View Full Version : Readyload conventional B&W

Rick Knepp
23-May-2005, 14:08
Is there a reason that no manufacturer is making a conventional film (TriX, FP4, etc.) in a readyload holder? I realize they are expensive, but the convenience of dust-free film without the hassle and the space- and weight-savings are distinct advantages that would seem to create a market.

Will Strain
23-May-2005, 14:10
Tmax 100 is in readyloads...

just nothing faster.

Bruce Watson
23-May-2005, 14:46
Tmax 100 is in readyloads. Fuji Acros 100 is in quickloads. AFAIK, that's it for B&W.

The reason, one way or another, is money.

Illford elected not to spend the R&D to develop a separate system, and elected not to spend the licening fees to use Quickloads or Readyloads (assuming Fuji and/or Kodak would license).

Kodak steadfastly refuses to put their best selling B&W film (Tri-X) into readyloads. Rumor has it that the existing packaging isn't lightfast enough for the faster film, but I find that a little difficult to believe. If it leaked any light at all, it would fog Tmax 100 too.

Another rumor is that Kodak's marketing department (or the bean counters) doesn't want to let the "analog" people create another SKU (they don't want dealers to use shelf space for another film product) lest it take space away from a digital product. This one actually sounds more like the Kodak I know.

It always comes back to money.

23-May-2005, 15:09
It has always baffled me how Kodak figures to make more money by NOT selling the most popular b&w film of all time, including today, in ReadyLoads. The lightfastness theory sounds pretty bogus, but it is the first one I have heard that makes any sense...

23-May-2005, 16:24
Actually, the Kodak rep informed me a while back that the reason they have not produced trix readyloads is a static electricity issue.

Bruce Watson
23-May-2005, 16:44
Static electricity? That implies that Tmax and Tri-X are coated onto different bases. There's no logical reason for different bases, and it would cost Kodak rather a bit more to develop and stock a separate base. This doesn't seem like the reason to me.

Will Strain
23-May-2005, 16:46
Could be static that causes sparking which registers on the faster emusion?

Beats me... just annoying that I have to use 100 or load my own...

Brian Ellis
23-May-2005, 22:01
As few people as there are who use large format, and as few of those as there are who use Readyloads in any great quantity, why not be grateful we have what we have rather than using this as another occasion to dump on Kodak. We may not have even it much longer.

Ron Marshall
24-May-2005, 07:32
Maybe this is a stupid question, I have never used, or even seen, quick/readyloads, but is it possible to "reload" the cardboard quickload sleeves. For example use the t-max then reload with Tri-X?

Bruce Watson
24-May-2005, 07:44

I would be "grateful for what we have" but I don't have anything. Kodak doesn't make a readyload packet choice for me. I would love to use readyloads. I would pay the extra money per sheet without any qualms at all. But I need a 400 speed level film for what I do.

I'm dumping on Kodak because Tri-X is their best selling B&W film, and they won't put it in readyloads. It's not like they're looking at a lot of R&D to do this. The packet design is done. The readyload holders are already on the market and in many customers' hands. The machines to load the packets are done. If the film sales estimates are to be believed, they should have some excess capacity for the packet loader machines, so they don't even need to build another machine. They would have to adapt the Tri-X logo to readyload packet labeling -- I wouldn't think the labelling effort would be so big that Kodak couldn't handle it though.

I'm dumping on Kodak because I want to give them money, and they won't take it. Instead they complain about falling revenue from film. Am I the only one to see the irony here?

I'm dumping on Kodak because they make my life harder for no apparent reason. It would save me lots of weight, lots of filmholder unload/clean/reload time, and lots of spotting time to have Tri-X in readyloads.

I'm dumping on Kodak because they won't even talk about this issue.

I'm upset with Kodak over this. I hope it doesn't show too much.

Paul Butzi
24-May-2005, 11:26
Back when Kodak switched from the double sheet readyload packet to the current single sheet system, they weren't even going to continue to offer TMX in readyloads.

Only a prolonged outcry from the users of TMX in readyloads made them reconsider. I spent months calling them patiently, once per week, asking them about it. In the end, I ended up being a beta tester for the single sheet packets. When they asked me about other films to offer in readyloads, I told them Tri-X and TMY.

So, Brian - how many times have you called or written to Kodak asking about higher speed film in Readyloads?

Give them a call. 1-800-242-2424.

Bruce Watson
24-May-2005, 18:03
Don't know about Brian, but I've called, written letters, talked to the local district rep. and his boss. About 20 contacts in all. But it gets old and tired after a while when you keep getting different stories but it all comes down to them saying no. I even offered to make a special order and buy lots of sheets (20,000 was the number in play) but in the end they refused to fulfil the order (they aren't dumb - they knew I was going to have to resell a big chunk of that order - and even if I was willing to take the risk, they didn't want me giving competition to dealers that didn't have the product).

Sigh... you can lead a horse to water....

Frank Petronio
24-May-2005, 18:52
Just push the TMax 100 a couple of stops...

Frank Bagbey
24-May-2005, 23:59
I love it when people, including me, dump on Kodak thinking. I am convinced they are trying to go out of business. It is also evident to me that there are nothing but bean counters left at Kodak. Anyday, I expect to hear Kodak has sold the entire photography division. Locally, Kodak is taking out their one hour labs left and right after installing them to compete with their own processing labs. Now they are taking them out to save their own processing labs!
Lab quality has gone to hell and mistakes are common, material lost or temporarily lost, slide processing went from two days to 7 for E6, Kodachrome takes God knows how long now! Overall consistency is shot, dust spots, hairs, crud, bent up photos, negs crammed into the envelopes, sometimes bent, forgetting to make the CD, enlargements all bent up, printing blank negatives and charging for them, failure to make doubles or triples necessitating reorder or re-dos, etc. etc..

On the positive side, Kodak is, at least, still making 5x7 and 8x10 films. But, I doubt they would be offering it if Ilford and others were not competing. On the negative side I would not want to own any Kodak stock.

Does anyone else want to dump on Kodak?