PDA

View Full Version : Quickloads are they the way to go?



Gary Tarbert
25-Sep-2007, 21:44
Hi, For several years i resisted using quickloads ,because i was misinformed the price was for 10 sheets!!now i realise it is for 20 i would consider switching for colour use only!! because the b/w is double , the price difference for colour transperency film is
a lot closer (if you double 2x10 sheet packs)i would continue to use my film holders for mono work.Just curious are quickloads the way to go?What are the advantages/disadvantages etc. cheers Gary

Brian Vuillemenot
25-Sep-2007, 22:53
Quickloads make sense if you do a lot of work in the field, spending many days outdoors camping and photographing. They make it a lot easier to keep track of your exposure information- just write it on the Quickload. In addition, they're a lot more convenient- after a long day of photography, including hiking and schleping around all your gear, do you really want to be messing with unloading and loading film holders, only to get a few hours sleep and then drag yourself out of the tent an hour before dawn? Quickloads also save weight, if you're planning on carrying your gear any distance. They also virtually guarantee dust-free film.

However, as you pointed out, the cost is somewhat of a disadvantage- certainly for B&W where they cost more than twice as much per sheet. The new Velvia 50's are going for $4.00 a sheet in QL, which is making me seriously consider getting some 4X5 film holders!

Aender Brepsom
25-Sep-2007, 23:03
As Brian said, if you work outdoors, QLs are very convenient as you do not have to reload film holders in a changing bag. Film flatness is excellent and I have never had any dust problems until now. If, like me, you do not shoot hundreds of sheets per month, the higher costs for QLs is not a major problem, considering the advantages involved.
I carry the Fuji QL holder and 20 sheets without the card box in a Gnass Gear pouch.

Scott Kathe
26-Sep-2007, 06:32
Gary,

I'm going through the same decision process right now. I've always loaded my own Velvia 4x5s but recently I've been using Velvia 100 quickloads and Provia 100F quickloads. Cut sheet film you load yourself is about 2/3 the price of quickloads and that amounts to around 75 cents a shot more for the quickloads with the film I use. But quickloads are lighter and take up less volume, you don't have to reload your film holders and you don't have to deal with dust. I'm going to switch over to quickloads for color and still load cut sheet film holders with FP4+ for black and white. FYI, I still consider myself a beginner.

I know people write exposure information on the quickload sleeve but is there an index number on the sleeve that matches a number on the sheet of film?

Scott

Steven Barall
26-Sep-2007, 07:16
If the convenience is worth the extra money to you then do it. If you need more of a shove here it is. If you figure the cost of processing into the overall price per each sheet then the extra cost for the Quickloads is an even smaller percentage increase relative to using the loose sheets because the cost or processing stays the same.

For me, knowing that I can just grab the camera and a box of Quickloads and run out the door is well worth the extra price.

scott_6029
26-Sep-2007, 07:34
Depends. I would have both. If going local or studio or not far from the car then much less expensive to load your own. Plus more film choice. I.e. ilford. It's also a lot cheaper for color as well.

IF however you are going backpacking , camping, hiking, or far from the car and weight is a factor, as well as bulk, - forget it, hang the expense and get readyload.

You can buy used 4x5 holders inexpensively.

Eric James
26-Sep-2007, 08:34
Brian and the others have pretty well covered it, but Iíll add my two cents.

I had a Quickload holder malfunction in the field so I'm an advocate of having an extra one on hand. I don't carry the extra one in the field but I try to remember to bring it along in the car. One of these days I hope to disassemble the broken holder to gain a better understanding of how they work and what could be done in the field if one fails.

Another point - the holders come and go from the market place. When the supply becomes thin you can expect to see someone here looking for one and wondering if they have been discontinued.

Scott Kathe
26-Sep-2007, 08:44
I had a Quickload holder malfunction in the field so I'm an advocate of having an extra one on hand. I don't carry the extra one in the field but I try to remember to bring it along in the car. One of these days I hope to disassemble the broken holder to gain a better understanding of how they work and what could be done in the field if one fails.

Great-I hadn't thought of that:( anyone have a spare they would like to sell? :)

Scott

Eric James
26-Sep-2007, 08:51
You might try here Scott:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=29225

Frank Petronio
26-Sep-2007, 08:55
Since I went to scanning instead of enlarging, dust is less of an issue and I like the ability to use ISO 400 films. I recently bought up a bunch of Grafmatics with a Harrison Pup Tent and couldn't be happier.

