I just bought a years' worth of TMX, largely because it was a film Kodak seemed committed to. Next year I go FP4+ or Delta 100.
I just bought a years' worth of TMX, largely because it was a film Kodak seemed committed to. Next year I go FP4+ or Delta 100.
Fuji Neopan 80 is available in Quickloads through Badger Graphics - it is a truly wonderful film and the Quickload format works. Regards,
DAB.
Not to discourage the letter campaign, but I fear that what speaks the loudest to Kodak or any other manufacturer is 'sales volume'. Kodak may give consideration to your cards, letters and words of woe, however, if the particular product doesn't have sufficient sales volume or profit margin, they may choose to invest the monies, spent to produce said product, in another product or new technology (Digital?). I was interested doing some B&W Infrared photography, then I heard Kodak was discontinuing their High Speed Infrared (HSI) 4x5 sheet film, so I purchased a few boxes. What I'm hinting at is, for those of you who were considering purchasing Readyloads and haven't, now is the time. Put you money where you want the products to be. Kodak may perceive this as a 'Product termination hoarding frenzy', but if the volume is high enough it may make them think twice (i.e. add B&W to the new single sheet Readyload production). And those already using and purchasing Readyloads,...absolutely, send in the cards and letters and talk to the dealers and reps. and voice the arguments against(And of course, buy more Readyloads). Just a thought, Gary Jones (And,no ...I don't work for Kodak or any other film producer)
Readyload availability aside, how many folks out there consider TMAX to be their 4x5 B&W emulsion of choice? I don't use TMAX, so can't comment from experience, but from past comments in this forum and from other local photographers I know, I've never perceived it to be an all-time, all-star, gold metal winning film of the majority.
To me, the availability of Quick/Ready-load format isn't a reason in itself to use a film. It's just a nice option for films I already like to use. If you could have the B&W emulsion of your choice in Quick/Ready-load format, what would it be? For me, it would be FP4.
In responce to Larry's question, my film of choice is Trix and I would love to se it in a readyload. I do use Tmax readyloads when traveling more than a couple of days. It allows me to not have to reload lots of holders everynight in a motel room.
My two choices would be TriX and TMX and TMY. Love the stuff. James
I just ordered a bunch of Neopan 80 Quickloads. The cost was $60 per 20-sheet box! I guess the high failure rate of the Kodak packets people experience will justify the expense.
After that I may do something smart, sell my LF gear and shoot roll film.
Bill
To me, the availability of Quick/Ready-load format isn't a reason in itself to use a film. It's just a nice option for films I already like to use. If you could have the B&W emulsion of your choice in Quick/Ready-load format, what would it be? For me, it would be FP4.
I have better things to do with my time (like using my camera) than to dust film holders or fool with any of the other nonsense that goes with using traditional cut sheet film and holders. I keep my camera and bellows fairly clean, and Readyloads allow me to spend much less time spotting prints, making me more productive.
This is why I'm so upset about Kodak's silence. And, unlike the high- tech company they wish they could be, Kodak's marketing and accounting wonks never try to gauge customer reaction through any means other than raw sales numbers.
John Sexton uses readyload for the same reasons I do. He's also a big T-Max booster, for reasons I found once I really started experimenting with the film.
Don't write, don't call. If past history is any indication, Kodak won't care - but if Fuji is listening, they'll may be able to steal another small part of Yellow Peril's market.
My day job has been in the graphic industry most of my adult life. The attitude seen in this issuse is typical of the Kodak corp. I've experienced it from film to digital imaging divisions. I tend to agree with Doug Broussard. No amount of letter writing will change the minds at Kodak. Just look back a few years and see what they did to the folks that made dye transfer prints.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks