PDA

View Full Version : Fuji discontinuing Quickloads



Dave Wyatt
21-Dec-2009, 06:00
Seeing as I am on the verge fo shifting from medium to large format, this news is making me reconsider...

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872222

Blumine
21-Dec-2009, 06:16
There is nothing on any of the Fuji Film Japan websites or any of the Japanese photo magazines about the demise of quickloads. So this might only apply to the UK.

Blumine

darr
21-Dec-2009, 06:51
Seeing as I am on the verge fo shifting from medium to large format, this news is making me reconsider...

Loading film holders does not stop me from shooting 4x5, although using Quickloads were convenient albeit more expensive. Just my 2¢.

timparkin
21-Dec-2009, 07:30
Seeing as I am on the verge fo shifting from medium to large format, this news is making me reconsider...

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872222

I wouldn't worry too much.. Once you have a few holders and a light tent, your film will now end up cheaper. The only disadvantage will be that carrying 20 sheets of film will now weigh a bit more..

I've posted a little on the comparitive weights over on my blog

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/quickloads-discontinued

Tim

Dave Wyatt
21-Dec-2009, 07:39
I should probably point out I've actually never used a quickload but do have experience of loading holders, I used to have a Horseman monorail that I hardly used and part exchanged toward a Canon 1d mark 2 I have recently sold. Turns out I should have kept the lenses and probably some more of the holders but oh well, live and learn. My worry from this is more along the lines of is it going to become ever harder to source quailty film in 5x4. I would think not but I do worry about these things.

Gem Singer
21-Dec-2009, 09:12
Dave,

Stop worrying. Keep shooting.

When the public stops using the product, the manufacturer discontinues it.

4x5 film will be around as long as there is a demand for it.

Kuzano
21-Dec-2009, 12:03
159 Quickloads in the film refrigerator, plus 4 boxes of cut sheet.

I'm good for a couple of weeks. Then I'll suck up film off the distribution pipeline and eBay. By the time I get done there, the resurgence in film will have begun in earnest (or is it Ernest?), and there will be new quickloads and new emulsions, either from the "impossible project?" or Fuji.

Not to lose sleep over it...

Songyun
21-Dec-2009, 12:17
time to move up to 5X7

Keith Tapscott.
21-Dec-2009, 13:03
time to move up to 5X7
Or better still, 8x10.

Drew Wiley
21-Dec-2009, 13:11
The problem for someone like me is how to keep doing extended backpack trips with the view camera as I start slowing down a bit due to age. Quickloads helped because
they were the lightest and most convenient option. My Harrison tent and Mido holders
add only a pound, but I'm trying to find ways to shed pounds so I can move faster.
Guess I hire a porter (or find a sucker to help with the load). I'm still comfortable with
at least 75lbs in the mtns, but will that be the case when I'm 65 or 70? I sure hope I
don't have to turn to med format, because it just doesn't have the "edge" I like.

Eric Leppanen
21-Dec-2009, 13:35
"Fans of medium and large format photography will be cheered by the news that Fujifilm is to continue its production of sheet film. From early Summer 2010 Fujifilm's ranges of 5x4 and 10x8 films will be packed as 20 sheet boxes instead of the current 10 sheet packs."

I'll certainly miss Quickloads, but at least 20 sheet boxes are an improvement over 10 sheets...

Songyun
21-Dec-2009, 13:50
This indeed a very bad news.
Advantage of Quickloads
1. lightweight,
2. dust free,
3. save time loading.
4. save some trouble at airport. (if you dont want your film go through x-ray machine, a hand inspection is required, it won't poss any trouble, if it is factory sealed, but if the seal is open the security would very likely want to open your film box. with quickloads you don't have to worry about that.)
of course, $75~80 per 20 sheets it is quite expensive, but certain worth it for me.

Sal Santamaura
21-Dec-2009, 15:05
It's clear that Fuji responds only to competition. Had Kodak not been forced to discontinue ReadyLoad by the shutdown of Polaroid film manufacturing (it previously outsourced Readyload packaging to Polaroid), Fuji would have continued supplying Quickload. Without such "motivation," Fuji takes the easiest path.

Since I no longer do any color work on large format film or require the long-exposure reciprocity performance of Acros (and only put up with its intrusive drying hole in exchange for clean/convenient packets anyway), Fuji sheet film is now a thing of the past for me. Kodak and Ilford get my business.

Gary Beasley
21-Dec-2009, 16:20
The problem for someone like me is how to keep doing extended backpack trips with the view camera as I start slowing down a bit due to age. Quickloads helped because
they were the lightest and most convenient option. My Harrison tent and Mido holders
add only a pound, but I'm trying to find ways to shed pounds so I can move faster.
Guess I hire a porter (or find a sucker to help with the load). I'm still comfortable with
at least 75lbs in the mtns, but will that be the case when I'm 65 or 70? I sure hope I
don't have to turn to med format, because it just doesn't have the "edge" I like.

A comparable medium format kit would quite likely weigh more than the 4x5 kit. The only thing lighter is the film. May as well get a rollfilm back for your 4x5.

dave_whatever
21-Dec-2009, 16:23
Advantage of Quickloads
1. lightweight,

Depends how many sheets you need to carry. Clearly its an advantage if its a lot, but say 10 sheets or under and its not a dealbreaker. Remember the quickload holder itself adds about a pound.


4. save some trouble at airport. (if you dont want your film go through x-ray machine, a hand inspection is required, it won't poss any trouble, if it is factory sealed, but if the seal is open the security would very likely want to open your film box. with quickloads you don't have to worry about that.)

I don't know what its like in the US (pretty slack by the sound of it, even post-9-11!) but any time I've travelled by air (europe) everything gets xrayed regardless, film or not, sealed box or not. On the occaisions I've asked I always got a flat no, no debate, its gets xrayed or it goes in the bin. I don't bother asking these days. I've had film in the ISO 50-200 range xrayed multiple times and never seen any difference in the developed shots.

