PDA

View Full Version : Quickloads or darkslides for new LF user



SMBooth
26-Jun-2008, 16:31
Just entering into the LF arena really not sure whether to go down the Quickload route or darkslides. Quickload are more $$ but as I bushwalk I think that Quickload may be the best option in regard to weight and dust. Am i correct in this thinking?

So if I do start using QL is it better to just get the right QL loader or for the sake of some flexibility get a Polaroid 545i and have the use of instant film too.

And while Ive got your attenion (maybe) I like B&W but Im not going to pretend to like chemical darkrooms, I thought I saw Tmax as a positive, how does this scan up or is it easier to scan Velva and convert to B&W.

Cheers
Shane

IanMazursky
26-Jun-2008, 16:48
Hi Shane,

QL are a great way to go. I use them all the time in a Kodak Readyload holder.
I would definitely go with the QL holder over the 545i. The polaroid holders have film flatness issues with QL film packets.
I tried it with my 545i and its true. So i bought the RL holder with the black pressure plate and i haven't looked back.

Tmax film is great for scanning. I drum scan all of my tmax loose sheets with great success but Kodak just killed off all of the reayloads.
It is no longer and an option for us now. I switched to Fuji Acros in QL since its the only one left. Its fantastic.
I use it occasionally when i shoot 120 and often when i shoot 4x5.

Ron Marshall
26-Jun-2008, 16:49
If you plan on hiking and taking more than about 8 sheets on the trip then quickloads are worth it for the weight savings. For multiday hikes they save you the weight and bother of taking a changing tent.

I use the Kodak single sheet holder, it also takes Fuji film.

TMX can be developed as a positive comercially by Dr5. There are kits to do it yourself, but not much different in difficulty from processing to a neg.

TMX negs scan very well, as does Fuji Acros.

Gene McCluney
26-Jun-2008, 17:06
I never got in to Quickloads. However, for 4x5 the old Grafmatic holders, which hold six sheets of 4x5 in about the space of less than 2 cut film holders are quite convenient. I have six of them, so I can shoot 36 sheets fairly rapidly if I want to.

SMBooth
26-Jun-2008, 17:42
I never got in to Quickloads. However, for 4x5 the old Grafmatic holders, which hold six sheets of 4x5 in about the space of less than 2 cut film holders are quite convenient. I have six of them, so I can shoot 36 sheets fairly rapidly if I want to.

That actually sounds like a great compromise between cost and weight. Might look into them, but being in Australia they might have to come from ebay...:eek:

Thanks all for your help.

vann webb
26-Jun-2008, 18:36
I use the Fuji Acros with Fuji's QL holder. I actually burned a sheet of the film while looking into the exposed area of the holder to see if it held the film flat and it does a very good job of that. Quickloads are less bulky in the field, you don't have to worry with dust, and they are easier to keep track of IMO, because you can write your info on them with a sharpie. Yes, they are more expensive. However, unless you are ripping through a large number of sheets, this is not all that big a deal. The other thing is with quickloads, you are always ready to shoot. Put your film in your bag by the door and go. Sounds like you are not all that interested in fumbling around in a darkroom, so with QLs you'll never have to turn out the lights.

One big downside. You are limited on what films you can use by your holder. You can get a few cut film holders on this forum pretty cheap, and that goes away.

bsimison
27-Jun-2008, 03:36
I use both, but lately I've been using more cut film holders than Quickloads. One rarely mentioned downside of Quickloads is that the paper cover acts as a sail, increasing camera vibration on windy days. On a recent trip to the desert, the cut film sheets I exposed were sharper than the QL sheets of the same scene in slightly windy conditions. Some of the QL sheets suffered from light leaks, probably the effect of the paper cover "sail" levering the QL holder away from the camera back.

Brian Ellis
27-Jun-2008, 06:31
I'd go with normal film holders. With Readyloads gone (and instant films for the 545i gone so no reason to use a 545i holder) the writing is on the wall for Quickloads so you may as well get used to normal sheet film and holders right from the start. You'll also have a much wider selection in films, you'll save money, and if you're careful with storage of your holders (i.e. keeping them in Ziplock bags all the time) you should be o.k. with dust, etc.

There's much more to choosing between TMax and Velvia than which scans better since one is a negative film and the other is a slide film with the usual exposure limitations of slide film. I'm not sure why you'd want to convert TMax to a positive since that's done in a chemical darkroom just as normal development is done.

SMBooth
27-Jun-2008, 15:47
Again thanks for the opinions, all have merit and I will sort it out.

Eric James
27-Jun-2008, 16:02
I'm not so sure that the writing is on the wall for Quickloads. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part, but another way to look at is that most of Kodak's market share will - out of necessity - jump ship to fortify the FujiFilm product line. I hope they continue to manufacturer Quickloads for years, but I admit, I have been considering where to put a compact freezer.

Gordon Moat
30-Jun-2008, 11:05
Quickloads are also easy if you use a lab to process your film, since all you need to do is drop off the packets. When traveling, you can carry slightly more film in Quickloads than in regular film holders.

If you process your own film, then Quickloads are tougher to handle. You really should be using the Fuji Quickload holder, and they are not that cheap compared to regular holders. Film cost is also higher per shot, though if you are a professional that cost is passed to each client.

Ciao!

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