PDA

View Full Version : continued availability of ready/quick load film



Joseph Sacamano
2-Dec-2004, 23:32
Experienced LF'rs, please comment on my thinking. One reason to choose 4x5 over 5x7 for my new "last and best" view camera purchase is the availability of readyload/quickload monochrome film for 4x5. Though I have always used traditional sheet film holders, the appeal of freedom from reloading and protection from dust might be enough for me to choose the smaller format. But, in view of today's film supply uncertainty, do you think the boxed cut film, or the preloaded films stand a better chance of being continued? Which type sell in greater amounts or might be a greater profit center for film manufacturers?
Thanks, Joe Sacamano

Ralph Barker
3-Dec-2004, 00:46
My bet would be that Quickloads and Readyloads will be sold by Fuji and Kodak long after they've stopped marketing 5x7 film. Mainly because QLs and RLs are aimed at volume professional users and have a higher profit margin.

But, I'd also bet B&W film cut to 5x7 will probably still be available from secondary manufacturers long after Fuji and Kodak quit selling it, though.

Robert A. Zeichner
3-Dec-2004, 05:54
Why not just buy a 5x7 with a reduction back? Use all the 5x7 film you wish (the dust problem is not really all that difficult to overcome) and then, if its availability starts to dwindle, you'll have a 4x5 back to fall back on. With ordinary sheet film, you'll be assured of having the widest selection of emulsions from which to choose and would also be free to test new products as they are introduced by the smaller emerging companies that continue to produce such products.

Gem Singer
3-Dec-2004, 07:02
Another advantage of 4x5 over 5x7 is the ability to use roll film backs. If, and when, both 4x5 and 5x7 sheet film become scarce, roll film will still continue to be manufactured. It's the life blood of commercial photographers. Just make sure that the 4x5 you choose has a Graphloc back.

Glenn Kroeger
3-Dec-2004, 07:48
Eugene:

I don't think I would count on commercial use to save roll film... commercial photographers are dropping roll film like hot potatoes. It is easily replaced/surpassed by "35mm" digital solutions. Wedding and portrait photographers are going digital as fast as their credit will let them... and corresponding rates of roll film processing are plummeting... just ask your local pro labs how their roll film processing business is going. Another sign, look at used prices for MF equipment, particularly Hassy and Mamiya RB/RZ, dropping faster than the dollar.

Now with those dropping prices, a lot more amateurs are getting into MF, and THAT may save roll film.

Sheet film, OTOH, still offers demonstrably better results than all but the most expensive digital solutions, so it may have a little more life.

I figure as long a Kodak and Fuji make a sheet film that's already in QL or RL packets, they will continue to supply it that way. After all, they have already invested in the equipment and their marginal profit per sheet is much higher than in boxes.

Gem Singer
3-Dec-2004, 08:48
Glenn,

I cannot believe that the millions of Hasselblads, Mamiyas, etc. MF cameras will be converted to digital capture in the near future. Their users are going to need roll film for a long time to come. I was judging from the fact that when manufacturers introduce a new film these days, they usually make it in the form of 120 roll film first. Take a look at the introduction of the new Rollei film.

Users of B&W film are presently limited to Kodak T-Max and Fuji Acros in the Readyload/Quickload type of package. Fuji and Kodak don't seem to be anxious to introduce other types of B&W emulsions in the RL/QL form. Ilford doesn't even seem to be interested.

I was merely mentioning the Graphloc back as one advantage of the 4x5 format. Time for my first cup of coffee this morning (before things become too serious around here).

Michael Mutmansky
3-Dec-2004, 09:01
I think that QL and RL film will disappear long before cut sheet film does (remember the Kodak pack film?).

As long as film is being made, there will probably be someone cutting the film into sheets for us, and as long as there are small companies like Photo Warehouse and others, we will be able to get film in all sizes we wish.

However, if you compare the number of available film emulsions in 5x7 to 4x5, you will see that there is no question that 5x7 is not supported to the level that 4x5 is. In the recent past, Kodak had moved to make some 5x7 sizes availble only by special order, which indicates their level of support for the product. There aren't many color film options in 5x7, but that can be increased somewhat by purchasing 8x10, and having it cut into 2 sheets of 5x7.

4x5 is the last LF format that commercial work is being done in (other than HABS/HAER) in any volume, and I expect this format to be the last to slip into the night when in comes to color film. It wouldn't suprise me if much of the commercial work is being done with QL/RL film due to the relalitive handling ease for the commercial shooter. When I shoot a commercial job, I only use QL/RL unless the film emulsion is unavailable in the packets.

If you like the 5x7 proportions and size, then I suggest you get a 5x7 camera, but it may be wise to get one that has a reducing back available (like a Deardorff or Canham), so you can easily drop to 4x5 when the need arises. This will give you the option of using the QL/RL film, and opens up the emulsions that are unavailable in 5x7.

The convienance of the QL/RL is indisputable, so it is a compelling reason to consider 4x5 if you don't have another reason that supercedes it in importance (like the ability to do nice-sized contact prints, or the preference for a longer rectangle, for instance).

---Michael

Al Miller
3-Dec-2004, 09:07
I suggest that watching the availability of Polaroid LF products as a "leading indicator" of what might happen with Kodak and Fuji sheet film.

As of today, there are 12 4x5 and 4 8x10 film products listed on their website, and this has been relatively stable for the past several years. Remember, Polaroid was in bankruptcy not too long ago (3 years or so) and apparently the new owners have found a way to keep the business going through a combination of retreating from unprofitable parts of their business, pushing into digital markets, and streamlining legacy operations.

Polaroid's apparent success at reorganizing their business while retaining a reasonable traditional product line gives me hope that Kodak and/or Fuji will be able to do so.

Al

Glenn Kroeger
3-Dec-2004, 10:05
Eugene:

I agree with you... the "millions of Hasselblads, Mamiyas, etc. MF cameras " will keep roll film going... I just think most of them are going to be in the hands of amateurs and fine art folks, not main line commercial photographers.

Rory_3532
3-Dec-2004, 10:21
"I cannot believe that the millions of Hasselblads, Mamiyas, etc. MF cameras will be converted to digital capture in the near future. Their users are going to need roll film for a long time to come."

That's what people said about typewriters :)

Al Miller
3-Dec-2004, 10:42
Geoff wrote:

"That's what people said about typewriters :)"

And staples.com lists 90 typewritter and word processor ribbons available for purchase today.

Sheet and roll film will continue to be available for a long time

CXC
3-Dec-2004, 13:02
At B&H, a sheet of 4x5 T-Max costs $0.84; a ReadyLoad costs $2.25. Kodak wraps a piece of paper around the film and increases the price by a factor of 2.7 -- I gotta believe ReadyLoads are a cash cow.

I personally own both 4x5 and a 5x7 cameras, and I rarely use the 5x7, strictly because of the convenience and cleanliness of the ReadyLoads. Life is too short even to *worry* about dust, let alone fuss over it.