PDA

View Full Version : Readyloads Discontinued?



Scott Chandler
25-Aug-2007, 17:04
Hello

I've noticed there seems to be a shortage of Readyload holders and film lately, and I was told by a local pro lab that Kodak may be discontinuing that system. It may just be a shortage, but has anyone else heard anything about Kodak ceasing production?

Gordon Moat
25-Aug-2007, 17:15
Last Kodak reps I spoke with stated: no way. About the only thing not really changing is any expansion of film choices, though the current group seems quite good.

There was an issue of quality control in the latest holders. This might be why they are a little tough to find. Apparently some were not truly flat, which potentially could have compromised film flatness, or led to light leaks. However, it is as simple as checking the holder in the camera prior to putting it to use. If the holder seems to be out of true while in the camera, then return it for a refund or exchange.

Ciao!

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

davidb
25-Aug-2007, 17:22
Hi Scott,
Welcome to the forum. There was a thread on this a few weeks back. Do a search.

Scott Chandler
25-Aug-2007, 18:50
Yes, I read the previous thread. I believe that was just about a holder shortage, I was wondering about a discontinuation of the whole Readyload system. But if that's not the case, I'm glad to hear it.

Sal Santamaura
3-Jun-2008, 12:09
Almost a year since this thread was initiated, Readyloads are being discontinued:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/readyload/readyloadMain.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.27&lc=en&_requestid=5111

vann webb
3-Jun-2008, 12:18
I'm thankful that I went with Quickloads instead of Readyloads, but of course, that could change in the not so distant future too.

David Finch
3-Jun-2008, 13:13
Pray Ilford might step in and save the day. Reportedly Ilford is negotiating with Polaroid to take over production of Polaroid's b&w instant films. Maybe Ilford could buy the rights to Readyload (which is nothing more than a relatively simple packaging technology) and make it an option for some of its excellent b&w films.

Does anyone know anyone at Ilford who might listen to my plea?

Sal Santamaura
3-Jun-2008, 13:24
...Ilford might step in and save the day. Reportedly Ilford is negotiating with Polaroid to take over production of Polaroid's b&w instant films...Ilford has already announced that it will not take over Polaroid production; its analysis indicated doing so would not be economically viable.

I'd rate my chances of winning the lottery greater than Ilford packaging its films in Readyload-compatible packets. The odds of Kodak selling Ilford that equipment are even longer.

BarryS
3-Jun-2008, 13:41
Kodak stopped manufacturing Readyloads because it no longer makes economic sense, so it seems likely that Ilford would face the same constraints. I'd also expect Fuji to also discontinue Quickloads in the next few years. Probably good sense to add a freezer to the large format photographer's kit.

vann webb
3-Jun-2008, 14:15
Kodak stopped manufacturing Readyloads because it no longer makes economic sense, so it seems likely that Ilford would face the same constraints. I'd also expect Fuji to also discontinue Quickloads in the next few years. Probably good sense to add a freezer to the large format photographer's kit.

That well could be the case. However, I am hoping that with consolidation that comes from Kodak dropping out of the field, Fuji gains market share of the quickload style product. I dunno. There will be a big ass freezer going in at my garage. I am already getting some chin music over the amount of film in our food freezer, since I buy in bulk to start with. Quickloads are kind of bulky to store in the freezer, but it is what it is.

Walter Jakubowski
3-Jun-2008, 14:42
Something isn't right here. Maybe the volume of the business has declined but it should level out and still be profitable. If Kodak thinks their Readyload customers will switch back to conventional sheet film (loading film holders) they are WRONG!!! I hope they realize that they are conceding that business to Fuji. Hopefully Fuji will benefit enough to keep it going. I use it not as much for the convenience as for the reduced weight and volume when hiking with my equipment. I will be happy to give my business to Fuji to maintain my "lifestyle" as I'm sure will many others. Fuji also offers a greater selection of their film in Quickload format and from what I understand the Fuji Quickloads are compatible with the Kodak Readyload film holder. I get the feeling
that Kodak, currently managed by former HP execs, would as soon dump the whole
film business!

Walter

Erich Hoeber
3-Jun-2008, 15:39
Great. Now I've got a worthless Readyload back to match my Polariod back. I:eek:
I know Kodak's gotta make a buck like everyone else, but sometimes I can't help but feel I've been whacked upside the head by a yellow box.

mrladewig
3-Jun-2008, 16:12
Good thing they brought out a new holder just in time to discontinue the system.