Drew Wiley
21-Dec-2009, 16:43
Gary, the filmholdr wt is the difference, about 5 lbs more than my Pentax 6x7 kit with
two lenses. A Mamiya 7 is lighter than many 35mm outfits. However, this is not comparing apples with apples! Adding an extra couple of lenses to the 4x5 only adds
about 500g. With MF the lenses are quite a bit heavier. Plus you need an extra body
or back for switching between different kinds of film; have no tilt/shift etc. And in the
darkroom, what a difference. But if it has to been done, it can be (assuming a decent
selection of roll film will still be around when I get to that age!). But in a bad storm
MF is often more practical. Just daydreaming, of course, since my "normal" camera is an 8x10 and I only scale down to 4x5 on longer trips. MF only amounts to about 3%
of my shots at present, but when you need it, you need it.

Drew Wiley
21-Dec-2009, 16:50
Forgot to add that I really doubt a rollfilm back has the precision of a dedicated MF
camera, at least judging from the various negatives and chromes I've loupe examined, which were done this way. With a little itty-bitty 6x7 image everything has to be absolutely spot on in order to get a crisp 16x20 print which resembles LF, even when using R25 film. I don't believe in that mush look which seems to be the new norm for
the digital generation.

rdenney
21-Dec-2009, 17:20
Forgot to add that I really doubt a rollfilm back has the precision of a dedicated MF
camera, at least judging from the various negatives and chromes I've loupe examined, which were done this way. With a little itty-bitty 6x7 image everything has to be absolutely spot on in order to get a crisp 16x20 print which resembles LF, even when using R25 film. I don't believe in that mush look which seems to be the new norm for
the digital generation.

The rollfilm back is as precise as a plain film holder. When I view my 6x12 transparencies with a 10x loupe (and at high magnification after scanning in a film scanner), they are every bit as well-resolved as what I get from my Pentax 6x7, and better than some of my other medium-format cameras. But it takes some effort to get there. I spend a LOT of time with a 6x loupe on the ground glass fiddling with the movements to get the focus really perfect.

It's the camera that is different, not the film holder. The Sinar is better than the Cambo for maintaining accurate position when the rollfilm holder is put in place. If I was going to specialize in 6x7 or smaller, I would use a smaller view camera with geared movements, or go a little smaller to 6x6 and use something like an Arcbody. At 6x9 and 6x12, though, a 4x5 camera is the relevant choice.

I have compared the cheapie Shen-Hao 6x12 holder to a Sinar Vario, and both are equally accurate. When it is sharp on the ground glass, it will be sharp on the film. Getting it sharp on the ground glass is just a (sarcasm alert) wee tad more challenging with a 47mm lens than it is with, say, a 90mm or 120mm lens one might use with larger film. But I've struggled with longer lenses, too. Greater enlargement imposes a tougher requirement.

Rick "whose 6x7 has, so far, been the only competition for his larger cameras, for landscape work" Denney

Peter Collins
21-Dec-2009, 20:29
Well, packing 75 lb of any thing at any age calls into question one's sanity and judgment, but moving on, I recall that blessed Ansel (his cause for canonization is still under consideration!) used a burro to pack his camp and gear in the high Sierra. Wasn't he in his mid-thirties that summer??

Drew Wiley
22-Dec-2009, 10:20
Peter - yes, I've doubled Ansel's age for backpacking, and am typically carrying double
the load of my younger companions. If I'm down to 60 lbs I can travel at a pretty good
clip, though I don't have the ambition to do 20-mile days anymore. Off trail I'm more in
my element, however, and can usually navigate faster than the younger crowd simply
due to experience, unless of course they're serious backcountry types like myself. More
and more I see older people on the trails, well into their 70's, though generally with
much lighter loads than mine. I'm convinced the way to do this is simply to keep doing
it. Once a week I'm climbing the hills around here with the 8X10 in the pack; so a
summer pack with 4x5 isn't so bad by comparison, even with the camping gear too.

Drew Wiley
22-Dec-2009, 10:26
Denney - I'm drifting off topic a bit, but I wonder if anyone has tried using digital view
camera lenses for shorter focal lengths with a rollfilm back. They're expensive, but seem to fill in an analogous niche to what one would need. Just hypothesizing, of course, since I vastly prefer ground glass focus on a much larger image. I have plenty
of "Plan B" options for the demise of Quickloads, including reserve supplies in the freezer, the film tents, the probability of finding some sucker to help me carry extra
film boxes, etc.

Bob Salomon
22-Dec-2009, 11:09
Denney - I'm drifting off topic a bit, but I wonder if anyone has tried using digital view
camera lenses for shorter focal lengths with a rollfilm back. They're expensive, but seem to fill in an analogous niche to what one would need. Just hypothesizing, of course, since I vastly prefer ground glass focus on a much larger image. I have plenty
of "Plan B" options for the demise of Quickloads, including reserve supplies in the freezer, the film tents, the probability of finding some sucker to help me carry extra
film boxes, etc.

Digital lenses for roll film will usually outperform roll film lenses on roll film. But some Digital lenses like the Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital HR and the HR Digaron S lenses require a corrector plate when these lenses are used with film as the lenses use the glass coverplate on the sensor as the last element in the lens formula.

Gary Beasley
22-Dec-2009, 14:21
Drew have you compared the weight of a grafmatic against the 3 double sided holders it replaces? Thats mainly what I pack with my 4x5 and I'm pretty sure the film stays flat in those.

SW Rick
22-Dec-2009, 14:35
I just weighed them, and for all practical purposes, they weigh the same: 3 holders = 1 pound, 2 ounces; Grafmatic weighs 1 pound, 1.75 ounces.
So you do save some weight with the Grafmatics :)

rdenney
22-Dec-2009, 14:42
Denney - I'm drifting off topic a bit, but I wonder if anyone has tried using digital view
camera lenses for shorter focal lengths with a rollfilm back. They're expensive, but seem to fill in an analogous niche to what one would need. Just hypothesizing, of course, since I vastly prefer ground glass focus on a much larger image. I have plenty
of "Plan B" options for the demise of Quickloads, including reserve supplies in the freezer, the film tents, the probability of finding some sucker to help me carry extra
film boxes, etc.

I have a plan B, too. I just bought several more boxes, and as slowly as I work they'll last a long time in the freezer. I'm going to keep buying the boxes until the Redhead stops trying to put food in the freezer.

