PDA

View Full Version : Readyload and quickload insanity



Jerry Fusselman
29-Jan-2006, 17:11
When I shoot 4x5, I avoid standard film holders. In fact, I own none in 4x5. Instead, my cameras all have Graflok backs. My ground glass must be detached from the Graflok back to shoot 4x5 film. But which packaged-film holder---Polaroid, Quickload, or Readyload? Obviously, when using instant film I should use a Polaroid holder, but my concern here is when using slow slide film. Unless I am missing something, it seems that all three options have great problems from my standpoint:

The Polaroid 545 holders are really heavy. I would rather not use them just because of their weight. Furthermore, there is some question as to film flatness when used with non-Polaroid film, though in my very limited tests the 545 appeared to offer better film flatness than my Quickload.

The Fuji Quickload holders are good except for two problems that, when combined, I consider deal breakers: The first problem is that with Fuji film a rather large circle in the lower-left corner of the image is missing. The film is simply not there, as if paper-punched out. Insane! I either have to crop a major portion of my image away, or I have to fake that area in Photoshop. However, I could still maybe use this holder if not for the second problem---it works poorly with Kodak film. It seems widely reported that the failure rate of Readyload film in a Quickload holder is too high for almost anyone.

The older style of Readyload holders, which attempted to hold two sheets of film simultaneously, have failure rates that are just too high. So it looks like Kodak film in a modern Readyload holder is the best idea, and this would be so for me except for this last piece of insanity: It has no mechanism to connect securely to a Graflok back! It fits, but you cannot use any of the three or four available ingenius techniques to attach it to a Graflok back. There are no grooves, no latches, nothing to help attach it to the Graflok back.

Have I missed something? Has someone figured out, with a modification perhaps, how to attach the Readyload to just a Graflok back (without relying on a spring-loaded ground glass to hold it in)? Why no public outcry, no senate investigation, for Fuji's decision to put holes in your image? Does Readyload film have a similar disgusting hole?

Mike Lopez
29-Jan-2006, 17:18
Hi Jerry,

The current Readyload holders actually do have small grooves in place for what you describe. They are kind of small, but they are there. I've used them to attach the holder to my Shen-Hao.

Mike

Jerry Fusselman
29-Jan-2006, 17:25
Hi Mike,

These grooves that you see are on the side of the Readyload holder? Mine have none whatsoever, alas. How securely does it attach compared to your other Graflok accessories?

Brian Vuillemenot
29-Jan-2006, 17:32
What film are you talking about that has holes in it when used with a Quickload holder? I've never had that problem with Velvia 50, Velvia 100, or Astia. I've heard that the Fuji black and white emulsion has a hole in it, but I thought that that was also with the non-Quickload version.

Larry Gebhardt
29-Jan-2006, 17:37
Are you saying you need to remove the glass? On my cameras with Grafloc style backs I can slip the Readyload holder under the glass like a regular film holder. Your camera doesn't support this?

Also, the only Fuji films I have seen with the hole are the negative films, of which I have seen it on NPS and Acros. The color slide films don't seem to have it.

Mike Lopez
29-Jan-2006, 17:58
Jerry,

The grooves I see are on the two long sides of the holder. They are maybe 1/8" wide and 1/8" deep (or thereabouts). I don't have any other Graflok stuff to compare to, but the holder seems to fit fine with these grooves. I think I could also get the holder underneath the ground glass, but it might be overstressing the Shen-Hao clamps. My pictures have always been in focus with my method, so I just stuck to it.

Mike

Jerry Fusselman
29-Jan-2006, 18:09
Brian, the Fuji film was Velvia 50, Provia, and some C-41 tungsten film (probably 160 ISO). Your not seeing it gets really curious, because the manager at my pro lab (Gamma) had never seen it before I brought it to his attention. They called Fuji, who said yes, we do it all of the time. The hole is there, they admitted. Also, at an LF exhibit I went to last year, the photographer admitted that those holes drive him crazy, and he showed me where in some of his prints he had had to make up detail to replace the holes. Brian, would you please look again to be sure you have no holes anywhere on your film?

Larry, my 4x5 cameras have no spring-loaded ground glass under which to insert a regular film holder. So, in answer to your question, yes, my cameras do not support that.

