curious to know if there might be a concensus regarding usage of readyload type film holders in the field/assignment? in many cases, one might use the polaroid type film back and process the film at a later date. however, i'm curious about the kodak/fuji readyload backs--the pros and cons of these backs and the types of films which may be limited to either. if one were not to use either polaroid or traditional 4x5filmholders, what is the concensus re: kodak & fuji?
If you didn't realise, there are a number of opinions under 'older messages', 'film and holders'. I didn't notice a concensus though.
hi use regular sheet film holders (lisco/fidelity stuff) and fuji quickloads (some divided opinion on other pages at this site as to kodak readyloads suffering from ight leaks - i haven't used them, so can't comment). haven't noticed any dramatic difference between them though. i load my holders reasonably carefully and have so far managed to avoid dust problems (lucky, i guess) which appears to be one of the main advantages of the quickloads. there is a reference on this site to an article by englander on less sharp images with quickloads/readyloads - something to do with the degree of tolerence in the depth of the film holder in manufacture but i haven't noticed this difference myself. at my level of proficiency, i find more variability in field conditions affecting the image - in other words, i think my technique still screws up more pictures/produces more variability than my equipment. quickloads are more expensive compared to regular sheet film (roughly $2.5 versus 1.8 or so). my bias is towards using sheet film holders and having quickloads as a backup for something that really excites me. there also obviously is a much more limited variety of emulsions you can use with quickloads/ readyloads which might be an issue depending on your favoured emulsions. the other pages at this site should have more detailed info to help you out. hope this helps. thanks, dj
I have used the Fuji Quickload system almost exclusively for the past two & a half years, maybe longer. By system I mean the holder & packets. Prior to that I was using the Quickload film packets in a Polaroid 545i holder. I switched because testing revealed sharper images with the Fuji holder, especially at the edges. I probably shoot something approaching 2 cases per year. I shoot very little black & white in 4x5 and virtually no color negative in 4x5, so my experiences are limited to transparency films.
Here the advantages to the system as I see them:
1.) weight and bulk, especially in the field or on location for commercial shoots.
2.) Ease of use. As they are prepackaged I do not have to also take a film changing tent/bag with me, and I can carry much more film
3.) Time savings; no cleaning/ loading/unloading ritual.
4.) Reliability: with the Fuji QuickLoads, I have had zero failures due to lightleaks and no dust problems. I have not had any out of focus problems either, even when shooting wide open and the camera twisted in an anti-Schiempflug configuration so as to keep the depth of field very shallow with a very narrow point of focus.
The only limitation withthe Fuji system is , alas, the lack of a color negative (supposedly Fuji will release NPS in the Quickload packaging this summer), and unless you are in Europe no B&W negative.
I have not had good experiences with the Kodak Readyload system, so for me it is not reliable, but others have had very good experiences.
While I haven't had considerable experience with ReadyLoads yet, I've done some testing, and I find that many of the complaints out there regarding the system may be traced back to unclear documentation on Kodak's part.
I recently began shooting readyload again after watching a demonstration by Richard Newman from Calumet at a workshop. He emphasized a couple of key points, illustrated on Calumet's website at: this URL.
As far as a field-tested experience, I've had much better results shooting black and white with Readyloads. I cannot emphasize how much time and aggrivation I have saved because...hey, no dust. (I usually throw away negs if they would require heavy spotting in the print.)
So, while there may be no consensus here, the two pros I met on my last workshop (Richard Newman and Seiling) have had good experiences, and that, plus testing on my part has led me to believe that Readyload will do the job if you load and unload the holder correctly (see the URL above).
-Doug
As an addition to the above posts, I would like to offer my recent experiences with film holder-less 4x5 photography.
I am a week away from completing a 10 week, 42 location architectural book project, entirely shot on Fuji Quickload and Kodak Readyload systems. I have observed the following things over the +800 Fuji sheets [RVP, RAP, RTP] and +360 Kodak sheets [T-Max 100] used on this project:
- If a film envelope gets jammed, or the film itself becomes lodged in the holder, or most likely, the metal clip on the end becomes lodged inside the holder, your basically screwed with either system. They both require disassembly of the holder to clear the jam. The Fuji holder, while not overly complex, is worse than the Kodak as far as "field stripping" it goes. The Fuji seems to have a propensity to leave things inside the holder when it decides to puke, causing complete system shut-down, while the Kodak packets just seem to self destruct when things go wrong, ruining the first exposed sheet [Kodak uses 2 sheets per packet]. So pick your poison on which is better. Lesson learned by me was, always pull slow and straight, and ALWAYS carry a Leatherman tool - I prefer the way the Fuji system works, especially the single sheet of film to an envelope. The Kodak system will fog the end of the film sheets if you are shooting under direct sun light [i.e. the camera has direct sunlight falling upon it]. This happened more than once, so now an extra hassle of flagging the entire camera is called for. + This job was very tightly scheduled, and held no room for downloading/re-loading multiple film backs [I estimate I would have needed in excess of 100 backs to accomplish what I am doing with this holder-less system, and an additional minimum of 2 hours per day for film administration] + It is such a pleasure to be able to write processing directions, shot notes, shot ID.'s etc. on each individual piece of film [packet], and believe me, no matter how good your written notes and system for cataloging film is, when your shooting every day sun-up to sunset, for 10weeks, things slip through the cracks, but this system has eliminated most of the cracks! + The ability to make quick changes in plans. Several times we added shots that were not planned, being able to shoot in a different light situation than we planned [ tungsten vs. daylight] was definitely facilitated by this system. Unlike in the past when I would have been loaded for, say daylight alone, it is now made very easy with holder- less film, to make the adjustment [and adding shots = more $$$] by just having an extra box of film along with you for such occasions. Yes, I could have had extra film holders as well, but it always boils down to how many are you going to tie up for contingencies, how many do you want to carry along as extra baggage, and how many do you really want to own? + Very fast shot to shot times. Shooting under changing conditions this becomes a factor. With the sun ducking in and out from behind clouds, it's VERY nice to be able to fire off 6 sheets in 90 seconds. Try that with conventional film holders!