I just bought a Fuji QL holder so that I could retire my HEAVY compromise Polaroid 545, and the seller was good enough to make double-sure I understand the import of this thread. But it was worth it to me just for using up the stock I have, as long as Praus or A&I will soup it. I've mostly be playing with rollfilm but I want to go bigger from time to time, and goodness knows I'm not making that many images even with rollfilm.

But I still have 20 or so conventional film holders from the old days. My weight requirements are less strict than yours--I've done an Ironman triathlon but your description of how you hike with the camera intimidates me utterly.

Rick "who might take some years to work through 100 or 200 Quickloads" Denney

Drew Wiley
22-Dec-2009, 14:48
Thanks for that tidbit, Bob. I notice that there are some Apo-Grandagons in the 35 to
55mm range which fill the vacuum for wide-angle in MF. And Gary, I haven't tried
Grafmatics. I have resurrected my old Mido holders for a few test runs (saving my stash of Quickloads for a major trip). They're a bit fussy, with the risk of leaks if one
is not extra careful; but compact and easy to change in a film tent, just like regular
holders. Basically, I don't like working with MF film unless I have to - it's flimsy,
requires more spotting, not dimensionally stable, and especially disappointing in color
work compared to LF. Nice for personal portraits with color neg film, but that's not
a field/wt issue, and seldom requires big enlargements. I'm not in a big hurry to start
using the Sinar again. Even scaled down for a MF back, it would be a lot bulkier than the little Ebony 4x5 I now prefer for backpacking. This is all hypothetical daydreaming, of course. When one does get old, a larger groundglass would seem to be logical, due
to easier focus and potential eyesight limitations. And who knows what sort of film
versus digital options will be around by then?

Armin Seeholzer
22-Dec-2009, 16:23
The only thing we can do is buying the quickloads like mad!!!
Then maybe they would change there mind.
But in my case I will of course buy some but I still have the freezer full of Kodak Readyloads, so for my case its 1 year to early to really buy in quantitys!

Cheers Armin

Atul Mohidekar
23-Dec-2009, 00:17
Denney - I'm drifting off topic a bit, but I wonder if anyone has tried using digital view camera lenses for shorter focal lengths with a rollfilm back.

I used to use Schneider 120mm APO-Digitar on a 6x9 rollfilm back. It is the sharpest lens I have used. I directly communicated with a Schneider engineer before buying it. I was concerned about its smaller coverage and it being optimized for apertures around f/11. I was told that the lens would widely outperform Schneider 110mm XL (I was considering that lens due to its stellar reputation) for smaller film formats even at f/22. When I started shooting 4x5, I remember trying it. It would cover 4x5 without much movements and I did not notice any image degradation even in corners. With movements, it would run out of coverage.


// Atul

Drew Wiley
23-Dec-2009, 09:54
I guess the next link in the chain would be to find a reasonably priced Sinar roll film back and see if it fits in the Ebony 45. I don't like the idea of removing the back and
replacing it with a Horseman style holder, which means constantly on/off and laying the groundglass somewhere sandy or dusty as the shot is taken. Just another predictable ingredient for equipment disaster in the mtns. But again, the roll film approach would only be a last resort, if I had to take a very brisk hike over many days,
and couldn't get help with extra filmholders. Another old-age strategy is to hire a horse
drop twenty miles back, but in the Sierras that's fairly expensive nowadays.

Ben Syverson
23-Dec-2009, 10:16
For my style of shooting, Quickloads don't offer a great advantage. I tend to make very few exposures at a time, so I don't need to carry 20 or 40 sheets with me.

With that said, it's sad to lose any part of the LF universe. The first 4x5 I ever exposed was an Astia in QL.

tgtaylor
23-Dec-2009, 12:12
Up to a couple of years ago I used QL's exclusively - Acros, Velvia, Provia - but then switched to conventional holders to save weight and bulk on LD backpacking trips. Carrying 100 or even 200 sheets of film is nothing. Try that with QL's.

IMO the holders hold the film flatter, don't have something protruding to catch the wind and set-up vibrations, seem to slide in the camera back like silk, and give a more satisfying "photographic experience." It's kind of neat, I think, pulling the dark slide, tripping the shutter, and replacing the dark slide - just like it was done back in...1850.

If anyone is interested in QL holders, I have two that I will sell: A mint (used once - I kept it unused for 'back-up' which was never needed as the Kodak holder will continue to work flawlessly for a lifetime) Fuji in original box, and a Kodak in very good condition which I used for a few years. PM me if you're interested in purchasing.

Thomas

Drew Wiley
23-Dec-2009, 13:06
Thomas - I haven't had any sharpness issues with Quickload. But that's because I
customized a 545 back and tested it. Never could get the Fuji or Kodak holders to keep
film flat across the whole plane. I don't shoot lots of film - in fact once I went out for ten days on very steep terrain with about 90 lbs and only took two or three shots -
but they were exactly what I was after (in fact, it took three such trips to the same
spot to get the lighting right!). But usually I'll take about a dozen shot each of color
and b&w. When I retire, I should have more time for longer trips, but will no doubt also
have less energy.

David Luttmann
23-Dec-2009, 13:18
Great...and I just bought a holder about a year and a half ago. Well....at least they're still making 4x5 film!

Gary Beasley
23-Dec-2009, 19:21
I just weighed them, and for all practical purposes, they weigh the same: 3 holders = 1 pound, 2 ounces; Grafmatic weighs 1 pound, 1.75 ounces.
So you do save some weight with the Grafmatics :)

You also save space, the Grafmatics occupy half the space of three regular holders.

Dirk Rösler
24-Dec-2009, 07:19
Has anyone seen any announcement apart from the BJP article? I cannot find anything 'official' on this, Fujifilm Japan or otherwise. It's not April 1st today, is it?

SW Rick
24-Dec-2009, 09:20
Has anyone seen any announcement apart from the BJP article? I cannot find anything 'official' on this, Fujifilm Japan or otherwise. It's not April 1st today, is it?

Dirk,

This is part of the problem with Fuji- they seem to never say anything "officially" (tho the original report was from the BJP, a respected publication, and quoted a Fuji spokesman by name and printed what sure looks like a press release from a named person at Fuji UK).