To those of you who have never seen the holes, do you ever print the entire image? If so, is it possible that the area of the film that you expose is a smaller area than I expose? If you really have no holes (I am not referring to the tiny extreme-edge pin pricks that hold the film during development), I am at a loss, unless you are willing to look again. Velvia or Provia would be fine.

Jerry Fusselman
29-Jan-2006, 18:18
Mike, thanks. Do you have any idea when your Readyload holder was purchased new? What colors are the holder? It holds only one sheet at a time?

Mike Lopez
29-Jan-2006, 18:30
I bought it new from Badger Graphics in 2003. It only takes one sheet at a time. The holder is black, and I think it has a mix of red and white text on the back.

Bill_1856
29-Jan-2006, 18:31
Why would you take the spring loaded GG back off your camera to put on a film holder? Just slide the holder under back like a regular film holder. If you want to secure it with the slides you can do that, too, but it's unnecessary. Sheesh!

Ted Harris
29-Jan-2006, 18:33
I shoot Astia, Provia and Velvia and have never seen the holes. I also shoot Acros 100 and YES it DOES have the holes and you will find other threads on them in the archives here.

Paul Metcalf
29-Jan-2006, 18:42
RVP 50 has a rounded notch only (no holes) for identifying film in the dark. I looked at about 100 frames, and about 2% had the extreme edge of this notch incure into the actual film exposure area. I don't recall any issues printing, because I usually enlarge to 11x14 so there is some cropping. Fuji Acros has small hole which is useful for hanging film to dry by a bent paper clip or similar hook. About 50% of the time this has incured into the film exposure area, and only creates a problem when I contact print those (very infrequently).

I use my Kodak Readyload holder exclusively, with Kodak film and Fuji film. I've had two sheets of Fuji Velvia fail on me (pulled all the way out of the holder) out of 1000 (?) or so. The Kodak holder is slightly smaller and has a slip case, so it goes in the pack. The Quickload holder sits in storage closet.

Jerry Fusselman
29-Jan-2006, 18:45
Bill, sorry, I am afraid I have confused you. The holder absolutely positively cannot slide in under the back like a regular film holder. I have zero 4x5 holders of the regular kind. I have no ground glass that can move back, at least not in 4x5. I have them in 5x7 and 8x10, but not 4x5. Sorry, securing the Readyload is therefore necessary, not optional.

Bill_1856
29-Jan-2006, 18:59
One of us is indeed confused. You say that your cameras have GRAFLOCK backs. The ground glass portion of a Graflock back is spring loaded and all of the above mentioned film holders will slide in place without removing anything. This is the same as what Linhof calls an International Back, and it works the same way. The other option on some older 4x5 cameras was a GRAFLEX back, and none of the above holders (including Polaroid) will fit them. It seems to me that something is being overlooked here which is making a simple problem into a big deal. Please feel free to contact me off line if I can help. bmitch@comcast.net.

Dave Moeller
29-Jan-2006, 19:05
Not that this is going to help solve any mysteries, but I'm holding a sheet of Velvia 50 in my hand right now. It was from a Quickload (I've never purchased any color sheet film loose). The writing in the rebate (from left to right holding the film horizontally) reads: "FUJIFILM RVP 58953 CF CAJA QL".

No hole. And I know the hole of which you speak, because it's what keeps me from using Acros in 4x5. The hole is a deal breaker for me...and Acros would easily be my favorite film in all formats if not for that *%&^ing hole.

The Velvia that I'm holding was purchased a little over two years ago via the 'net from B&H. (That one box is the only color film I've purchased in 4x5.)

This does make me wonder if the punch-hole in Velvia is a newer introduction...perhaps something they started doing in the last two years.

Bob._3483
29-Jan-2006, 19:12
My Readyload holder bought just over a year ago (Cat. 893 7542) has no slots for attaching to a graflock back. Other than that, it is black, red release button, single sheet with mostly white text.

However, I'm intrigued... What camera has a Graflock back but no sprung ground-glass holder?

