people... and most people, even billionaires with more money than they could ever spend in ten lifetimes love their money far more than helping others to succeed or accomplish something which benefits others. Yes, I'm jaded... been scrooed far too often and am too old now to change my opinion... set in my ways, ya' know. ;)

Ahh... but don't let this brain-dead jaded fool discourage you. I want this very fine product as much as anyone else. :)

Mike1234

3-Sep-2009, 09:23

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=50077

GPS

3-Sep-2009, 12:55

There are very good technical reasons why the very same firms that came with envelops packed films never ventured into sizes bigger than 4x5 film format (with exception of the defunct Mido 4x10 envelops) in their systems - despite the fact that they knew very well the advantages of such a system in these larger formats... ;-)

Gordon Moat

25-Dec-2009, 15:42

Just thought with the recent rumors of Fuji Quickload, that this thread should be re-started. Please.

Oren Grad

25-Dec-2009, 16:07

Latest:

http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1335&p=8784#p8784

Fred L

26-Dec-2009, 14:35

Thanks for the link Oren.

Although I haven't used Readyloads or Quickoads, I've always liked the concept of it for many reasons. If Joanna does explore it further, I'd 'invest' a bit to help get it off the ground as carrying holders is becoming a pita. My rough numbers, if she needs roughly $16k USD, works out to $32 each if 500 photographers get behind it. That's not too much of a hurt and more than worth it.

and further, if this can be applied to 8x10 film and Polaroid holders, I'd be more than pumped to help out.

madmax12

29-Dec-2009, 09:02

I believe i got 32.00 to invest maybe more :)

Richard M. Coda

29-Dec-2009, 09:47

One of the very few things, OK, the only thing, that I would invest in today. :)

SW Rick

29-Dec-2009, 09:54

Joanna posted over on APUG that she will have further news/info after the New Year; sounds like Fuji's exit makes her concept even more viable. Let's hope so!

Leonard Metcalf

26-Jan-2010, 06:01

bump

salihonba

15-Mar-2010, 18:18

any new now? I am very interesting on this idea!

Gordon Flodders

19-Mar-2010, 22:46

Is this a similar idea to the MIDO paper envelopes from a while back? I have hundreds, but never thought of giving them a try. I heard they were leaky?

GF.

tgtaylor

19-Mar-2010, 22:57

Quickloads, Readyloads, and Polaroid holders are D E A D: Ded!

That said, I have a Kodak Readyload and a MINT - NEVER USED - Fuji Quickload holder in box that I'll part with. I'm holding on to my Polaroid 550 Pack Film holder just in case I decide to try out the Fuji Instant films.

David Callard

1-Dec-2011, 23:39

Is this project still under development? I mourn the loss of Ready/Quickloads and certainly support Joanna's idea. I would be a willing customer, and moreover I don't think the envelopes should be reusable, after all Joanna needs to make a profit to make it all worthwhile! I shall be following this story with interest.

John Koehrer

4-Dec-2011, 16:07

WRT larger formats, I believe the key wouldn't be to manufacture them the holder, but design several sizes and provide the construction plan and requirements into the public domain as a give away.
I doubt that the size of the market would justify the cost of a patent.

That would allow Joanna to fabricate the envelopes in different sizes without having to make hardware.

Two interesting anecdotes(to me). The fellow who invented the weed whacker was quoted, after fighting patent infringements for several years, that he would have been money ahead not spending the money defending his patent.

Sometimes the little guy does win: The gent who patented the design for the turn signal in a side view mirror took the idea to Ford and Mercedes. Both companies declined the offer to buy the idea, two years go by and both companies come out with? Turn indicators in side view mirrors. Our guy sued and 14,000,000.00 later the car companies had licensed the designs.