In terms of a pattern of "communicating", have we seen anything about Acros QLs being discontinued in the world ex-Japan (and maybe there too, for all we know, just using up old stock)? Re. Japan, I know film is still very big there, but I can't believe the Japanese market alone for Acros QLs can sustain production after shutting off the rest of the world. The Acros QL "news" emerged as vendor after vendor gradually posted "no longer available" or "discontinued", and all of a sudden it became clear there would be no more. No announcement from Fuji that I ever found, though looking at their US website shows no listing for Acros QLs, so I guess we can infer it's been discontinued.

If this is not correct, why doesn't Fuji just say it is not? If someone mis-states something about an HP Marketing product, Bob is quickly posting something. Maybe Fuji should hire Bob at a princely salary and we'd get some info. :)

Rick

gevalia
24-Dec-2009, 12:02
The problem for someone like me is how to keep doing extended backpack trips with the view camera as I start slowing down a bit due to age. Quickloads helped because
they were the lightest and most convenient option. My Harrison tent and Mido holders
add only a pound, but I'm trying to find ways to shed pounds so I can move faster.
Guess I hire a porter (or find a sucker to help with the load). I'm still comfortable with
at least 75lbs in the mtns, but will that be the case when I'm 65 or 70? I sure hope I
don't have to turn to med format, because it just doesn't have the "edge" I like.

Spend some time on the rower. That'll build up those back muscles.

Riverman
24-Dec-2009, 17:26
I just returned from my first big LF trip. A few days in Yosemite during which I shot about 40 sheets of QL. It's disappointing that they're cutting QL as I prefer it to darkslides. Time to invest in a changing tent I guess.

Mind you - QL is not flawless. My last frame in Yosemite this week would have been a Provia 100 shot of the Tunnel View sunset. It was freezing cold and as I slid the QL out of the holder the card somehow managed to detach itself from the clip and the film was exposed to the light and the shot lost. Gutted.

In any case, I wish they'd keep QL. I'd keep buying it.

Ron Bose
24-Dec-2009, 21:43
So the only reason to keep those Polaroid 545 holders is finally gone too ... geez louise ...

Ivan J. Eberle
24-Dec-2009, 22:42
No indications of it being gone from stores just yet... I have a 5 box QL order from Adorama arriving early next week. But both Pro 160s and Astia that are all I use in QL now also come in sheet form. It's the dust issue, mostly, not just the convenience. It also is nicer to fly with and have hand inspected at airports instead of worrying about loose film boxes being opened.
But if both go away in QL, and even standard sheets, they'll probably be available in 120 for some time yet. (Ektar 100 in 120 is also something of a game changer here.)

Bruce M. Herman
25-Dec-2009, 00:07
Even if Fuji isn't announcing an end to Quickloads in the US at this point, it's not a good thing that the product is being discontinued in the UK. I thought that the increasing popularity of large format might mean that the color film that some of us use would continue to be produced. I'm beginning to think that large format color film may cease to be available within my lifetime.

I've used a loading tent in the desert with poor results. Dust was on far too many of my mages. That's never been an issue with Quickloads and Readyloads. I already miss E100VS in Readyloads. I'll miss RVP when it's no longer available in Quickloads.

tgtaylor
25-Dec-2009, 12:09
So far I haven't had any problems with dust while using regular holders. I do clean the harrison tent out after each use and keep my loaded holders (Toyo's) in the black plastic bags they came in when new and place them in f64 carrying holsters which are zipper closed or in Calumet holsters which are velco closed. When I pull a holster out for a shot, I carefully inspect the outside for dust before placing it in the camera back and again after unloading.

Gordon Moat
25-Dec-2009, 15:36
Absolutely no information on the FujiFilm Global, nor the FujiFilm USA websites. It strikes me as odd that a major global corporation would make an announcement through a small publication in a small market. However, if the UK decides to cease distribution of Quickloads, can other distributors be far behind?

As an alternative, I would greatly like to see that fast loading system mentioned a few months ago, come onto the market soon. I recall a thread about that here recently. Honestly, if this system makes it to market, I would gladly purchase it.

Ciao!

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

r.e.
25-Dec-2009, 15:47
As an alternative, I would greatly like to see that fast loading system mentioned a few months ago, come onto the market soon.

?

Ahh, here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52028&page=4

Don Dudenbostel
25-Dec-2009, 17:51
Dave I use Grafmatic holders to conserve space and a little weight. Each holder holds six sheets of whatever you want to load. You're not restricted to brand or type of film. I generally carry 4 holders which gives twenty four sheets and keep my change tent in my car along with film in a cooler it it's hot. Grafmatic holders in nice shape for about the same cost as a box of twenty sheets of quick loads and can be loaded over and over for decades. Four Grafmatics take up about the same space as eight regular film holders.

RmFrase
29-Dec-2009, 12:34
I just called Badger Graphics and spoke to a Rep there. The Fuji Acros Black/White film is no longer available and he stated that it has been discontinued. The color however, is still available.

so, I placed an order for Velvia 100 and (3) boxes of Fuji Instant BW and the PA-45.
All to arrive by Thursday 31st.

MIke Sherck
29-Dec-2009, 17:46
I just called Badger Graphics and spoke to a Rep there. The Fuji Acros Black/White film is no longer available and he stated that it has been discontinued. The color however, is still available.

so, I placed an order for Velvia 100 and (3) boxes of Fuji Instant BW and the PA-45.
All to arrive by Thursday 31st.

Please clarify: has Acros been discontinued just as Quickload, or all sheets, or altogether?

SW Rick
29-Dec-2009, 22:47
Re. Acros, Freestyle (and somewhere else) had been selling Legacy Pro (rebranded Acros) in 135-36 for $2.89 a roll, recently lowered price the past few weeks to $1.99 a roll. Does that make sense with the Yen/$ ratio being what it is, and the price of film generally going up? Is there something going on here beyond our "current good fortune"?

Andre Noble
2-Jan-2010, 03:22
Rdenny: From my experience, one can't really seperate image performance on film until you get up past 11x or 12x magnification. 10x does cut it.

Andre Noble
2-Jan-2010, 03:39
Rdenny: From my experience, one can't really seperate image performance on film until you get up past 11x or 12x magnification. 10x does cut it.

Dirk Rösler
4-Jan-2010, 19:13
Beware, light is also said to become discontinued, especially at night.