Rory_5244
26-Sep-2007, 09:20
Well, I'm not too happy about the Kodak ReadyLoad holder's inability to grasp the film-clip 25% of the time. I opened it up and replaced the springs; it helped a bit. Attempting to feel for the film in the sleeve when I pull out the envelope sometimes doesn't work either. The other thing is that 50+ Ready/Quick Loads are bulkier and heavier than 50+ loose sheets. But I guess it evens out by not having to carry extra holders.

Gordon Moat
26-Sep-2007, 09:57
I only use Fuji Quickloads and Kodak Readyloads. Since I rely on a pro lab for film processing, these packet systems are immensely convenient for dropping off exposed film. The other thing I like is setting up the holder in the camera, then easily swapping film packets to make several exposures without bumping the camera out of position. Other than those aspects, the light weight and ease of packing are great.

Ciao!

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

Ben Chase
26-Sep-2007, 12:19
Brian and the others have pretty well covered it, but Iíll add my two cents.

I had a Quickload holder malfunction in the field so I'm an advocate of having an extra one on hand. I don't carry the extra one in the field but I try to remember to bring it along in the car. One of these days I hope to disassemble the broken holder to gain a better understanding of how they work and what could be done in the field if one fails.

Another point - the holders come and go from the market place. When the supply becomes thin you can expect to see someone here looking for one and wondering if they have been discontinued.

I'll echo Eric's sentiments here with regard to the malfunctions. I've had one almost brand new malfunction in the field.

In addition - some have brought up the issue of film flatness. In my most recent trip to Glacier, I had a couple circumstances where I shot the scene with both a quickload and a regular sheet of Velvia 100. I get the film back today from that latest trip, so I should have a pretty good idea if there is any truth to the film flatness issues I have read about previously. I took extra care to be sure that this test would be a valid one, so I'll report my findings either later this evening or tomorrow.

Reminds me..I need to get the stuff scanned from my first Glacier trip earlier in the year...

Cheers,

Ben C

Brian Vuillemenot
26-Sep-2007, 14:14
I also had a QL holder fail on me, hundreds of miles away from home in an isolated location. They probably last about 1500-2000 shots or so. Because of this, I always carry a spare in the trunk of my car.

bdeacon
26-Sep-2007, 19:50
I love the convenience of Quickloads and haven't noticed any film flatness/erratic focus issues in my drum scans. I did however render a Quickload holder useless when I accidentally inserted the film sheet facing the wrong way and left the bottom clip stuck in the bowels of the holder when I yanked it out.

Ben Chase
27-Sep-2007, 12:14
So I had a look at my sheets under the loupe and I can tell a difference in sharpness, however that difference was so ridiculously small that I had to strain to find it. This is anything but definitive, but I'm pretty confident in the test that I did, so at least for my own uses, I'm convinced there is a slight difference.

But, I'm obsessive about such things, so Quickloads for me will be relegated to emergency use only.

max_ebb
30-Sep-2007, 11:17
Speaking of film flatness, does anybody use a polaroid 545 holder for quickloads/readyloads? I was thinking about trying some quickload/readyload film with my polaroid 545 holder, but I was told that it doesn't hold the film as flat as a kodak readyload holder.


So I had a look at my sheets under the loupe and I can tell a difference in sharpness, however that difference was so ridiculously small that I had to strain to find it.

What holder did you use?

Ben Chase
30-Sep-2007, 16:22
Speaking of film flatness, does anybody use a polaroid 545 holder for quickloads/readyloads? I was thinking about trying some quickload/readyload film with my polaroid 545 holder, but I was told that it doesn't hold the film as flat as a kodak readyload holder.



What holder did you use?

I used the Fuji Quickload holder. I haven't done any tests with the new Readyload holder nor the Polaroid one.

aminfc
10-Oct-2007, 16:47
Speaking of film flatness, does anybody use a polaroid 545 holder for quickloads/readyloads? I was thinking about trying some quickload/readyload film with my polaroid 545 holder, but I was told that it doesn't hold the film as flat as a kodak readyload holder.



What holder did you use?


I use a Polaroid holder with Kodak Readyloads and Fuji Quickloads (as well as Polaroid film, mostly 55PN) and have had good results. I have never detected any lack of sharpness from that I could attribute to anything other than my own ineptitude....

Al

Ben Chase
10-Oct-2007, 17:08
I use a Polaroid holder with Kodak Readyloads and Fuji Quickloads (as well as Polaroid film, mostly 55PN) and have had good results. I have never detected any lack of sharpness from that I could attribute to anything other than my own ineptitude....

