View Full Version : Kodak or Fuji Ready/Quickloads

Arthur Nichols
10-May-2005, 07:02
Hello All,
I will be doing some hiking this summer and do not want to use regular film holders for both reasons of weight, convenience, and accuracy of information. Apparently I have two choices, Fuji or Kodak. I usually develop by inspection and would like to continue to do so. Kodak literature states that T-Max 100 should not be developed by inspection. I searched the archives and found one post related to DBI with T-Max 100. I was wondering if there are any other photographers doing this and what exactly is your process. With regards to the Fuji film I have heard on this site many comments about the hole in the corner and I was wondering if someone would be willing to send to me a piece of Fuji film from a loser negative that I could see just how much interference this hole creates. Any other comments or information that would help me to make a decision would be greatly appreciated.
Arthur Nichols

Eric Biggerstaff
10-May-2005, 09:28

I use the Fuji Neo Pan 100 Arcos and really like it. The hole in the corner doesn't bother me at all but then I generally don't print the entire neg, there is usually a little cropping.

It is a great film and seems to be gaining a little following. However, Kodak T-Max still outsells it by a HUGE margin in the states (the Fuji is big in Japan ).

I will see if there is a neg I can mail you (like all of mine are perfect! wink wink), just email me your mailing address.

By the way, you might check out the Polaroid 545i holder (I think that is the model number) as this holder will accept not only Polaroid films but the Kodak readyloads as well (not sure if it will hold the Fuji but you can check with Calumet). This might provide more film options for you and not have to have multiple readyload holders.

Hope you have a great trip.


Paul Butzi
10-May-2005, 09:46
I compared Acros to TMX a while back. My results are at www.butzi.net/articles/tmxacros.htm (http://www.butzi.net/articles/tmxacros.htm).

I like both films a lot. The fact that they're both available in packets is a big plus from my point of view. If you do low light work and wish your exposures were shorter, then Acros would be a win because of the stellar reciprocity characteristics.

I found Acros to be very sensitive to development time changes, and to have very short development times compared to TMX. I don't do development by inspection, but I would think that higher sensitivity to development variations, and shorter development times would not be what you're looking for in a film to develop by inspection.

The much ballyhooed hole is approximately 1.5mm in diameter and the center is about 3mm from the long edge and 4mm from the short edge of the 4x5 sheet. Offhand, I'd say it's no more intrusive than the crimp marks often left by the clips used to hold film for dip and dunk processing.

An overall view of packet films can be found at www.butzi.net/reviews/readyquick.htm (http://www.butzi.net/reviews/readyquick.htm)

John Berry ( Roadkill )
10-May-2005, 09:51
email me and I will send you a scan of a neg. John

Michael Kadillak
10-May-2005, 10:35
You overlo0ked a very viable alternative - the Grafmatic. One holder will take six sheets of any sheet film you chose to load it with versus the holder and the film septums that I carry in the box because I do not want to damage them during transit. From a weight and volume perspective, it does not get any better. Exposures are numbered on the edge of the film for cross reference and you can use any film that you want. I use one for color and another two for 100 speed B&W and another for 400 speed B&W. Film registration is as good as any film holder and the speed of operation and the design is amazing. Cost less than a ready load holder in the used market and are still readily available.

Development by inspection with a green light is what I feel Kodak is making reference to as to what they do not recommend. Development by inspection with an infrared light source is not a concern and would work quite effectively. A search will cover this topic previously discussed.


Paul Butzi
10-May-2005, 11:38
Graphmatics are only slightly better than regular Fidelity holders in terms of weight per sheet of film.

For example, thirty sheets of film in readyloads/quickload along with a holder would weigh about 33 ounces. Thirty sheets of film in 5 grafmatics would weigh 85 ounces. Thirty sheets of film in 15 regular Fidelity holders would weigh 90 ounces.

The stack of readyloads/quickloads and the holder would be roughly12cm x 7.5cm x 24cm, or about 2.16 liters. The stack of graphmatics would be 12 x 12 x 22, or about 3.168 liters. The stack of regular holders would be 12 x 18.5 x 19 or 4.218 liters.

I like grafmatics a lot (I own 8) but when I want to save space or weight, I use readyloads.

Michael Kadillak
10-May-2005, 13:40
Lets also look at the costs perspective as well. On simple example for illustrative purposes.

B&H lists 2o sheets of T Max 100 readyloads at $45. That is $2.25/sheet. Same film T Max 100 in a 50 sheet box costs $42. That is $0.84/sheet. The cost differencial means that you could shoot almost three sheets of conventional sheet film for every one prepackaged readyload.

That is HUGE cost differencial. I use Grafmatics and readyloads and feel each is well suited for specific needs. I just do not get crazy when I buy Readyloads for that reason. For the average LF shooter, I would think that film costs are a very important component and he/she needs to balance the weight, cost, and space components for themselves. At the end of the day it is all about the finished product - the image. How we get there is our responsibility.


Bruce Watson
10-May-2005, 14:55
While we are comparing numbers...

It takes me about an hour to unload 10 holders, clean them, and load them all again using a Harrison Pup Tent in the field. I end up doing this on picknick tables if I'm lucky, and on the bottom of a tent if I'm not. I do it at the end of a long day when I'm tired, and this leads to mistakes (things like thumb prints).

Using Michael's numbers, 20 sheets in readyload is $45. Twenty sheets in boxes is $16.80. The delta is $28.20. But that's not the whole story. Say with me here....

Working in a Harrison Pup Tent, nice as it is, is not the same as working in a nice clean darkroom. I always end up with more dust and grunge on my film when I reload in the field as opposed to reloading in my darkroom at home. And, I've been able to quantify it.

My workflow is hybrid - 4x5 film, and scanning. For film I load in the darkroom, I spot for an average of about 30 minutes after scanning. For film that I load in the field, I find that I average about an hour and 15 minutes. Let's say that four images from my 20 sheets make it into my portfolio. Spotting time is then 2 hours for darkroom loads, or 5 hours for field loads. This delta is 3 hours.

Now then, assuming that the readyload packets are as dirty as my darkroom loads (readyloads are actually cleaner, but let it go for now), what readyloads save me is about four hours per 20 sheets. The cost as shown above is @28.20, for an hourly rate of $7.05.

I don't know about anyone else, but I value my time at more than $7.05/hour!

Put another way, at the end of a 14 hour day of hiking from Yosemite valley up to Nevada Fall and back, would you rather have some rack time, or would you rather be playing the film holder game?

And people wonder why it grates on me that Kodak won't offer Tri-X in readyload packets....

Arthur Nichols
10-May-2005, 14:57
I considered grafmatics and Mido holders but I decided that I wanted the convenience of not having to load, unload and try to carry exposure and location information to the new storage container. If I did decided to load and unload I would use Mido holders, I have some already and would try to buy some more. I would like to know if there is anyone else besides Dan Smith developing T-Max 100 by inspection and how they are doing it. I know I can buy some and probably figure out the presoak and so on, but I thought that there might be already be some answers out there. I am grateful to Eric Biggerstaff for offerring to send me a piece of the Fuji film and thave contacted him. It seem like all the lightweight film options have been explored in this thread. Thanks to all who have contributed and who will contribute.