Cheer up guys, there is nothing official on this yet. Innocent until proven guilty, as the old adage goes. :D

Kirk Keyes
4-Jan-2010, 20:01
That's the problem - nothing offical ever seems to be made.

By the way - I never had enough response to the bulk group order for Acros QL so I'll not pursue that. There were about 8 people for a total of 15 boxes that responded to the inquiry.

willwilson
4-Jan-2010, 20:32
Maybe somebody mentioned this already, but Badger graphic seems to think they are being discontinued in April. I don't use them but I sure wish I could afford to.

"UPDATE: STOCK UP ON FUJI QUICKLOADS. BEING DISCONTINUED IN APRIL."

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=235

rdenney
4-Jan-2010, 21:02
Rdenny: From my experience, one can't really seperate image performance on film until you get up past 11x or 12x magnification. 10x does cut it.

In that case, it is not important to me. The largest prints I'm ever likely to make, even from roll film, are 8x enlargements. If I can't see the flaws in a 10x loupe, then I won't be able to see them with the unaided eye on a 10x enlargement.

Rick "who'd never have any depth of field at all with a 12x enlargeability requirement" Denney

Armin Seeholzer
5-Jan-2010, 14:43
So guys if you really like Quickloads buy them, the only chance thad Fuji changes the desicions!
I just ordered 4 packs still have much Readyloads in freezer, otherwise I would buy 10 packs!
Buy them now and as much as you can afford!!!!!!!!
You should not talk you all should buy them and now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you get it!

My 2 cts. Armin

Dirk Rösler
5-Jan-2010, 17:41
That's the problem - nothing offical ever seems to be made.

In Japan at least they will issue statements on anything ever so small they will discontinue and that hasn't happened yet.

If Badger's only source for their statement is the BJP article, then they are perhaps "right". And saying something will be gone forever soon so buy while you can is never bad for sales, is it ;)

pocketfulladoubles
5-Jan-2010, 18:09
Which begs the question for a novice - How long will they last in a home freezer?

stealthman_1
5-Jan-2010, 22:06
Well, I'm not going to buy 20 thousand dollars worth of quickloads...but they are handy and I did go and buy 120 sheets of Velvia, Provia, and Astia just in case.

Anyone ever contemplate reloading a quickload?;) I mean, it seems possible, just not probable.:D

Armin Seeholzer
6-Jan-2010, 03:45
How long will they last in a home freezer?

10 Years with only very small more base foog and a tiny bit less speed.

Cheers Armin

Nathan Potter
6-Jan-2010, 16:08
I've been studying possibly reloading Quickloads. You would need to save the sleeves or have a stash of them. I have a stash of more than a thousand because that's where the data for each image is written.

Besides needing the sleeves you need a stash of metal clips and that seems to be the tough part. The metal clip is (I believe), cold formed pretty precisely, to enable the film extension to be swaged semi permanently to the end of the extension. Also the clip is formed with a raised lip some .050 inch above the film surface on both sides of the film (total thickness about .120 inch. (3 mm.) The clip is U shaped so as to be slightly compressible when inserted into the QL holder. Having these made is not impossible but would need a bit of material engineering and some stamping and forming dies. The swage attachment method used by Fuji makes reuse of the clip about impossible since the 8 swage dimples actually depress the film extension making reloading difficult without using a specially designed expanding device.

The film itself has two leaders one about 1/2 inch long for the clip and the other consisting of the pull tab. They are both held to the film using a bead of sticky, temporary adhesive.

With Polaroid 545 holders and QL holders the mechanism that grabs the clip for sleeve removal then exposure consists of a short, reentrant tab at the center of the holder that fits into the the reentrant configuration of the clip.

Now in order to reuse the sleeves, the film extensions need to be attached, the clip swaged, all aligned, attached and loaded into the sleeve the dark - and preferably under clean conditions.

I have experimented using thin strips of double stick tape for the extension attachment to the film and this is OK but removal for processing is not so easy and processing houses would have to be instructed about the different adhesive. I have also experimented with card board clips held on to the film extension using double stick tape but cannot make this work well for several reasons - Too thick, not grabbed by the holder tab, etc. Might be able to get it to work though.

Biggest difficulty is doing all the assembly in the dark. A multi purpose jig will be required. Maybe IR glasses would ease the whole task.

The best and most practical hope for this is Johannas' approach of contracting with a job shop to work out the details for all the required parts. The polaroid type holder is definitely prior art from any patent point of view including the film/sleeve assembly so no patent protection is available and likewise there is no patent infringement to worry about. The whole device is prior art in the public domaine.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Vlad Soare
7-Jan-2010, 08:21
But even if this were possible, we'd still have to deal with the dust just like we're doing now with regular holders. Wouldn't this kind of defeat the purpose of using Quickloads in the first place?

Nathan Potter
7-Jan-2010, 13:25
You can't beat the dust problem at home unless you rig an air filter setup at a loading station. That still leaves the large advantage of compactness and less weight from QL's when traveling and backpacking. However, contracting to a job shop would include their instituting a clean setup for loading bulk film into sleeves. The job shop would procure the other associated parts as well as the necessary high volume assembly machinery.
I would reiterate that the intellectual property, via patents, has expired so there would be no protection against competitors. The new QL type sheets would need to be compatible with existing (and remaining) 545 and QL holders. I suppose a new type of holder could be designed but that would be a matter of the financial plan for such an enterprise.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Kirk Keyes
7-Jan-2010, 13:40
I suppose a new type of holder could be designed but that would be a matter of the financial plan for such an enterprise..

Or perhaps a modification can be made to existing Quickload/Readyload holders to permit a new sleeve system.

Armin Seeholzer
11-Jan-2010, 14:56
Just want remember you!!!
If you want Quickloads in the future buy them now and as much as you can!!!

Thanks Armin

percepts
11-Jan-2010, 19:13
Thought I'd sell my quickload II older so I checked what they are selling for. Really not worth the effort now.
Maybe, if we're really really lucky, Ilford will buy the rights and manufacture the film packets. So I'll hold onto it just in case as its worth nothing now.

Armin Seeholzer
12-Jan-2010, 03:18
You have to buy the film not to sell die holder f...... s.....!;--)))

BUY QUIKLOADS IN HUGE NUMBERS!!!!