Sal Santamaura
29-Jan-2006, 19:35
OK, here goes so those searching in the future can easily get all their answers from one convenient place in the archives.

quickload

readyload

graflok

hole

slots

All Fuji *negative* sheet films, loose or Quickload, 4x5 or 8x10, have a drying hook hole that intrudes into the image area. Degree of intrusion varies with how a particular Quickload holder positions the film. The more a Quickload holder has been used and/or the harder one pulls when withdrawing the envelope to make an exposure, the more intrusion. If your Quickload holder is really "stretched" and/or you pull very hard, it's conceivable exposed film area could be so off-center as to include the notch code. Fuji *transparency* sheet films have never had a hole but do include notch codes. Standard holders and Readyload holders vary in actual image area size and positioning, thereby making precise hole intrusion prediction difficult. Try with your particular holder to see.

Kodak has manufactured several versions of its single-sheet Readyload holder. Iterative changes were incorporated to, among other things, eliminate edge reflections from the film frame opening and to deal with reported light leaks. In the process of addressing light leaks, Kodak decided to eliminate the Graflok slots. Earlier single-sheet Readyload holders had them, current production (as of the date of this posting) does not.

I find Acros of sufficient value, especially for very long exposures, that I simply compose knowing where the hole is and disregarding that strip of useless film area. If you don't want to rely on memory, try marking it on your viewing screen.

Jerry Fusselman
29-Jan-2006, 20:57
Bill first: This description from www.butzi.net/articles/lfchoose.htm (http://www.butzi.net/articles/lfchoose.htm) may help:


The second issue is how the film holders attach to the camera back. With 4x5 cameras, generally the ground glass is spring mounted, and you pull the ground glass frame away from the camera and insert the film holder underneath. The spring loaded ground glass frame then serves to hold the film holder tight to the camera back.

On cameras with a 'graflok' back, the spring loaded ground glass frame can be removed, and film holders with slots in them (like the Polaroid holder, grafmatics, or roll film holders) can be attached using slide out tabs which lock it in place.

Most 4x5 photographers (and almost all 8x10 photographers) are used to the first method. Instead, mine uses the Graflok (sometimes misspelled Graflock) back. I hope it is clearer now. I do not have the kind of Graflok that Bill mentions, and I never even seen it (but it may be common anyway). Is there a picture on the net anywhere of this kind?

Please permit me to emphasize that when a ground glass is attached to one of my cameras with a 4x5 Graflok back, the ground glass cannot be physically moved back any distance whatsoever to insert anything. To attach any sort of film holder, the ground glass must be disconnected.

The term "spring loaded" as used in the quote can cause some confusion. Does he mean spring loaded as in a way to slide a film holder directly in front of the ground glass. I think not, because he would not then have had a reason to distinguish these two way of attaching film holders. I think "spring loaded" in this context refers to the shiny metal levers that you must push to attach the Graflok ground glass to the Graflok back. Another common way to attach a film holder to a Graflok back is to engage some sliders into slots in the side of the film holder---such for a Fuji Quickload. Sometimes instead of slots, the Graflok back sliders just extend all the way to grasp an outer plate and hold the film holder in place---the Linhof 612 roll-film holder uses the latter approach.

Dave and Sal, thanks for the information---you give me new hope for Velvia and Provia in Quickloads! And thanks to everyone else for your help too.

Bob, my Readyload holder is just like yours: Same purchase date, catalogue number, and vivid-red release button. And to satisfy your curiosity, I have three kinds of cameras with unspringable Graflok backs: First, I have some Vistashifts and Graflex XL cameras that take oddball Graflex XL--to--4x5 Graflok adapters; second, I now have a Gaoersi 4x5 shiftable point-and-shoot camera; third, I have 4x5 Graflok backs rigidly attached to reducing backs for my 5x7 and 8x10 cameras.

Sal, do you think there is any hope that Kodak will soon reinstate the Graflok slots?

Bill_1856
29-Jan-2006, 21:35
Jerry, two suggestions 1) tell us what 4x5 camera you are using. 2) check out:
www.graflex.org/speed-graphic/features.html#GraflockBack

Oren Grad
29-Jan-2006, 21:57
Jerry, I have to second Bill's point. It sounds as though you either have a very strange camera with a non-standard back, or, more likely, that you're missing something about how Graflok backs work. The Graflok back was designed to accept both types of film holder - those that slide in, such as the standard Fidelity cut film holder, and also holders that are secured by the sliding clips, like many roll-film backs. The Kodak Readyload holder should slide in just like a Fidelity holder, even if it doesn't have any grooves to accept the sliding clips. I have seen more different 4x5 camera models with Graflok backs than I can count, and I have never seen one that did not function in this way.

What specific camera(s) are you using?

Jerry Fusselman
29-Jan-2006, 22:04
Bill,

Thanks, I did #1 in the penultimate paragraph posted just before yours.

As for #2, which part you are referring to? The website you cite was almost included in my prior answer. One sentence in particular there under Graflok seems relevant: "The Graflok has a removable focus panel, a Fresnel screen, and and features locks to hold various filmbacks." A removable focus panel---not a pull-it-back-and-insert-your-film-holder focus panel.

I should perhaps emphasize that I am talking only about Graflok backs in the strictest sense. And I mean the 4x5 variety, not the 6x9 baby Graflok. And when I say back, I am not referring to a film holder. I still have not seen an example of a true Graflok back with a pull-it-back-and-insert-your-film-holder ground glass.

Maybe someone can explain what is causing our confusion or miscommunication better to us?

Jerry Fusselman
29-Jan-2006, 22:08
Thanks, I will repeat from my recent post:


I have three kinds of cameras with unspringable Graflok backs: First, I have some Vistashifts and Graflex XL cameras that take oddball Graflex XL--to--4x5 Graflok adapters; second, I now have a Gaoersi 4x5 shiftable point-and-shoot camera; third, I have 4x5 Graflok backs rigidly attached to reducing backs for my 5x7 and 8x10 cameras.

Juergen Sattler
29-Jan-2006, 22:15
Jerry,

the confusion stems from the fact that any camera that has a Graflok back accepts any film holders there are and ONLY for the rollfilm holders would you have to take the focsuing panel off. You seem to indicate that your camera(s) require you to take the Graflok back off in order to insert the readyload holder. I have never heard of such a weird thing and obviously none of the other members who responded to your post. I can't help you with the readyload question - I don't use them.

Jerry Fusselman
29-Jan-2006, 22:25
Juergen, thanks for helping, where I did say that the Graflok back must come off in order to insert the Readyload holder? I never intended to suggest such a weird thing. I don't think everyone in this thread had that impression.

I have lots of cameras, strange though they may be, lots of cameras with Graflok backs where I must take off the focusing panel to shoot Quickloads and Readyloads. I realize you say any camera, but maybe you can name just one for me, for I would like to see how it works.

Oren Grad
29-Jan-2006, 22:30
Go to this page -

www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/graflex/backs.htm (http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/graflex/backs.htm)

- and scroll down until you see the picture labeled "A Graflok with a film holder inserted". This shows a Graflok back with a standard 4x5 cut film holder inserted. Compare it to the picture immediately above it, labeled "The Graflok back", which shows the back without the cut film holder inserted. Note that the ground glass frame with hood is not removed, but is simply pushed back by the inserted holder while still being retained by the spring-loaded arms, which have pivoted slightly to allow the ground glass frame to move outward. This is the way Graflok backs are designed to work. Any back that does not work in this way does not meet the Graflok standard.

Paul Kierstead
29-Jan-2006, 22:35
Perhaps a picture of the back is in order, if you should happen to have some lonely digicam lyint around. If you have no mens of hosting the picture, I am sure someone will for you (including me).

However, if it looks like the one at
http://www.electricedge.com/greymatter/images5/22-6.jpg
(taken from http://www.electricedge.com/greymatter/archives/archive-02132005-02192005.htm)

You will note those two "tabs" on the right (right of the arrows a bit). You should be able to pull the back up enough using these tabs in order to slide a holder underneath. Does you holder not look similiar to this?

Jerry Fusselman
29-Jan-2006, 22:38
Oren, thanks so much, those pictures are crystal clear! Exactly what I wanted to see. But my Graflok backs do not allow that---too bad.

Well, thanks everyone, all of my questions on this topic have been answered, except that I still hope that Kodak reinstates the Graflok slots on their Readyload holders.

Jerry Fusselman
30-Jan-2006, 01:01
So much help in just one evening! Such a fine resource!

Paul, you refer to the two black tabs on the extreme right. I always wondered why they were there. So that's what they are for!

I must now confess to two errors I made in this thread.

First, I now believe that all of the cases with Velvia and Provia with part of my image obliterated were notches, not holes. The holes are just in my 4x5 negatives. I still despise (or at least I don't understand) Fuji's decision to put holes in my negatives, but at least they did not do so in my 4x5 chromes. The notches are not nearly as bad, because they are not always a problem and because they are indeed on the extreme ends of the film. So my experience matches Paul's, except that about half of my 4x5 chromes have some notch problems on the edges. (Maybe Paul uses better technique.) For this reason, and also because of some private email, I believe that Sal's summary of the situation is probably perfectly accurate in all respects.

My second error is that all of my Graflok-back equipped cameras, including my Gaoersi camera, do indeed allow using 4x5 film holders and Graflok-slotless Readyloads. So when I wrote just now that "my Graflok backs do not allow that," I was completely wrong, sorry. Anyway it is not the back that allows it, it is the pivoting of the spring-loaded arms of the ground-glass panel, as Oren explained. I guess I have forfeited any chance of winning any mechanical-genius-of-the-year award.

I understand from private email that the original double-sheet Readyloads were always slotless, but some of the earlier single-sheet Readyloads do indeed have Graflok slots, like the one mentioned by Mike near the top. But the current model lacks the Graflok slots.

But, now I have a new question: Which way is superior for a Quickload? Is the Quickload holder better placed in front of the ground glass or in place of the ground glass? I image the variables to consider are these three:

<ol> <li>Film plane accuracy; <li>Maintaining the camera's position and focus; <li>Speed of reloading. </ol>

Can anyone suggest which placement of the Quickload is better?

Larry Gebhardt
30-Jan-2006, 06:21
Jerry, glad you got that figured out.

There should be no difference between placing it under the ground glass or removing the ground glass and securing with the grafloc tabs. If you place it under the ground glass you do need to make sure you don't pull the holder away from the camera as you pull the sleave out, other wise you can have light leaks. But the placement is the same in both cases (assuming the tabs are not bent).

giancatarina
30-Jan-2006, 07:51
Graflock back and international back is not the same,
while an international back support graflock stuff (super rollex...) AND insert (4x5 holders such as fidelity, toyo, lisco...)
the plain graflock back only support graflock !

Considering the price of film and processing in 4x5, if i was you, i will just change my camera for a second hand one... or i will use graffmatic !

Sal Santamaura
30-Jan-2006, 08:37
"Sal, do you think there is any hope that Kodak will soon reinstate the Graflok slots?"

I have absolutely no connection with Kodak other than as a customer, so this is purely guesswork. Since we haven't been hearing anyone complain about Readyload light leaks here since they eliminated the slots, and you're the first I remember hearing lament loss of the slots, there's likely little chance of reinstatement.

"But, now I have a new question: Which way is superior for a Quickload? Is the Quickload holder better placed in front of the ground glass or in place of the ground glass? I image the variables to consider are these three:

1. Film plane accuracy;
2. Maintaining the camera's position and focus;
3. Speed of reloading."

I prefer sliding holders, Quickload or otherwise, in front of the ground glass. This preference is so strong I've even gone so far as to obtain a Linhof Rapid Rollex for my medium format Horseman VH to preclude the need for focusing frame removal when attaching roll film holders. With 4x5, there would be no difference in film plane accuracy. I think you'd disturb camera position less sliding the holder in than manipulating two separate locks. I simply slide Quickload/Readyload holders out to remove an exposed sheet and, if making a duplicate, insert the next sheet. For me, even with the extra holder removal/insertion, this goes quicker than removing and dealing with the ground glass, locking on a holder and reloading multiple sheets on the camera.

Paul Metcalf
30-Jan-2006, 12:23
Only difference between sliding the Readyload holder between gg or replacing the graflok back with such, that I can relate to via experience, is with my Linhof Tech V which requires removing the graflok back to use my roll film holder. One time near Mt. Rainier in the late fall a wandering fly/knat/bug decided to venture into the camera when the back was off (almost had a hummingbird once, but that's different story). It looks like it landed on the film (which is kind of interesting because it would have had to wait until the dark slide was pulled) because the outline of the spot on the film is somewhat sharp, but not very recognizable beyond being some sort of bug. Too bad, I might have had some interesting artsy thing going there. Instead I got an obvious mistake. Anyway, for this reason only I prefer not having the internal parts of my cameras open very long, if at all.