Why So Not--Quickloads/Readyloads

[Raymond Bleesz]

In this age of scaling back film availability, a singular question keeps coming to the forfront of my thinking.

With so many of us LFers, and I assume most use higher ASA films such as Tri X, Tmax or HP5, etc, why is it that Kodak, Fuji produce their readyloads, Quickloads in the ASA 100 range. If the Readyloads were available as ASA 400 or so, would that not be a blessing?

Anyone listening or disagreeing?

[Bruce Watson]

Search the archives. This has been talked to death.

[Eric Leppanen]

Your question has asked by many, many people over the years...

The feedback I got from Ilford (admittedly pre-reorganization) was that doing Readyloads or Quickloads would not be cost-effective. I presume this includes tooling, packaging, royalties, etc. So far, the new product noises I have seen out of Ilford have not included revisiting the Readyload/Quickload issue, but we can only hope.

Various rationales put forward for the lack of 400 speed film support have included:

- 4x5 photographers stress high resolution, and are therefore less likely to use 400 speed film.
- 400 speed films are potentially vulnerable in certain conditions to fogging within the Quickload/Readyload packets.
- Aside from Tri-X/HP5+, 400 speed film represents a small portion of 4x5 demand, and is therefore not cost-effective to package in Quickload/Readyload.

Of course, one could argue that none of these statements is true, although the last one probably is.

The route of least resistance would be for Kodak to package Tri-X in Readyloads, since that company is already in the Readyload business. However, given that this has not happened in all these years, it is unlikely to happen now.

[Ted Harris]

I'm not so sure that the assumption about the use of high speed film is correct. I can only answer from my own perspective but I never shoot anything over ISO 100 unless absolutely necessary and I seldom find it a necessity. Further, most of my commercial work and a hgh percentage of my personnal work is color.

[roteague]

It isn't cost effective. Most Quickloads/Readyloads are used by those shooting color, and most shoot low speed films - there is very little value in high speed films for us. That is why it is/was relatively easy to get Velvia 50 in QuickLoads.

[Ralph Barker]

Ilford announces Delta 3200 and HP5+ in the new 8x10 ZippyLoad packaging!

Just kidding, folks.

My understanding was that when Ilford looked into 4x5 Quickloads/Readyloads neither Fuji nor Kodak were interested in licensing their technology at a price that made sense. Add the cost of tooling, etc. with no real expectation of sales volume gains (a large percentage of sales would be shifted from existing products), and there you have it.

[Gordon Moat]

Is there anything that would prevent Ilford from making something like a Grafmatic like insert? What I am envisioning is something pre-loaded with 10 shots of a given film, perhaps in a plastic pack. I know this sounds like a Polaroid thing, but those of us using Quickload/Readyload films often want something pre-loaded. The only Ilford films I now use on my 4x5 are ones that I can get in 120 rollfilm to go into my Linhof Super Rollex back. I would imagine the patent on a Grafmatic multi-shot back might be expired, perhaps opening that route, unless that is too similar to a Mido holder.

Anyway, the convenience and ease of dropping off film is a big plus for Quickload/Readyload films. I don't have any interest in changing bags, dust, reloading holders, nor in carrying huge bags of loaded film holders on location shoots. Probably since Kodak and Fuji both sell at least one B/W film in Quickload/Readyload, they have no interest in helping Ilford.

I would like to see HP5+ packaged somehow. So far I have been using it to send off for DR5 processing. I would gladly pay higher per shot costs for a better packet solution. Another possibility might be that Fuji Quickchange holder, though hard to tell if Fuji want to make that more available, nor if they want to license that.

Ciao!

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

[Sal Santamaura]

Is there anything that would prevent Ilford from making something like a Grafmatic like insert?...Probably the total lack of a reasonable business case for whatever investment would be required. Why not ask Simon?

[Ralph Barker]

Interesting idea, Gordon. But, given the LF market as it is today, I doubt they could ever recoup the R+D costs, or manufacture something akin to a Grafmatic at a reasonable price, given current labor costs. All things considered, we're probably lucky they didn't just close the doors permanently during the receivership.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Fuji made the Quickchange system for a few years, which was like a Grafmatic that took 8-sheet cartridges that came preloaded, but could be reloaded with any film you wanted. As far as I can tell, they didn't market it outside Japan, but Robert White and Badger Graphic imported it for a while. It never really took off, probably because it was an expensive way to buy film if you just planned to use the preloaded cartridges, and if you planned to reload, it was considerably more expensive than just buying used Grafmatics.

[Vaughn]

Why not? Because you do not get the niffty "T" sort of markings from the standard film holders!;)

Vaughn

[David Karp]

My understanding was that when Ilford looked into 4x5 Quickloads/Readyloads neither Fuji nor Kodak were interested in licensing their technology at a price that made sense. Add the cost of tooling, etc. with no real expectation of sales volume gains (a large percentage of sales would be shifted from existing products), and there you have it.

I seem to remember that Simon mentioned somewhere that they have thought about it, but that people are buying Ilford film in enough volume that they did not see the need to go to a Quick/Ready load system.

Even so, I wonder if they ever contacted Polaroid. I am sure that Polaroid could use some money, and might have asked for a lower royalty than Kodak or Fuji, who do not need to help a competitor.

[Capocheny]

Raymond,

For 4x5, I usually shoot with FP4+ as my "standard" B&W film and Provia/Velvia for color.

For larger formats such as 5x7 and 8x10... I shoot HP5+/TMax 400 for B&W film and either EPN or Provia for color.

I'm not so sure that your comment about film speed usage is entirely accurate. :)

Cheers

[Bruce Watson]

Even so, I wonder if they ever contacted Polaroid. I am sure that Polaroid could use some money, and might have asked for a lower royalty than Kodak or Fuji, who do not need to help a competitor.

Royalty? If I read the USPTO site correctly, patent protection for Kodak readyload holders and readyload packets ends in 2007. Once the patents run out, anyone can make a copy and sell it, including Ilford putting their films in readyload packets royalty-free.

I didn't bother investigating the Fuji patents, but I think their patents are withing a couple of years one way or the other with Kodak.

[Frank Petronio]

I think this is why you see Grafmatics selling for $100 each these days.

[David Karp]

If I read the USPTO site correctly, patent protection for Kodak readyload holders and readyload packets ends in 2007. Once the patents run out, anyone can make a copy and sell it, including Ilford putting their films in readyload packets royalty-free.

That is interesting, but does not solve the problem of capital investment. It would still require Ilford to invest in tooling, etc. to make their own holders and for machinery to enclose the film in packets.

I was thinking of the possibility that Polaroid might be interested in some $ for packaging the Ilford film. This could be in exchange for a royalty or a flat fee. That would avoid some of the risk involved in the enterprise: No up front capital expenditures, a recognized system that works, lots of people out there with holders, quicker to market, etc.

Does anyone know whether Polaroid packages their film themselves, or if it is done by a third party?