Mike1234
12-Jan-2010, 08:10
Armin... you've made your point. However, it's a SUSTAINED market that will keep a product alive... not a huge TEMPORARY bump in sales. Many of us can make a large one time purchase but few of us can afford to CONTINUOUSLY buy 3x our normal usage just to waste film shooting more than we need or to just toss the excess away. Likewise, if Fuji simply triples their price most of us will stop using it.

Rick Tardiff
12-Jan-2010, 19:02
In reference to this subject, I emailed fuji film. Below is the response....


Dear Rick Tardiff:

Thank you for contacting Fujifilm, USA's Contact Center. Please allow us
to assist you.

At this time, we do not have plans to discontinue the Fujifilm Quickload
film.

We sincerely hope this information has been beneficial to you. If you
should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to
contact us again. It would be our pleasure to assist you.

Thank you for your interest in Fujifilm products and services.

Respectfully,

Kelly, Imaging Support Team
Contact Center
FUJIFILM U.S.A., Inc.

Joanna Carter
13-Jan-2010, 01:45
In reference to this subject, I emailed fuji film. Below is the response....


Dear Rick Tardiff:

Thank you for contacting Fujifilm, USA's Contact Center. Please allow us
to assist you.

At this time, we do not have plans to discontinue the Fujifilm Quickload
film.

We sincerely hope this information has been beneficial to you. If you
should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to
contact us again. It would be our pleasure to assist you.

Thank you for your interest in Fujifilm products and services.

Respectfully,

Kelly, Imaging Support Team
Contact Center
FUJIFILM U.S.A., Inc.
????????

Does anyone know enough Japanese to contact their head office? Fuji UK have told several people here that Fuji Japan have got plans to discontinue - last production to be around April this year, distribution might last until the end of 2010.

Dirk Rösler
13-Jan-2010, 06:46
Does anyone know enough Japanese to contact their head office?

I am in touch with them, still awaiting reply... will send a reminder tomorrow.

SW Rick
13-Jan-2010, 09:52
Enough to drive one batty (or battier)! Fuji UK says: Production will cease by April 2010 (not saying UK "distribution" of the product will cease, but "production"); Fuji USA says: no plans to discontinue. Hello!

As they used to say on the old quiz show, "Will the real Mr/Ms Fuji please stand up". :)

Mike1234
13-Jan-2010, 10:19
All too often the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing... and sometimes that left hand is very naughty.

Armin Seeholzer
13-Jan-2010, 10:56
The only chance we have:

BUY QUIKLOADS IN HUGE NUMBERS!!!!:) :D :D : :D

SW Rick
13-Jan-2010, 15:41
For what it's worth, here is a note I posted on APUG late July 2009 about Acros Quickloads:

"I just got off the phone at Fuji USA ("Kelly"), to ask about Acros 100 4x5 QuickLoads. She said no films have been announced as discontinued (begs the question of whether they are about-to-be). I said it's out-of-stock at almost every vendor, some stating it's not available. I said they might think about making some kind of announcement to the QL-consumers of Acros- she said she'd pass that along."

Not to pick on Kelly, and I assume it's the same Kelly who gave the recent reply that there are no plans to discontinue Quickloads, but Acros Quickloads died shortly after I was told by her that nothing has been announced about Quickloads being discontinued.

Wonderful if they are being continued, but I don't have much confidence in what I hear (or more properly, don't hear :) ) from Fuji.

Armin Seeholzer
13-Jan-2010, 16:39
As every company Fuji has to make money and if they can sell Quickloads in huge amounts they will not stop it, but if they can only sell a little part of the maximum what they need to make it they will stop!

If the sales goes up they start to think about!

Cheers Armin

percepts
13-Jan-2010, 16:43
As every company Fuji has to make money and if they can sell Quickloads in huge amounts they will not stop it, but if they can only sell a little part of the maximum what they need to make it they will stop!

If the sales goes up they start to think about!

Cheers Armin

And how many sheets of quickload did you use last year?

timparkin
14-Jan-2010, 02:15
And how many sheets of quickload did you use last year?

I used 600

Patrick Dixon
14-Jan-2010, 02:36
I don't have a problem with Fuji making commercial decisions, but I do think the lack of information and an opportunity for a 'last buy' (if that's what it's to be) is arrogant and disrespectful of their customers.

I won't be buying Fuji film in any format or emulsion from now on, and I will steer well clear of Fuji products in general.

dave_whatever
14-Jan-2010, 03:02
As every company Fuji has to make money and if they can sell Quickloads in huge amounts they will not stop it, but if they can only sell a little part of the maximum what they need to make it they will stop!

If the sales goes up they start to think about!

Cheers Armin

OK since you're persistant lets all take your lead here and go out and panic buy huge amounts of QL:

- Fuji then think there's a huge demand, so stop discontinuation.

- Fuji start production of QLs again, and since there's an huge demand, invest a fair bit of cash and resources into production.

- No-one has the time or money to actually use 500 sheets of QL a months, and since everyone stocked up a lifetime of QL in their freezers, sales drop to an all-time low.

- Fuji realise over the coming few months that the surge in sales was a very short-lived blip caused by ill-considered internet panic merchants who don't apreciate long-term supply and demand.

- Fuji winds up all its film production because it wasted all its cash and over-stretched all resources producing millions of sheets of quickload it'll not sell before they expire.

Sounds like a great idea.:confused:

Tim Meisburger
14-Jan-2010, 03:11
I don't know, but it seems like to me that someone ought to be able to come up with a better holder for the 21st century. Even with the same ancient design, you could reduce the weight by half by using graphite or lightweight plastic instead of heavy plastic and steel. Or how about wood? Its lightweight and strong. Ya, that's the ticket...

Steve Gledhill
14-Jan-2010, 03:33
In the BJP today ...
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872554

Joanna Carter
14-Jan-2010, 04:09
OK since you're persistant lets all take your lead here and go out and panic buy huge amounts of QL:

- Fuji then think there's a huge demand, so stop discontinuation.

- Fuji start production of QLs again, and since there's an huge demand, invest a fair bit of cash and resources into production.

- No-one has the time or money to actually use 500 sheets of QL a months, and since everyone stocked up a lifetime of QL in their freezers, sales drop to an all-time low.

