Readyloads Discontinued?

[Sal Santamaura]

Unopened packages should be perfectly fine for extended periods of time...

I'm not certain about that. I recently discussed this with a friend who said he took a similar approach when pack film was discontinued. Upon using some years later, he developed the film only to find pinholes throughout the negatives. All other characteristics were normal. We speculate that the paper wasn't safe for such extended storage.

It would be interesting to hear from Kodak whether cardboard used for ReadyLoad packets passes the Photographic Activity Test.

[Michael Kadillak]

I'm not certain about that. I recently discussed this with a friend who said he took a similar approach when pack film was discontinued. Upon using some years later, he developed the film only to find pinholes throughout the negatives. All other characteristics were normal. We speculate that the paper wasn't safe for such extended storage.

It would be interesting to hear from Kodak whether cardboard used for ReadyLoad packets passes the Photographic Activity Test.

I will ask Kodak and post the response.

Cheers!

[Robert Ruderman]

Michael - I'd be quite interested in learning what you find out from Kodak on this matter. Please keep us posted.

[Michael Kadillak]

Had a chance to speak to Kodak on this matter and I found out that the paper backing that Kodak employs in their readyloads is carefully selected for the task at hand with an emphasis on longevity. The key to this whole situation is to leave the sealed packet intact and when it is opened, try to expose the film as soon as possible.

The ready load is packaged at 40% humidity within this sealed container for a reason and should last many years in cold storage with no performance issues. I was told that most of the time the problems with failures has been when the packet has been opened and stored in this condition for an extended term term which is not recommended.

Inventory is still very robust so if this is a product that you use regularly, now is the time to stock up.

Cheers!

[Jay W]

My first post today didn't go through....

I have stored Readyloads for years in the freezer by putting the whole box a ziplock. That seems to simply protect the cardboard box from getting old (grin). Once I open the sealed inner packaging, I also put the film in a ziplock. It has worked fine for me.

It seems Kodak would rather make 200 million a year in profit with a 20% increase per year, rather than make make a billion per year that’s decreasing 20%. Management has this mantra about the shareholders…

I used to work for Kodak, and have talked to current employees about the idea that Kodak makes _a lot_ of profit from film, paper, and chemicals and probably doesn’t make nearly as much profit from electronics (and has a lot of competition in electronics), but it seems Kodak is willing to kill off the film, paper, and chemical sales because they’re decreasing. They keep trying to get a foothold in some other market, and it seems they are really struggling.

Jay

[ljsegil]

Kodak's behavior seems almost schizophrenic. This year they bring out a significantly improved TMY400 and Portra emulsions, which must have used up major R&D and production dollars, and at the same time kill off popular products like the Readyloads, continued production of which requires no new cash outlay, and drop all sorts of larger sheet sizes in some of their best and most popular emulsions like E100VS 8x10 and 5x7 Portra160NC. Can anyone explain their logic? I assume it somehow translates into improved profits, but I sure don't understand how.
LJS

[Gene McCluney]

The logic (as I see it) is to reduce the number of products until the remaining ones sell in enough volume to turn a profit. Concentrating all the consumers into fewer choices.' I, personally, would rather have a few world class films available on a sustainable basis, than a wider variety from a company that is in danger of going belly-up due to spreading the market too thin on individual products.
Also, if it is true that Polaroid was actually providing the complex assembly of the film packs, then that is another reason to discontinue, as Polaroid has closed all film production and assembly plants.

[Michael Kadillak]

Kodak's behavior seems almost schizophrenic. This year they bring out a significantly improved TMY400 and Portra emulsions, which must have used up major R&D and production dollars, and at the same time kill off popular products like the Readyloads, continued production of which requires no new cash outlay, and drop all sorts of larger sheet sizes in some of their best and most popular emulsions like E100VS 8x10 and 5x7 Portra160NC. Can anyone explain their logic? I assume it somehow translates into improved profits, but I sure don't understand how.
LJS

Schizophrenic? Hardly.

Readyloads were discontinued because Polaroid owned the specialized equipment and the expertise to produced them under contract to Kodak for some time and Polaroid is no longer in business. The market share for this specialized product did not justify ramping up to produce these on their own or have someone else do it. Fuji would not do it because they are fundamental competitors.

Kodak is like any other film producer. If the numbers work, it will be done. Just because you cannot see the bigger picture from a corporate perspective does not mean it does not exist. Many on this and other forums were predicting that Kodak would have ceased to produce ANY analog film many years ago and yet they are continuing to find a way to make a go of it.

The best thing we can do is to purchase and shoot film - regularly and as often as possible. I know that I an doing my damn best to hold up my end of the bargain. Heading out for a couple of weeks work shortly.

Cheers!

[Gene McCluney]

Schizophrenic? Hardly.

Readyloads were discontinued because Polaroid owned the specialized equipment and the expertise to produced them under contract to Kodak for some time and Polaroid is no longer in business. The market share for this specialized product did not justify ramping up to produce these on their own or have someone else do it. Fuji would not do it because they are fundamental competitors.

Kodak is like any other film producer. If the numbers work, it will be done. Just because you cannot see the bigger picture from a corporate perspective does not mean it does not exist. Many on this and other forums were predicting that Kodak would have ceased to produce ANY analog film many years ago and yet they are continuing to find a way to make a go of it.

The best thing we can do is to purchase and shoot film - regularly and as often as possible. I know that I an doing my damn best to hold up my end of the bargain. Heading out for a couple of weeks work shortly.

Cheers!

I think even Polaroid marketed a E-6 compatible Polachrome readyload several years ago. I wonder if that film was actually manufactured by Kodak?

I completely agree with you about purchasing and using film. Already this month I have shot about 50 sheets 4x5 Ektachrome and 60 sheets 5x7 b/w, and the month is only half-over. I regularly consume sheet film in the hundreds of sheets per month.
I also use quite a bit of Fuji FP100c45 instant film for testing.

[Sal Santamaura]

I think even Polaroid marketed a E-6 compatible Polachrome readyload several years ago. I wonder if that film was actually manufactured by Kodak?...

Nope. Twas the original RDP from Fuji.