For backpacking, its no contest between a box of 20 Quickloads and 10 film holders. Shame as I'd tried the E100VS and liked it for certain applications.

Richard M. Coda
3-Jun-2008, 16:14
I share Walter's fear of Kodak abandoning film. Seems like every month now, something else is disappearing.

IanMazursky
3-Jun-2008, 16:17
I use fuji QL's in my kodak RL holder all the time. They work great.
This is an annoying bit of news though. Ow well, more business to Fuji.
Now if they would only cut ULF film. I would be very happy.

Sal Santamaura
3-Jun-2008, 18:19
...Now if they would only cut ULF film. I would be very happy.They would have if you'd ordered 20 more boxes of 12x20:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=36984

IanMazursky
3-Jun-2008, 18:25
I meant Fuji. Not kodak. I would love to see some Velvia 50 in 12x20!!

I am participating in Ilfords ULF order instead. I love HP5.

Gordon Moat
3-Jun-2008, 21:58
E100VS is a great long exposure night film, especially in urban settings. I don't see a Fuji equivalent in colour response. The thing for me that would make things tougher is that work goes faster with Readyloads than with regular holders, plus there is less chance of camera movement from one shot to the next. This is besides the point of lighter overall weight using Readyloads. To stay in E100VS for night images, I am more likely to go to 120 rollfilm than double darks in the future. At least this film refrigerates really well and holds colour response nicely past the expiration date.

I like Fuji Astia 100F and use quite a bit of it. Unfortunately I have never liked Provia, nor the response of Velvia, though I have yet to try the newer 50 that the Fuji rep gave me recently.

Just a guess, though it does seem that Kodak and Fuji are moving more towards not competing in certain products. I guess with the larger selection, Quickloads are more viable for Fujifilm. I also wonder how many photographers were pissed about the quality control issues on the latest Readyload holders, and abandoned Kodak for Fuji.

Ilford for me is a non-player in all this. They have previously remarked about not offering packet type films due to lack of the packaging equipment. The other thing is that they only make B/W films. While I would be tempted to shoot more Ilford in larger than 120 rollfilm, if they had a packet type film, I seriously don't see that happening.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

tgtaylor
3-Jun-2008, 22:40
I'm glad I switched from Ready/QuickLoads to film holders. Not only is it a lot cheaper but also a lot easier backpacking with a box of 50 sheets, 3 holders, and a small changing tent than 2 boxes of readyloads.

Thomas

Eric Brody
4-Jun-2008, 07:28
Van Camper...Kodak defined "significantly declining sales volume," we photographers did not. Since I am not a business person, I clearly cannot comprehend business decisions but at a recent workshop, 9 of 14 students were using Readyloads, one was shooting 8x10, one 4x5 Acros, one a D300 and one medium format. If that is typical of the penetration of the market Kodak had with Readyloads, it is not looking good for film in general. I am among the many who are disappointed.

Eric

RPNugent
4-Jun-2008, 08:31
I think gauging use rates on workshops probably gives a skewed view. I know I use ready/quickloads in workshops since I travel and it reduces the film hassles. At home the added cost doesn't justify them so I use grafmatics instead. Far more of my film used comes out of boxes of sheets rather than readyloads.

Dave Brown
4-Jun-2008, 09:21
While it's sad to see our large format film options diminished, only a blind man wouldn't have seen this (or Polaroid's demise) coming. Kodak has gone from being a photography company to being a technology company; expecting them to continue to support silver based photography would be akin to expecting Microsoft to support punch cards.

The good news is that if Kodak follows standard practice, it won't be long before they spin off the film/paper/chemical part of the business as an independent entity. Such an entity, having to rely upon film sales for its livelihood, would have no choice but to be responsive to the market.

Personally, I'm down to using three Kodak products: Dektol, Photo flo, and HC-110. There are suitable substitutes available for all of those, although I'll sure miss HC-110 when it's gone.

David A. Goldfarb
4-Jun-2008, 09:24
Two Kinematic filmholders (10-shot version of a Grafmatic) are way more compact than 20 Readyloads or Quickloads and a QL/RL holder.

Gordon Moat
4-Jun-2008, 09:52
It is not so much the compactness nor the weight for me. What I like is having the holder in place, then just changing packets. So there is very little chance for camera movement between shots, and my set-up of camera to subject distance is maintained.

Oh well, I suppose if I ever find a good deal on a Mido holder, that might be a reasonable substitute. At least that way I could do a series of shots before pulling the holder.

