Kodak Readyload holder - it's warped on one end!

[Christopher Perez]

Gentlefolk,

I lost the thread (on another site?) that was talking about Kodak Readyload film holders. I recently purchased a brand new latest generation holder.

If I take a straight edge and lay it on the film holder, the end where the clip holds the film is bowed. It does not lay flat. Looking toward the film pressure plate side of the holder, the end bows toward me.

When I insert the back into the camera the back lays nearly flat. I think this is due to the pressure of the springs on the camera back.

Is this normal? Or did I purchase a defective item?

[Christopher Perez]

Wrapped == Warped

Ugh. :(

[Ron Marshall]

The surface of mine, that mates with camera, is flat and unwarped. I would go for a replacement.

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, I agree with Ron - have 'em replace it.

Only the photographer's sense of humor should be warped. ;)

[Christopher Perez]

Good points. Thanks.

Anyone have Kodak's contact info handy. It looks like I need this one swapped out. The dealer says it's been longer than 30 days and won't take it back. :(


FWIW, I agree with Ron - have 'em replace it.

Only the photographer's sense of humor should be warped. ;)

[Oren Grad]

Anyone have Kodak's contact info handy.

I think the old 1-800-242-2424 hotline is still functioning. Over the years they've been quite good at connecting me quickly to someone on the professional products side who can respond knowledgeably to whatever specific issue I've had.

[Anthony Lewis]

Chris, I bought a Kodak Readyloader a couple of months ago. It too was warped and the retailer replaced it immediately. This problem was reported on another forum recently as well. I think Kodak have propuced a bad batch of these and goodness knows when they are going to fix the problem. No matter how long you have had yours for, it should be replaced as this is obviously a manufacturing problem.

[Christopher Perez]

When we last left our folded/spindled/mutilated photographer, he was at the front desk of his favorite local camera shop ready to swap out the offending Readyload holder for a replacement from Kodak...

I had waited nearly two months for this. Fortunately I've been off playing with 8x10 contact prints and 4x5 Polaroids. So there had been no opportunity to shoot Kodak Readyloads.

The sales folks and I agreed to check the condition of the proposed replacement holder before I left the store. The new holder that Kodak send out was in a different style box than the one I had. Something told me that the holders were from two completely different manufacturing batches.

Taking a straight edge to the new holder I realized that it was no flatter on the offending side than the holder I was attempting to replace it with. The sales guy and I stared at each other in disbelief.

I asked if they had a Fuji Quickload holder that I could compare this against. Miracle of miracles, the Quickload holder looked to be manufactured correctly. The implications were obvious. I was about to jump Kodak's ship and join Fuji's Neopan100 party boat.

I still have 14 sheets of TMax100 Readyloads. I think I'll shoot these in the Polaroid film holder. Of course I will accept the fact that the plane of focus might not be as precise as with the Kodak holder. But this must be why the gods gave us f/32. :)

We'll see how Fuji's 100 speed B&W film works out. I have high hopes.

[Jack Flesher]

Chris:

FWIW, I have sucessfully used both Kodak and Fuji emulsions interchangeably in BOTH the Fuji and Kodak single load holders. I've never had a problem, just take a bit of care on extraction after the shot to make sure the clip isn't stuck.

Frankly, it worked so well, I sold my Fuji holder and kept my Kodak -- no real preference other than the Kodak holder comes with a nice case ;) Of course, you can use the Polaroid holder as a back-up -- just don't forget to NOT flip the roller lever on extraction!

[Christopher Perez]

Sweet. It's actually worth a fair bit to me to hear that Readyloads can work in a Quickload holder. Nice. You just made my dark and gloomy day (not that a day with Fuji is ever dark and gloomy) all that much brighter. :)


FWIW, I have sucessfully used both Kodak and Fuji emulsions interchangeably in BOTH the Fuji and Kodak single load holders. I've never had a problem, just take a bit of care on extraction after the shot to make sure the clip isn't stuck...

[Frank Petronio]

Wasn't one of the talking head pundits claiming the 545i holder was just as sharp as the Kodak or Fuji dedicated holders?

At least in my wide open tests it was, for my samples. Identical, at least with a 12X loupe and f/6.8.

[Jack Flesher]

Frank:

I had the same experience actually. My Polaroid 545i holder produced negs as sharp as either the Kodak or Fuji holder. HOWEVER, I think the rub is I only tested with the back horizontal to the ground.

IIRC, the pundit (I forget who) tested with the back up and down at 30 degrees or something -- and that is where the Pola holder showed less accurate focus.

[Frank Petronio]

Just need stronger springs on that back (like a Linhof or Sinar)! It might be that the 545i being lighter might do better than the metal 545.

[Bruce Watson]

If I take a straight edge and lay it on the film holder, the end where the clip holds the film is bowed. It does not lay flat. Looking toward the film pressure plate side of the holder, the end bows toward me.
Mine too. Just got a new one. It doesn't seem to cause a light leak, but it can not be good news for aligning the film in the film plane. These things are supposed to help sharpness -- or at least not degrade it.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[Jack Flesher]

Just need stronger springs on that back (like a Linhof or Sinar)! It might be that the 545i being lighter might do better than the metal 545.

I think the issue is the lack of a pressure plate in the Pola holder... Both the Kodak and Fuji have real pressure plates.

[Christopher Perez]

I started wondering why some of my images were going soft along one edge. That's when I recalled a discussion thread on the topic. It lead to my checking out the holder I had.

Nice thing about the photo shop I deal with is they had no problem swapping my curved Kodak holder for a nice new Fuji Quickload holder.

Life is good again. :)


Mine too. Just got a new one. It doesn't seem to cause a light leak, but it can not be good news for aligning the film in the film plane. These things are supposed to help sharpness -- or at least not degrade it.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Christopher Perez,

I have the Fuji Quickload holder and find it works fine with Kodak Readyloads, though I tend to think of it more as a back-up holder. If you get the film packet in flipped the wrong direction, it will jamb and stick in the holder, meaning you would need to disassemble the holder to remove the film. Always a good idea to carry more than one of the same type of holder, though your Polaroid 545 will make a good back-up.

The Kodak Readyload holder I am using is the late twin-sheet to early single-sheet holder with the black pressure plate (Kodak in red on the front, with the word Professional next to it). This works fine with single sheet Readyload films. It will also function with Fuji Quickload films, though I prefer to use that as a back-up to the Fuji Quickload holder. I also still have a couple older type Readyload holders, though they have silvery pressure plates not suitable for single sheet packets, and the pressure plate does not have as much spring pressure as the later type. While these are very simple construction compared to the newest version, all my old Readyload holders are flat (not warped). You can find the old black pressure plate holders fairly easily at low enough prices it is worth it having one.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Kirk Keyes]

Sweet. It's actually worth a fair bit to me to hear that Readyloads can work in a Quickload holder. Nice. You just made my dark and gloomy day (not that a day with Fuji is ever dark and gloomy) all that much brighter. :)

Chris - I switched to a Fuji holder last winter (birthday present for myself) and I had total and complete failure with the 3 TMax readyloads I put in it. They would not release.

So I've dumped Kodak B&W and now I'm all Fuji for both color and B&W.

[Jack Flesher]

Weird... Why would it work with some holders and not others? I shot Astia, Provia, Portra, and T-Max in both holders without any issues.

FTR, my Fuji holder was an older one and my Kodak holder was purchased about a year ago new from my dealer.

[Christopher Perez]

I tried Kodak Readyloads in my new Fuji Quickload holder. Here's what I found:

- The film slides in easily, if not as smoothly as it did in the Readyload holder

- The film clips nice and solidly into place

- When I release the lock to extract the film, it feels like it's stuck...

- ... BUT, taking the film holder out of the camera, and gently pressing down on the film along the clip edge releases the film pack nicely and cleanly...

- ... and as I pull the Readload pack out, it gets a little tug or snag at the edge of the holder opening. Again, a gentle push down on the clip edge of the packet releases the film nicely.

So what I suspect is that the tolerances between Quickload and Readyload holders are just slightly different, but close enough that some people can use Quickload holders without any problem with Readyload packets.

As a side note, when I use Polaroid film in the 545 holder I have gotten quite used to removing the holder with the film packet in place from the camera to gently press the clip end away from the lock as I release the locking mechanism. In this way I have never had a packet removal failure. In the past, I used to have problems all the time when not taking this path. So doing this with the Quickload holder isn't really a problem for me when using Readyload film.

Still, I'm wondering if Kodak will do something for me, now that I've figured out how I lost a nice stack of images from my last trip to India. It's not like I can recreate those photos at will. :( :( :(

I am soooooo disappointed in Kodak, I can barely stand it! They are a shadow of their former selves... until or unless they come up with a roundtrip plane ticket for me to head back to India, that is.

[Christopher Perez]

This photo comes from photo.net (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GGz0&tag=) . All the Kodak Readyloads that I have personally inspected to this point look like it (to slightly varying degrees of warp). :(

http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads//00GGz0-29747584.jpg

[Kirk Keyes]

Chris - that's the same thing I found happened, but I was not willing to remove the folder from the camera everytime I want to use a Kodak packet in a Fuji holder. Seems like too much of a pain...

[Jack Flesher]

FWIW, after the discussion here I pulled my Kodak holder -- one that has been serving me just fine -- and put it on the straightedge. And of course it is also warped, though mine is not as bad as shown above. For reference, I'd call it about half as arched as the one above.

I figured that was weird regardless because I have had *NO* noticeable light leaks or oof corner focus issues on any of my negs or trannies, using Kodak or Fuji loads. So I checked it out all over and found that mine was at its worse at the very end of the holder and only slightly arched the 1 cm or so back at the very edge of the film cutout. I then took my fingers and pressed against the arc to straighten it and found it took very little pressure to make mine flat -- like just a few ounces of finger pressure.

I got an idea flash and wondered if the pressure of a spring back was enough to flatten it. Sure enough, even a relatively weak spring back from an older camera was enough to totally flatten my holder when in position on the back. It passes the flashlight test and I cannot see any added movement when applying more pressure at either corner.

I realize this may just be relevant to my particular holder, so I would be interested if others find the same thing.

Cheers,

[Sheldon N]

I have a Kodak Series III holder with the silver pressure plate, and checked it earlier today. It's almost completely flat, with ever so slight of a curve (almost nil). As Jack mentioned, the spring back is enought to flatten it out on my camera, and I haven't noticed any light leaks or film flatness issues.

[Bruce Watson]

I just got off the phone with Gary Spence of Kodak. He's got my Readyload holder, he acknowledges that it has a measureable bow to the nose end similar to (but smaller than) Christopher Perez' illustration a couple of posts above.

And... he told me not to worry about it. Said that it's within manufacturing tolerence. That I should only worry about it if I can send him a sheet of film that's either soft on one end or fogged.

When I asked Gary how anyone can know if the film in the holder is correctly aligned with the film plane of the camera when the front of the holder is bowed like this, all he would do is repeat that the holder is within tolerence. Not a satisfactory answer.

Y'all can do what you want with this information. Me, I think I'm going to end up with a Fuji Quickload holder and Fujicolor Pro 160-S. I'm resigning my (small) role as Kodak's QA department.

Really disappointing Kodak. Not unexpected. But really disappointing none-the-less.

[Christopher Perez]

Bruce,

Many kind thanks for following up with Kodak on this.

/rant-on

I took my film holder and put it in an Arca Swiss back and an Ikeda Anba back just to see if the bow would flatten out. The Readyload holder was still bowed on the end as illustrated.

I fail to understand how this can meet specifications! This is nothing short of sloppy.

I wonder how many out of focus images it would take to convince Kodak this is their problem? I have 40+ negs from India that show the problem. Somehow I doubt they'll pay for a return trip so that I can recreate that which I lost due to their "manufacturing tolerance" for junk equipment.

This puts the finishing touch on my evolving thoughts on the topic. From now on it's Ilford for ULF materials and Fuji for 4x5 Quickloads.

I used to care if Kodak survived or not. I'm not so sure I care anymore. Kodak isn't 1/2 the company they used to be.

/rant-off


I just got off the phone with Gary Spence of Kodak. He's got my Readyload holder, he acknowledges that it has a measureable bow ...
And... he told me not to worry about it. Said that it's within manufacturing tolerence. That I should only worry about it if I can send him a sheet of film that's either soft on one end or fogged...

I think I'm going to end up with a Fuji Quickload holder and Fujicolor Pro 160-S. I'm resigning my (small) role as Kodak's QA department.

Really disappointing Kodak. Not unexpected. But really disappointing none-the-less.

[Bruce Watson]

I finally broke down and tested my Readyload holder. This is one that Kodak sent back to me, acknowledged that it was bowed on the end inserted first and facing the lens. They said this was normal and that the holder was within specs.

To test it, I pulled out my little 80mm SS-XL (the theory being that to minimize the depth of focus, you use as short a lens as you can, focused at infinity, and shot wide open). I focused at infinity (in this case, about 16 m, or around 200 times focal length). The subject was a series of stone pillars from the local performance hall. The eight pillars took up most of the frame, and are nice and planar. I focused all four corners as well as I could (6x loupe).

I took two exposures, both at f/4.5 (wide open). And before anyone asks, this is one of the "good" 80mm SS-XLs that is sharp wide open ;-) One exposure on Tri-X in a Lisco Regal II that is known to be good. The other exposure on 100Tmax in the Readyload holder.

I examined both on a light table with a 10x loupe. As expected, the Tri-X negative was sharp on all four corners. In a bit of a surprise, the 100Tmax negative was also sharp on all four corners.

In this case, I have to admit that Kodak is correct. The Readyload holder I have, bowed as it is, works as advertised.

[Frank Petronio]

Chris - have you tried heating it over the woodstove and dewarpifying it?

[Christopher Perez]

Frank - I took it to India and set it in the sun. I tried dewarping it on top of the hill at Shravanabelagola. Alas, the Jain idols had no effect on the Readyload's state of warp.

Kodak took the holder back. I bought a Quickload holder and thought I was moving to just Fuji. But then Sheldon came along with a version III Readyload holder that is correctly flat on the clip end and I bought it.

As I suggested to Bruce, this can mean only one thing: It's a sign of impending change now that my 4x5 holders are "good", and I'm moving to 5x7 and 8x10. :)


Chris - have you tried heating it over the woodstove and dewarpifying it?

[Kirk Keyes]

But then Sheldon came along with a version III Readyload holder that is correctly flat on the clip end and I bought it.

Chris - the Series III is not designed for single sheet film packets and it may not apply enough pressure to keep a single sheet packet flat. You want to get a Series IIII (i.e. IV) holder - it will have a black pressure plate on it if you want an old style Kodak holder. See the photos on http://www.butzi.net/reviews/readyquick.htm

I know you love testing stuff - I have a Series IIII holder if you want to do some comparisons with your holder. Let me know and I can bring it over.

Kirk

[Gordon Moat]

I will also recommend the Series IIII with black pressure plate. Mine works extremely well with the newest film packets. I have a few left-over Series III, and have thought about modifying them to black pressure plates. The Series III spring pressure does seem to be a little less than the Series IIII, though I am not certain that the differences would show up in the final image.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)