I think that is almost always the case for me. If only large format was more foolproof :)
Looking at film that I have shot with the quickload holder vs. regular film holders, I can see a consistent difference with a 10x loupe. In a test I did during my last Glacier trip, I shot the exact same image with a Quickload and a regular Toyo film holder (brand new, never been used prior to that trip), and in the 2 different test shots, the quickloads were less sharp.

Naturally, this is not even close to definitive, these weren't tests done in a lab under controlled conditions, this was a field test. But the consistency that I have seen just in my experience has convinced me I get sharper images with standard film holders. Lots of other variables can account for such a terribly small difference. Fortunately in this case wind was not a factor (why can't it always be like that? :) )

I would encourage people to do their own tests if they are concerned about it.

Ed Richards
11-Oct-2007, 06:01
I will take issue with the ease of keeping track of the exposure data by writing it on the sleeve. If you only take on shot of each scene, and can remember which sleeve goes with each scene, it works great. If you take several shots with different exposures and different camera angles, there is no good way to match up the sleeves to the shots. I use holders with a binary notch code so I can keep track. Given the extra cost of readyloads, they should be serialized with the number on the sleeve and the film.:-)

Scott Kathe
11-Oct-2007, 06:41
Ed,

There is a way to keep track of the quickloads. There is a number on the quickload sleeve that corresponds to the last letter in the letter code on the film. I haven't done this a lot and contrary to my previous post I'm loading my own film holders again and not using quickloads (at least for right now).

The numbering system works something like this and I hope someone with more knowledge will jump in here. Lets say the last digit on the sleeve is 2 that will correspond to some letter (seems to be random) and for this example I will call it D, this is the last letter on the letter code number on the film. Then the sleeve with the last digit 3 will correspond to E on the film and 4 will correspond to F... I have no idea what happens when the number goes from 8 to 9 to 0 or what happens when the letter goes past Z.

Hope that helps a bit.

Scott

Scott Kathe
11-Oct-2007, 07:28
Ed and everyone else,

See the post by Kirk here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=9088&highlight=quickload+numbering

Scott

Ed Richards
11-Oct-2007, 07:50
Does Kodak have a similar system?

Steph
11-Oct-2007, 08:22
Does Kodak have a similar system?

Yes. It is called Readyload. Click here (http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/Large%20accessories.htm#Labelsheet) (middle of the page) for interchangeability between Fuji Quickload, Kodak Readyload and polaroid 545 Pro.

Gordon Moat
11-Oct-2007, 11:52
The Kodak system is called Readyloads. The holder is fairly close in design, and some people have found the ability to use it with Fuji Quickload films, though if you get it wrong it means disassembling the holder.

I am using the last of the two shot packet Readyload holders, which has the black pressure plate and red Kodak logo in the front. This works just as nicely as the brand new holder, though it is easier to find these on the used market.

Mostly I only shoot Kodak Readyloads and Fuji Quickloads. I do have a Polaroid 405 and 550 pack film holder, and a Linhof Super Rollex for medium format. All this gear fits easily into my main backpack with film, and to me the convenience and ease of use are worth the extra cost over regular 4x5 sheet film.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

walter23
11-Oct-2007, 12:37
So I had a look at my sheets under the loupe and I can tell a difference in sharpness, however that difference was so ridiculously small that I had to strain to find it. This is anything but definitive, but I'm pretty confident in the test that I did, so at least for my own uses, I'm convinced there is a slight difference.

But, I'm obsessive about such things, so Quickloads for me will be relegated to emergency use only.

I figure if I'm stopping down enough it's not going to be an issue. My hyperfocal technique is pretty spotty at best anyway ;)

My bigger concern is the belief that you lose a significant amount of film area relative to loose 4x5 sheets. Is this true? (The price is the other factor, though it's a tradeoff against the convenience I realize).

Gene McCluney
11-Oct-2007, 14:53
I am afraid Quickloads are not available in 5x7 and 8x10, the formats I choose to shoot in. Therefore they are not an option for me.

Ben Chase
11-Oct-2007, 16:45
I figure if I'm stopping down enough it's not going to be an issue. My hyperfocal technique is pretty spotty at best anyway ;)

My bigger concern is the belief that you lose a significant amount of film area relative to loose 4x5 sheets. Is this true? (The price is the other factor, though it's a tradeoff against the convenience I realize).

I don't think that it's significant, but it depends on who you talk to. I'm pretty comfortable with loading holders quickly and dust-free now, so the appeal of quickloads to me has diminished significantly.