No doubt that Readyloads are one of the more expensive products for Kodak. Also, film is still over $2Billion revenues; if Kodak does not replace that revenue with something else, then their market capitalization looks quite bad; something to consider beyond their profits from film products. Kodak does not have any other technology slated to replace that much revenue, at least judging by the growth of those other sectors in which they participate. I am not suggesting that continuing Readyloads changes that, though the less they compete directly with Fujifilm, then the better their remaining products will continue to generate revenues and profits.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Erich Hoeber
4-Jun-2008, 13:07
I really wish Kodak would spin off their film business. I get the feeling like at this point it's nothing but a distraction for them. I think it's pretty likely that there's still good money that could be made with some of these products they're discontinuing, if only they were coming at it differently. I really hope we don't lose TMY in a couple years.

evan clarke
5-Jun-2008, 03:15
What does a company do when sales volume falls to the point where trained, skilled workers only need to show up one day every couple of weeks to satisfy orders? They HAVE to quit, can't pay people to do nothing....EC

butterfly
5-Jun-2008, 08:42
Problem as I see it now is that Fuji Quickloads are twice the price of Kodak's readyloads. So there will not be a big automatic switch to Fuji. Photographers will probably switch to sheet film and darkslides. And Fuji will charge more for their products having a monopoly.

Kirk Fry
5-Jun-2008, 21:24
How much of that $2 billion is movie film sales. When that is gone, Kodak is likely done with film. K

Michael Kadillak
5-Jun-2008, 21:41
Just to put some semblance of reasonableness to this issue, I learned that a while back Kodak outsourced the assembling of their Ready Loads to Polaroid as they had certain obvious skills in this arena.

Onward!

vinny
5-Jun-2008, 21:58
Problem as I see it now is that Fuji Quickloads are twice the price of Kodak's readyloads. So there will not be a big automatic switch to Fuji. Photographers will probably switch to sheet film and darkslides. And Fuji will charge more for their products having a monopoly.

Where are you shopping?
The prices i've seen from b&h and the other large stores are only slightly more and the same prices for b+w films.

Movie film is a large part of the availability of still film, i believe. They said that would be gone when digital video came about. Lucky for us it still looks like video and Spielberg won't touch it.

Kirk Keyes
6-Jun-2008, 07:54
Unfortunately, Lucas does...

Gordon Moat
6-Jun-2008, 10:43
How much of that $2 billion is movie film sales. When that is gone, Kodak is likely done with film. K

You can find the numbers through the reports that Kodak (EK) files with the SEC. They have juggled around the accounting methods and distribution they use, so pulling specific numbers for specific types of products is very difficult on a year-by-year basis. However, the +$2B figure did not include motion picture films, which are not considered a consumer division.

Don't forget that consumer film division includes photo-finishing and one-time-use cameras in revenues. It is not all film sales. If you look at kiosks, or mini-labs, there is paper and chemicals being used for prints that likely originated as digital captures. Kodak do not publish what volumes specific products enjoy, so if Readyloads were only $1Million annually in revenues, it might make more sense to discontinue it.

There are economies of volume and scale involved. Run the equipment less often, and efficiency decreases, meaning more likely that product quality suffers. I would guess, given past Kodak ULF orders, that they might do a future run of something in Readyload, but only if the money is there first.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Don Hutton
6-Jun-2008, 11:22
Problem as I see it now is that Fuji Quickloads are twice the price of Kodak's readyloads.Not sure where you buy your film but- 100B&W:http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=601 vs http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=651 - Quickloads are 13% cheaper for B&W...

160 Color neg - http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=604 vs http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=633 - Quickloads are 14% cheaper for color negs...

JPlomley
6-Jun-2008, 11:23
Shame, I rather liked E100VS when reciprocity failure would kill RVP-50 and used the Readyloads to hike the Virgin Narrows last fall and throughout Yosemite/Sequoia/Kings Canyon this year. They killed E100VS in 8x10 format (a favorite of Fatalli), now Readyloads, and within the next two years I suspect we can say goodbye to Kodak transparency film. I just don't understand b/c there is nothing I ever shot in digital that can compete with a pro-flatbed or drum scanned LF transparency. What the hell is wrong with this world? Does quality imagery not matter anymore. Are we content to simply view imagery through our computers, limited to 72 ppi, with content captured on cell phone. I for one will shoot LF transparency film for as long as I can buy it and get it processed.

BarryS
6-Jun-2008, 12:17
Just to put some semblance of reasonableness to this issue, I learned that a while back Kodak outsourced the assembling of their Ready Loads to Polaroid as they had certain obvious skills in this arena.

Onward!

That puts a considerably different spin on the news. If the Readyload assembly was contracted out to Polaroid, then Polaroid's ceasing all production activities would leave Kodak with a hard choice--re-establishing a production line back at Kodak or pulling the plug on the product. They probably figured they couldn't recover their costs in a short enough time. I'm seriously wondering if Kodak's sheet film business is in a death spiral. Increased prices, undesirable packaging and fewer choices leading to further decreased sales and so on. Maybe the 10 sheet packaging reflects Kodak sunsetting large format film for commercial use and the artistic use is so small that we're expected to piggyback on the final offerings for the commercial market.

JPlomley
6-Jun-2008, 12:28
Just an fyi, I called Jeff at Badger and he has plenty of Readyloads in stock, and apparently Kodak will continue to supply until the end of the calender year.

As well, and on a more positive note, Fuji is finally going to package RVP-50 in 50 sheet packs. No more twenty 10 packs shipped to location in a ridiculous sized box. Jeff has them on order.

Gene McCluney
7-Jun-2008, 00:23
Maybe the 10 sheet packaging reflects Kodak sunsetting large format film for commercial use and the artistic use is so small that we're expected to piggyback on the final offerings for the commercial market.

The 10 sheet packaging is just a marketing idea to get more people to try the films. Watch, and in the next year or so you will see a return to larger packaging.

I think sheet film (in general) will have a longer life than many expect, as ALL SIZES of a given sheet-film emulsion are created from the same master roll of that emulsion, by the simple method of cutting the film to different sizes. 120 film and 35mm still camera film require additional manufacturing steps, and materials to arrive at finished products.

Dirk Rösler
7-Jun-2008, 05:32
Kodak may pull down the shutters on film business

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece

Given one of the good points the article (Bollywood), being in Asia Fuji is well-placed to become the single film maker for the foreseeable (=our) future.

So it's a question of when - not if - the dice will roll. Kodak CEO has publicly stated that matters regarding the film business don't even reach him. How obvious does it have to get?

As for custom product runs, Fuji is open to that. I once inquired about RVP50 in 5x7, and they said something along the lines that as long as you order a hundred boxes and give three months lead time they can do it.

D. Bryant
7-Jun-2008, 06:00
Kodak may pull down the shutters on film business

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece

Given one of the good points the article (Bollywood), being in Asia Fuji is well-placed to become the single film maker for the foreseeable (=our) future.

So it's a question of when - not if - the dice will roll. Kodak CEO has publicly stated that matters regarding the film business don't even reach him. How obvious does it have to get?

As for custom product runs, Fuji is open to that. I once inquired about RVP50 in 5x7, and they said something along the lines that as long as you order a hundred boxes and give three months lead time they can do it.

Dewd,

That article is dated Feb. 2007!

Don Bryant

Dirk Rösler
7-Jun-2008, 06:09
Dewd,

That article is dated Feb. 2007!

Don Bryant

So?

Michael Kadillak
7-Jun-2008, 08:58
That puts a considerably different spin on the news. If the Readyload assembly was contracted out to Polaroid, then Polaroid's ceasing all production activities would leave Kodak with a hard choice--re-establishing a production line back at Kodak or pulling the plug on the product. They probably figured they couldn't recover their costs in a short enough time. I'm seriously wondering if Kodak's sheet film business is in a death spiral. Increased prices, undesirable packaging and fewer choices leading to further decreased sales and so on. Maybe the 10 sheet packaging reflects Kodak sunsetting large format film for commercial use and the artistic use is so small that we're expected to piggyback on the final offerings for the commercial market.

It would be very wrong to attempt to take one data point and extrapolate it to sheet film. The facts are not pointing in this direction.

Back to the original post Kodak mentioned to me that they would go from 10 sheets to probably 25 sheet boxes in 8x10 later this year as expected. Keep up the faith guys. All is very well.

Cheers!

vinny
7-Jun-2008, 09:26
Back to the original post Kodak mentioned to me that they would go from 10 sheets to probably 25 sheet boxes in 8x10 later this year as expected. Keep up the faith guys. All is very well.

Cheers![/QUOTE]

Good! That's the good thing about these threads, maybe someone who cares is reading them!

BigSteveG
7-Jun-2008, 09:30
"Chin Music"? That's pretty funny term. I've never heard it.

