Readyload and quickload insanity

[Jerry Fusselman]

When I shoot 4x5, I avoid standard film holders. In fact, I own none in 4x5. Instead, my cameras all have Graflok backs. My ground glass must be detached from the Graflok back to shoot 4x5 film. But which packaged-film holder---Polaroid, Quickload, or Readyload? Obviously, when using instant film I should use a Polaroid holder, but my concern here is when using slow slide film. Unless I am missing something, it seems that all three options have great problems from my standpoint:

The Polaroid 545 holders are really heavy. I would rather not use them just because of their weight. Furthermore, there is some question as to film flatness when used with non-Polaroid film, though in my very limited tests the 545 appeared to offer better film flatness than my Quickload.

The Fuji Quickload holders are good except for two problems that, when combined, I consider deal breakers: The first problem is that with Fuji film a rather large circle in the lower-left corner of the image is missing. The film is simply not there, as if paper-punched out. Insane! I either have to crop a major portion of my image away, or I have to fake that area in Photoshop. However, I could still maybe use this holder if not for the second problem---it works poorly with Kodak film. It seems widely reported that the failure rate of Readyload film in a Quickload holder is too high for almost anyone.

The older style of Readyload holders, which attempted to hold two sheets of film simultaneously, have failure rates that are just too high. So it looks like Kodak film in a modern Readyload holder is the best idea, and this would be so for me except for this last piece of insanity: It has no mechanism to connect securely to a Graflok back! It fits, but you cannot use any of the three or four available ingenius techniques to attach it to a Graflok back. There are no grooves, no latches, nothing to help attach it to the Graflok back.

Have I missed something? Has someone figured out, with a modification perhaps, how to attach the Readyload to just a Graflok back (without relying on a spring-loaded ground glass to hold it in)? Why no public outcry, no senate investigation, for Fuji's decision to put holes in your image? Does Readyload film have a similar disgusting hole?

[Mike Lopez]

Hi Jerry,

The current Readyload holders actually do have small grooves in place for what you describe. They are kind of small, but they are there. I've used them to attach the holder to my Shen-Hao.

Mike

[Jerry Fusselman]

Hi Mike,

These grooves that you see are on the side of the Readyload holder? Mine have none whatsoever, alas. How securely does it attach compared to your other Graflok accessories?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

What film are you talking about that has holes in it when used with a Quickload holder? I've never had that problem with Velvia 50, Velvia 100, or Astia. I've heard that the Fuji black and white emulsion has a hole in it, but I thought that that was also with the non-Quickload version.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Are you saying you need to remove the glass? On my cameras with Grafloc style backs I can slip the Readyload holder under the glass like a regular film holder. Your camera doesn't support this?

Also, the only Fuji films I have seen with the hole are the negative films, of which I have seen it on NPS and Acros. The color slide films don't seem to have it.

[Mike Lopez]

Jerry,

The grooves I see are on the two long sides of the holder. They are maybe 1/8" wide and 1/8" deep (or thereabouts). I don't have any other Graflok stuff to compare to, but the holder seems to fit fine with these grooves. I think I could also get the holder underneath the ground glass, but it might be overstressing the Shen-Hao clamps. My pictures have always been in focus with my method, so I just stuck to it.

Mike

[Jerry Fusselman]

Brian, the Fuji film was Velvia 50, Provia, and some C-41 tungsten film (probably 160 ISO). Your not seeing it gets really curious, because the manager at my pro lab (Gamma) had never seen it before I brought it to his attention. They called Fuji, who said yes, we do it all of the time. The hole is there, they admitted. Also, at an LF exhibit I went to last year, the photographer admitted that those holes drive him crazy, and he showed me where in some of his prints he had had to make up detail to replace the holes. Brian, would you please look again to be sure you have no holes anywhere on your film?

Larry, my 4x5 cameras have no spring-loaded ground glass under which to insert a regular film holder. So, in answer to your question, yes, my cameras do not support that.

To those of you who have never seen the holes, do you ever print the entire image? If so, is it possible that the area of the film that you expose is a smaller area than I expose? If you really have no holes (I am not referring to the tiny extreme-edge pin pricks that hold the film during development), I am at a loss, unless you are willing to look again. Velvia or Provia would be fine.

[Jerry Fusselman]

Mike, thanks. Do you have any idea when your Readyload holder was purchased new? What colors are the holder? It holds only one sheet at a time?

[Mike Lopez]

I bought it new from Badger Graphics in 2003. It only takes one sheet at a time. The holder is black, and I think it has a mix of red and white text on the back.

[Bill_1856]

Why would you take the spring loaded GG back off your camera to put on a film holder? Just slide the holder under back like a regular film holder. If you want to secure it with the slides you can do that, too, but it's unnecessary. Sheesh!