- Fuji realise over the coming few months that the surge in sales was a very short-lived blip caused by ill-considered internet panic merchants who don't apreciate long-term supply and demand.

- Fuji winds up all its film production because it wasted all its cash and over-stretched all resources producing millions of sheets of quickload it'll not sell before they expire.

Sounds like a great idea.:confused:
This was exactly one of the problems with Velvia 50. When Fuji announced the withdrawal of the old emulsion, people went out and bought freezers and stocked them with as much Velvia 50 as they could find.

When Fuji saw this massive demand, they launched the new emulsion and... lo and behold, sales were extremely disappointing. Why? It's simple; most people who wanted to use Velvia still have anything up to 5 years supply of the old emulsion stashed in freezers.

Now, they are not (yet) discontinuing any of their emulsions but, unless they learn to manage market forces better than they did with Velvia 50, they will continue to ride this see-saw of demand.

The other factor that must have caused them problems with Quickload was the insane pricing policy; how much of the lack in demand was caused by that?

Then there is the expiry date issue. Most photographers that I know will store film in fridges or freezers, well beyond their expiry dates. Many photographers (the clever ones) also realise that slightly out of date film that has been kept cool is perfectly usable and will tend to look for such film, at greatly reduced prices, to keep their costs down.

So, you get the effect that Fuji mark film with a short date and try to sell it at too high a price. The end result is that it sits on the shelf, at full price, until it is out of date, until the expiry date, when it flies off the shelf at reduced price.

So, now the retailers are grumbling that they cannot afford to sell such a product because they keep on having to cut their profits to clear out of date stock, which has already cost them interest at the bank to buy in, just to sit on the shelf for two years.

The result is that, even though photographers adore Fuji films, they don't want to pay the full retail price, thus causing this erratic supply and demand curve.

I admit it; a couple of years ago, I bought a case with 20 boxes of 20 sheets of Quickload Acros for around £15 a box. It was already out of date, but it is B&W film that will keep for years in a cool, dry place without a fridge, let alone in a freezer.

Unfortunately, it is such good film, I have already used half of it and am having to look at the very real possibility of switching to loose sheet film when it runs out. When I do make the switch, I might as well use Ilford Delta 100, as I can buy that in boxes of 100 sheets for a lot less than ten boxes of 10 sheets of Fuji Acros.

I also purchased, what must have been, the last 25 boxes of Astia 100F QL in the UK, to put in my fridge.

I think Ilford have the right idea of producing film twice a year, taking orders before they waste vast amounts of money producing oddball in the hope that someone might still want it.

This is something I am having to consider very carefully before financing the production of my home-load envelope system. So far, less than a dozen people have expressed a firm desire for the product - do I go ahead, or do I give up now and save my money, time and effort?

Joanna Carter
14-Jan-2010, 04:17
I don't know, but it seems like to me that someone ought to be able to come up with a better holder for the 21st century. Even with the same ancient design, you could reduce the weight by half by using graphite or lightweight plastic instead of heavy plastic and steel. Or how about wood? Its lightweight and strong. Ya, that's the ticket...
It's not the holder that's the problem here. The QL holder is one of the best available for keeping film flat and allowing a photographer to carry 20-30 sheets of film but only one holder; the weight difference is not the problem, it's the convenience of being able to shoot (theoretically) unlimited film without having to use a darkroom or bag to preload into a limited number of DDSs.

Patrick Dixon
14-Jan-2010, 04:59
This is something I am having to consider very carefully before financing the production of my home-load envelope system. So far, less than a dozen people have expressed a firm desire for the product - do I go ahead, or do I give up now and save my money, time and effort?

I get the impression that plenty of people are interested, but without knowing, what it is, how it works and how much it's going to cost, it's always going to be difficult to get 'firm' offers.

The unit cost is going to be a major issue in generating volume, because people will still have to load it themselves, and as you've already said the premium cost of Quickloads was off-putting.

David Hedley
14-Jan-2010, 07:04
In the BJP today ...
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872554

I agree with many of Joanna's comments, although they do seem to me to read much better here than in the BJP article.

FWIW, I would support writing a letter to the chairman of Fujifilm in Japan, asking for the product to be continued, on the basis of an annual or semi-annual order from the LF community, much as Ilford co-ordinates the supply of ULF film. A recognition of the excellence of Fuji's films (Acros, Velvia, Astia and Provia), their continuing importance to the LF community, their influence in photography (and Fuji's reputation) beyond the actual sales numbers, with a description of options to maintain a supply of Quickload in ways which reduced distribution and inventory holding costs and risks for Fuji, might well have an effect at that level of management. Perhaps we can draft something on these pages, incorporating appropriate comments from others?

Dirk Rösler
14-Jan-2010, 17:31
I agree with many of Joanna's comments, although they do seem to me to read much better here than in the BJP article.

FWIW, I would support writing a letter to the chairman of Fujifilm in Japan, asking for the product to be continued, on the basis of an annual or semi-annual order from the LF community, much as Ilford co-ordinates the supply of ULF film. A recognition of the excellence of Fuji's films (Acros, Velvia, Astia and Provia), their continuing importance to the LF community, their influence in photography (and Fuji's reputation) beyond the actual sales numbers, with a description of options to maintain a supply of Quickload in ways which reduced distribution and inventory holding costs and risks for Fuji, might well have an effect at that level of management. Perhaps we can draft something on these pages, incorporating appropriate comments from others?

What is there to write about if there has not even been an official announcement? All we have is a "blog post", admittedly by the BJP but not exactly the hardest info one can imagine.

There is no sign whatsoever in Japan that QL will become unavailable. There are normally signs plastered all over the place in the retailers, magazine news etc. I have just received a batch of film yesterday without any comments, issues or delay.

bdkphoto
14-Jan-2010, 18:31
What is there to write about if there has not even been an official announcement? All we have is a "blog post", admittedly by the BJP but not exactly the hardest info one can imagine.

There is no sign whatsoever in Japan that QL will become unavailable. There are normally signs plastered all over the place in the retailers, magazine news etc. I have just received a batch of film yesterday without any comments, issues or delay.

It seems to me that the quote from FujiFilm's senior product manager is an official announcement. It's quite a shame that its going, but not at all unexpected since most of the high volume users have moved away from film.