Allen Quinn
7-Jun-2008, 16:19
"Chin Music'...ah, a wonderful baseball phrase. Refers to a pitcher throwing a fast ball high and inside to keep the batter off balance. Perhaps a little bit applicable to large format photographers in a digital 72 dpi world.

Keith Tapscott.
8-Jun-2008, 06:48
I use fuji QL's in my kodak RL holder all the time. They work great.
I am glad to read that Ian, as I am only half way through my 2nd box of 100TMX and thought I would have been left with an expensive but useless film holder.

ljsegil
8-Jun-2008, 09:12
So should we see if we can get a significantly large group together to get Fuji to make RVP50 in either 5x7 or 8x10 (both in an ideal world)? Seems worth a try to me. Anybody interested, how much film, and preferred format?
LJS

vinny
8-Jun-2008, 10:02
You could just order it from these nice folks:
http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=2361

at least the 8x10
ask Dirk at unicircuits.com about 5x7?

Dirk Rösler
8-Jun-2008, 16:33
You could just order it from these nice folks:
http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=2361

at least the 8x10
ask Dirk at unicircuits.com about 5x7?

8x10 is readily available.

if you want to start an effort of placing an 5x7 order, I'm up for it. I suppose everyone has to order around 3-5 boxes minimum to make a hundred boxes.

Robert Ruderman
13-Jun-2008, 08:31
Well...what I suspect is my last order of TMAX100 Readyloads just showed up. I want to stash most of it (sealed & unopened) in my freezer for future trips abroad. Does anyone have experience in freezing Readyloads that they can share? I'm thinking that some of the Readyloads could be in the freezer for as long as 5 years.

-Any recommended wrapping to the sealed box prior to freezing? Plastic wrap?
-Is there any harm to the Readyload envelope when freezing longterm?

Thanks,
Robert

Michael Kadillak
13-Jun-2008, 10:03
Well...what I suspect is my last order of TMAX100 Readyloads just showed up. I want to stash most of it (sealed & unopened) in my freezer for future trips abroad. Does anyone have experience in freezing Readyloads that they can share? I'm thinking that some of the Readyloads could be in the freezer for as long as 5 years.

-Any recommended wrapping to the sealed box prior to freezing? Plastic wrap?
-Is there any harm to the Readyload envelope when freezing longterm?

Thanks,
Robert

Unopened packages should be perfectly fine for extended periods of time so I would not give it a second thought. Kodak seals these packages specifically to maintain a humidy free environment for this very purpose. Plus, you are employing a lower ASA film that inherently carries with it a propensity to be less susceptible to naturally occurring radiation. I would load up (no pun intended) and shoot away.

Cheers!

Sal Santamaura
13-Jun-2008, 13:58
Unopened packages should be perfectly fine for extended periods of time...I'm not certain about that. I recently discussed this with a friend who said he took a similar approach when pack film was discontinued. Upon using some years later, he developed the film only to find pinholes throughout the negatives. All other characteristics were normal. We speculate that the paper wasn't safe for such extended storage.

It would be interesting to hear from Kodak whether cardboard used for ReadyLoad packets passes the Photographic Activity Test.

Michael Kadillak
14-Jun-2008, 11:54
I'm not certain about that. I recently discussed this with a friend who said he took a similar approach when pack film was discontinued. Upon using some years later, he developed the film only to find pinholes throughout the negatives. All other characteristics were normal. We speculate that the paper wasn't safe for such extended storage.

It would be interesting to hear from Kodak whether cardboard used for ReadyLoad packets passes the Photographic Activity Test.


I will ask Kodak and post the response.

Cheers!

Robert Ruderman
17-Jun-2008, 21:57
Michael - I'd be quite interested in learning what you find out from Kodak on this matter. Please keep us posted.

Michael Kadillak
18-Jun-2008, 08:01
Had a chance to speak to Kodak on this matter and I found out that the paper backing that Kodak employs in their readyloads is carefully selected for the task at hand with an emphasis on longevity. The key to this whole situation is to leave the sealed packet intact and when it is opened, try to expose the film as soon as possible.

The ready load is packaged at 40% humidity within this sealed container for a reason and should last many years in cold storage with no performance issues. I was told that most of the time the problems with failures has been when the packet has been opened and stored in this condition for an extended term term which is not recommended.

Inventory is still very robust so if this is a product that you use regularly, now is the time to stock up.

Cheers!

Jay W
18-Jun-2008, 08:13
My first post today didn't go through....

I have stored Readyloads for years in the freezer by putting the whole box a ziplock. That seems to simply protect the cardboard box from getting old (grin). Once I open the sealed inner packaging, I also put the film in a ziplock. It has worked fine for me.

