View Full Version : Ready Load Film Holders

Chris Spencer
19-Jul-1998, 02:48
Does anyone have any thoughts on the ready load film holders made by Fuji and Ko dak that accept the 20 preloaded packets of film? Will the Kodak and Fuji pack ets work in the Polaroid 545 film holder and work in the others film holder? Wh ich is the bettter system the Kodak or Fuji? What are the advantages and disad vantages over conventional film holders?

Sean Donnelly
19-Jul-1998, 19:27
Fuji Quickload works very well in the Fuji film holder, well in the Polaroid, an d not at all in the Kodak. In the Fuji holder, film flatness compares well with a conventional film holder. Each packet contains a single sheet of film. The product does not suffer from light leaks.

Kodak Readyload works moderately well in the Kodak back, poorly or not at all in the Polaroid, and not at all in the Fuji. Each packet contains two sheets of f ilm. The product suffers from light leaks unless great care is taken to avoid b ending the packet, to firmly reseat the packet, and to shield the loading slot f rom ambient light.

Readyload is about twice as compact as Quickload, which is much more compact tha n a comparable set of conventioal film holders. In both brands, available film types are somewhat limited. Both are considerably more expensive than conventio nally packaged film.

Bruce M. Herman
20-Jul-1998, 03:28
I find that I disagree with several points made by the previous respondant.

1. Fuji quickloads work very well in the Kodak holder. I regularly use Velvia i n my Kodak holder. It is true, however, that Kodak Readyloads do not work in th e Fuji holder.

2. The relative flatness is irrelevant to field photographers. I've read numero us articles in this web site in which the writers get "hung up" about difference s that can rarely be percieved on the film. If you're doing field photography ( not studio) keep in mind that your ability to focus will be limited because a) y ou will often be working in morning or eveing light, and you'll be in a hurry du e to the short time that you have good light, and b) it's somewhat dark, and so you can't see anything when you stop your lens down, anyway. Consequently, you w ill find yourself using a smaller aperature than would be ideal just to make sur e that you make the photograph. This is art, not engineering.

I own and have used both holders extensively. Here's my read on the subject. I f you prefer Fuji's film, and do not plan to use Kodak's film, buy the Fuji hold er. If you use Kodak's film, buy the Kodak holder. If you use both brands of f ilm (I use Velvia and E100SW), buy the Kodak holder. Later, when you've become more experienced and have begun to develope more personal biases, you can get th e Fuji holder if it is appropriate.

As an artist, your composition and palette (i.e., film in this case), are more i mportant than nuances in sharpness. Worry about these. That means that you sho uld try several films until you understand them and develope of preference.

As a side note, you'll find it interesting that an article in View Camera magazi ne concluded that the Kodak holder gave sharper images than the Fuji holder. An article published on this site concluded just the opposite!

Best wishes,


Ellis Vener
20-Jul-1998, 04:25
About using Readyloads (or Quickloads) in the Polaroid holder: Besides the light leak problem, there is also the problem of film plane placement. While hardly a big enough sample to be considered statistically valid, in my tests on my equipm ent, the Fuji Quickloads were sharper in their own holder as were the Kodak Read yloads. The films tested were Fuji RVP and RDPII and Kodak E100S. As far as the lightleak problem with Readyloads in current Readyload holders (wh ich I have by the way) is concerned, what would you consider an acceptable perce ntage of fogged film due to bad design of product? I have had 0% failure rate wi th the Fuji product and my average shooting level is approximately one case of f ilm per month over the past two years. Kodak needs to redesign their Readyload p roduct so that it is as fast, simple, and reliable as Fuji's. This will probably mean either going to a single sheet per sleeve system like Fuji's, rethinking a nd redesigning the holder, or rethinking and redesigning both sleeve and holder. I hope that they are in the midst of doing so. Ellis

27-Jul-1998, 00:42
I shoot Readyload (TMX 100) with the Kodak holder. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I s hoot 300-400 Readyloads per month and I don't know when I last had a failure. Ac tually, I do, but it failed (crinkled) on me during insertion, so I just chucked the defective one and moved on; it's been a looonnng time since I had disappoin tment at the time of developing.

Note that there ARE apparently some important nuances to working with Readyload to prevent failure, most of which are covered in Kodak's instructions (and all o f which quickly become instinctive in the field; if I can master them anyone can !); an extensive discussion of them is under the "Accessories" section of the ho me page, under "Sheet Film holders." (It also pays to buy the newest incarnation of the holder, as Kodak has revised it more than once.)

Some people hate the Readyload system, and some wouldn't use anything else; coun t me in the latter category.