New Envelope System for Quickload, ReadyLoad and Polaroid Holders

[Nathan Potter]

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]

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

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]

Great idea, Joanna and good luck with the manufacture.

[SW Rick]

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

[cowanw]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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.