It seems Kodak would rather make 200 million a year in profit with a 20% increase per year, rather than make make a billion per year that’s decreasing 20%. Management has this mantra about the shareholders…

I used to work for Kodak, and have talked to current employees about the idea that Kodak makes _a lot_ of profit from film, paper, and chemicals and probably doesn’t make nearly as much profit from electronics (and has a lot of competition in electronics), but it seems Kodak is willing to kill off the film, paper, and chemical sales because they’re decreasing. They keep trying to get a foothold in some other market, and it seems they are really struggling.

Jay

ljsegil
18-Jun-2008, 13:12
Kodak's behavior seems almost schizophrenic. This year they bring out a significantly improved TMY400 and Portra emulsions, which must have used up major R&D and production dollars, and at the same time kill off popular products like the Readyloads, continued production of which requires no new cash outlay, and drop all sorts of larger sheet sizes in some of their best and most popular emulsions like E100VS 8x10 and 5x7 Portra160NC. Can anyone explain their logic? I assume it somehow translates into improved profits, but I sure don't understand how.
LJS

Gene McCluney
18-Jun-2008, 13:58
The logic (as I see it) is to reduce the number of products until the remaining ones sell in enough volume to turn a profit. Concentrating all the consumers into fewer choices.' I, personally, would rather have a few world class films available on a sustainable basis, than a wider variety from a company that is in danger of going belly-up due to spreading the market too thin on individual products.
Also, if it is true that Polaroid was actually providing the complex assembly of the film packs, then that is another reason to discontinue, as Polaroid has closed all film production and assembly plants.

Michael Kadillak
18-Jun-2008, 14:05
Kodak's behavior seems almost schizophrenic. This year they bring out a significantly improved TMY400 and Portra emulsions, which must have used up major R&D and production dollars, and at the same time kill off popular products like the Readyloads, continued production of which requires no new cash outlay, and drop all sorts of larger sheet sizes in some of their best and most popular emulsions like E100VS 8x10 and 5x7 Portra160NC. Can anyone explain their logic? I assume it somehow translates into improved profits, but I sure don't understand how.
LJS

Schizophrenic? Hardly.

Readyloads were discontinued because Polaroid owned the specialized equipment and the expertise to produced them under contract to Kodak for some time and Polaroid is no longer in business. The market share for this specialized product did not justify ramping up to produce these on their own or have someone else do it. Fuji would not do it because they are fundamental competitors.

Kodak is like any other film producer. If the numbers work, it will be done. Just because you cannot see the bigger picture from a corporate perspective does not mean it does not exist. Many on this and other forums were predicting that Kodak would have ceased to produce ANY analog film many years ago and yet they are continuing to find a way to make a go of it.

The best thing we can do is to purchase and shoot film - regularly and as often as possible. I know that I an doing my damn best to hold up my end of the bargain. Heading out for a couple of weeks work shortly.

Cheers!

Gene McCluney
18-Jun-2008, 14:29
Schizophrenic? Hardly.

Readyloads were discontinued because Polaroid owned the specialized equipment and the expertise to produced them under contract to Kodak for some time and Polaroid is no longer in business. The market share for this specialized product did not justify ramping up to produce these on their own or have someone else do it. Fuji would not do it because they are fundamental competitors.

Kodak is like any other film producer. If the numbers work, it will be done. Just because you cannot see the bigger picture from a corporate perspective does not mean it does not exist. Many on this and other forums were predicting that Kodak would have ceased to produce ANY analog film many years ago and yet they are continuing to find a way to make a go of it.

The best thing we can do is to purchase and shoot film - regularly and as often as possible. I know that I an doing my damn best to hold up my end of the bargain. Heading out for a couple of weeks work shortly.

Cheers!


I think even Polaroid marketed a E-6 compatible Polachrome readyload several years ago. I wonder if that film was actually manufactured by Kodak?

I completely agree with you about purchasing and using film. Already this month I have shot about 50 sheets 4x5 Ektachrome and 60 sheets 5x7 b/w, and the month is only half-over. I regularly consume sheet film in the hundreds of sheets per month.
I also use quite a bit of Fuji FP100c45 instant film for testing.

Sal Santamaura
18-Jun-2008, 15:04
I think even Polaroid marketed a E-6 compatible Polachrome readyload several years ago. I wonder if that film was actually manufactured by Kodak?...Nope. Twas the original RDP from Fuji.