All-in-all I am very pleased with both systems [Fuji / Kodak], but did have to rely on my 545i back as a back-up when one of the others went down [Fuji]. I have not had time to try cross compatibility tests between the two holders, but knew from personal experience that the Polaroid back will work with Fuji Q/L's [Kodak / Polaroid compatibility also an unknown at this time]
Hope this info helps, I'm looking forward to a months-long sleep!!
Robert said: "With the sun ducking in and out from behind clouds, it's VERY nice to be able to fire off 6 sheets in 90 seconds. Try that with conventional film holders!"
If I am dealing with changing light, it seems that a Grafmatic is a better tool for the job. I've tried to fire off Readyloads at a fast clip, and all it takes is one kink in the cardboard film holder to ruin the shoot. The Grafmatic and a lens with a press-type shutter will smoke any other combination when it comes speed. It is not hard to shoot at a frame every two seconds with a Grafmatic and a Copal press shutter.
I use Readyloads from time to time, and have had good luck with them. They are hard to beat for dust and hassle free shooting. I also use sheet film holders (Toyo) and like them. I've found sheet film holders to be less fussy to use than Readyloads, but there is the hassle of loading them, cleaning them, unloading them, and the extra bulk they have in your pack.
The Kodak system has a much wider range of emulsions available in the US. This made up my mind so far as Readyload vs Quickload. I would base my choice on the films that you like to shoot, and get the system that suits you best.
Actually Gary, I can think of 4 E6 emulsions that Fuji is currently releasing in Quickload (Velvia, Provia, Astia & 64T). Kodak has two: (E100s & 100T.) I agree that in the US Kodak also has a color negative and a B&W negative material.
I've read implications from several notes in this forum that the Kodak Readyload holder can effectively handle both the Kodak Readyloads, and Fuji Quickloads. Is this indeed true, and if so, is there any downside to using this approach.
To date, I've been a traditional film holder & Grafmatic user. I have ocassionaly used Fuji Quickloads in a 545i holder, but after seeing this as unsatisfactory (no light leaks, but major film flatness issue), I won't use Quickloads anymore until I decide if I want to get into one or both of the dedicated holders.
Has anyone done an analysis about the cost effectiveness of Quickloads? I've often wondered if for professional use, their higher purchase cost more than offsets their advangtages in:
* no loading time & labor * less likely to have dust * superior film management * higher packing density
I've just returned from a trip on which I used Readyloads exclusively. I made the decision to take them because I've had some trouble with getting boxes of film through security. While they are "supposed" to hand check them, this isn't always the case and when a security guard decides he's either going to open the box or run them through the x-ray machine, there's not a lot you can do.
Anyway, I did find it more compact to carry a holder and two boxex of EPP rather than regular sheet film holders and a box of film. However, this is mitigated somewhat by the unusual length of the film packets. You need the right shoulder bag or backpack to carry these with ease. Without question, NOT carrying a changing bag is an advantage.
Dust has never been a problem for me, perhaps due to the high humidity in FL. However, loading holders in a hotel room and, worse, being in a new area where you are excited enough to make many exposures but have to deal with loading holders remotely, are enough to make me glad I carried the RL's.
Because of economics, if I'm to photograph at home or nearby, I'll carry sheet film holders. For trips, I'll use the RL's or QL's.
One secret to using the RL's is to make sure you stick the "exposed" label over the metal tab so that it holds both sides of the packet in place. That way you know instantly not to reuse it and it prevents an accident by pulling the metal tab off. Kodak does not provide enough "exposed" stickers. If you stick one on side 1 and then later over the tab to indicate both are exposed, you only have 1/2 the amount you need. So, I immediately reverse the packet to side 2 and leave it in the holder. Once exposed, I use the sticker and retire the packet. This is asking for trouble in my opinion and Kodak should provide 20 stickers (yes, I know I can make my own a
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks