4x5 Tri-X in Readyloads?

[Curtis Nelson]

Several months ago there was a thread here that Kodak was considering manufacturing their Tri-X film in 4x5 readyloads. Has anyone heard anything new about this?

Thanks,

Curtis

[C. D. Keth]

Haven't heard a thing. Be glad, I guess, that they're still making Tri-x.

[CXC]

Dream on.

[Bruce Watson]

Several months ago there was a thread here that Kodak was considering manufacturing their Tri-X film in 4x5 readyloads. Has anyone heard anything new about this?

Nope. Sorry. If they would do it, I would buy it. Or even 400Tmax.

Rumor has it that faster films fog too easily in the cardboard sleeve. Considering that Tri-X is really just one stop faster than 160PortraVC which is offered in Readyload format (thank goodness), I find this sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

Another rumor is that the film guys are fighting the digital guys, and the digital guys don't want Kodak to produce any more SKUs for film.

Rumors only. No facts. Kodak believes in ignoring its customers and so won't give an actual reason to anyone. Sigh...

[Christopher Perez]

My recent experience with Kodak has left me with a very similar impression.

Isn't it a self fulfilling prophecy to say something won't sell when it's not even offered? :(


... Kodak believes in ignoring its customers and so won't give an actual reason to anyone. Sigh...

[Capocheny]

I'll believe it when I see it... with my own eyes!

Personally, I've already switched over to Ilford for all of my LF film requirements.

Cheers

[Christopher Perez]

I have transitioned to Fuji and Ilford.

If Fuji ever offered a 400 speed B&W film in Quickloads a little wish of mine would come true. As it is, where I'm headed (again) requires handheld 100 speed films as they disallow the use of tripods... and I'm not sure I want to haul 10 or 20 film holders... Yikes!



Personally, I've already switched over to Ilford for all of my LF film requirements.

[Gordon Moat]

I would be happy with E200 in Readyloads, since it has great push characteristics. However, since this thread is about B/W, I make do with faster films by using a roll film holder on my 4x5. Quickloads and Readyloads are super convenient and easy to use. It is a shame that Ilford do not make any products that can be used in either holder system.

Ciao!

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

[Tom Westbrook]

According to the Rep at the VC conference last summer, the Tri-X Readyload thing was abandoned due to static discharge problems caused caused by the sleeve and film rubbing against each other. I'm guessing they just used the same sleeve as TMax and didn't put much effort into finding a solution to this problem--probably not really worth it to them monetarily.

[Curtis Nelson]

Thanks for the answers.

I guess I'll go load up a couple of film holders.

[CXC]

You know, I'm kind of glad to hear that there are actually reasons why Kodak doesn't ReadyLoad Tri-X. It's a little less frustrating than the alternative, that they just don't want ME to have any. ;-)

And the fact that Fuji does not have anything comparable in QuickLoads kind of confirms it...

[Bruce Watson]

According to the Rep at the VC conference last summer, the Tri-X Readyload thing was abandoned due to static discharge problems caused caused by the sleeve and film rubbing against each other. I'm guessing they just used the same sleeve as TMax and didn't put much effort into finding a solution to this problem--probably not really worth it to them monetarily.

This seems odd to me. It would seem logical (I know, I know) that all their films would have the same film base. Also that all their films would have the same top coat over the emulsion. So why would they have static problems with some films but not others? Guess it would take a film engineer to 'splain it.

[Herb Cunningham]

Grafmatics! As long as it is 4x5, they hold film nice and flat, and 6 shots per