Gordon Moat
15-Jan-2010, 12:06
I will agree with Dirk on this. It seems odd that any global corporation would make such a major announcement through a small UK organization. Nothing against the world importance of the UK, but there is simply no precedence for such announcements. This is also something that would seem to have a financial impact for Fujifilm Corporation, yet not one financial article anywhere mentions anything about it. One thing all this does show, is that Fujifilm are very poor at communicating with their customers, because they remain silent on an official position one way or the other.

I agree with Joanna's idea of having Fuji do pre-orders for products. Kodak already do this with ultra-large format films, and there is the example of Ilford. I think what might help is an on-line petition. Isn't it ironic that not much more than a year ago, Fuji backed a website to create a discussion with users of their films, yet now they are the height of confusion.

A bit more on Joanna's packet system concept; this is another realm that might work with an on-line petition, or a pre-order system. Maybe it becomes a one-time production, and everyone who wants one gets a set-up. The only comparable product is MIDO, which sells in very low numbers, and actually seems somewhat rare. If a reusable packet system came in near the price of a MIDO, then it would be likely to see buyers.

Ciao!

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

Drew Wiley
15-Jan-2010, 16:42
I dug out my old Mido II holders this fall. Although I got some marvelous shots in the
mtns, there were a fair number of light leaks too. And you can rarely afford to waste
film with duplicate shots when backpacking. The Quickload system was far more
convenient. When or if I run out of these, it's back to conventional holders and the
Harrison film tent.

David Hedley
16-Jan-2010, 08:54
What is there to write about if there has not even been an official announcement? All we have is a "blog post", admittedly by the BJP but not exactly the hardest info one can imagine.

There is no sign whatsoever in Japan that QL will become unavailable. There are normally signs plastered all over the place in the retailers, magazine news etc. I have just received a batch of film yesterday without any comments, issues or delay.

Good point. Perhaps the first request in the letter is clarity on the future of Quickload, both in the Japanese domestic market, and elsewhere.

Gene McCluney
16-Jan-2010, 13:40
There IS a difference between Ilfords yearly ULF film offering, and Fuji offering QL once a year. That is this: For Ilford to custom cut film once a year, is mainly a labor and time management issue, as they keep the cutting and finishing equipment busy making standard sheet film sizes the rest of the year, thus the equipment is constantly utilized. The QL manufacturing line would sit idle all year, taking up valuable space and capitol and the values of real estate in Japan being what it is, I doubt Fuji is willing to let a whole area of its manufacturing facilities sit Idle for 11 months of the year.

Steve Gledhill
16-Jan-2010, 14:12
In the BJP today ...
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872554

Following the non-linked link on the BJP page linked above takes you to:
http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/professional/home.html

Following the "Press" link at the top of the page takes you to:
http://www.newsfeeduk.com/fujipro/index.shtml

Follow the top link "Quickload film production to cease" takes you to what looks like an official Fuji press release dated 21st December 2009:
http://www.newsfeeduk.com/fujipro/21.12.2009.shtml

This cannot be any clearer. Quickload film manufacture ends in April 2010.

Gordon Moat
16-Jan-2010, 15:01
It's not clear at all, unless you live in the UK. There is absolutely no news, nor any statement, from any other part of Fujifilm Holdings. Furthermore, there is zero information about this at Fujifilm Japan and Fujifilm USA. Maybe someone can explain the logic of a Japanese company, with their highest volume markets in the US, releases global information in one of their smallest markets, the UK? WTF? Are they simply leaking this through the UK to gauge reaction, and possibly do a turn-around like they did with Pro 800Z? This makes no sense.

Dirk Rösler
16-Jan-2010, 15:51
The statements would make sense if they meant they will stop distributing ie selling QL in the UK. That may be a decision that a country division is able to make. Cease of production is a different story. Perhaps they are just using these words to shield off any criticism that it is only a UK thing. "Hey, this was decided somewhere in Japan, nothing we can do about it even if we wanted to"...

Whatever it is, it is clumsy corporate comms.

Steve Gledhill
17-Jan-2010, 07:20
It's not clear at all, unless you live in the UK. There is absolutely no news, nor any statement, from any other part of Fujifilm Holdings. Furthermore, there is zero information about this at Fujifilm Japan and Fujifilm USA. Maybe someone can explain the logic of a Japanese company, with their highest volume markets in the US, releases global information in one of their smallest markets, the UK? WTF? Are they simply leaking this through the UK to gauge reaction, and possibly do a turn-around like they did with Pro 800Z? This makes no sense.


The statements would make sense if they meant they will stop distributing ie selling QL in the UK. That may be a decision that a country division is able to make. Cease of production is a different story. Perhaps they are just using these words to shield off any criticism that it is only a UK thing. "Hey, this was decided somewhere in Japan, nothing we can do about it even if we wanted to"...

Whatever it is, it is clumsy corporate comms.

I have the same questions as you and I agree with practically everything you both say - except for the bit about "It's not clear at all, unless you live in the UK" - but would reiterate that the first line of the press release says:

"Fujifilm Professional has announced that Fujifilm Japan is to cease its manufacture of Quickload films in April 2010."

It doesn't say distribution, or marketing. It unequivocally say "... cease its manufacture of Quickload films in April 2010."

I was simply pointing out information that appears not to have been published on this site before. At this point I've no further contribution to make - and I don't even use Quickloads :)

I've just emailed Fujifilm UK Ltd's email contact on their press release to see if I can get a response.

stealthman_1
17-Jan-2010, 23:38
Crap. Since I just spent about $1500 on Fuji film, including QLs, I don't think I can buy much more...heck my freezer is full anyway. My luck Kodak would pull the plug on E6 chems right about the time I bought 5k worth of QLs anyway.:mad:

Steve Gledhill
18-Jan-2010, 07:54
... I've just emailed Fujifilm UK Ltd's email contact on their press release to see if I can get a response.

Here's the full response ...


Dear Steve

Thanks for your email. I'm sorry that you are not able to find a press release from other countries to confirm the news of the discontinuation of Fujifilm Quickload products. Sadly, I can confirm that the decision to discontinue Quickload film worldwide has been made by Fujifilm Japan where the Quickload film is manufactured and it is not a decision made by Fujifilm UK. Unfortunately, the volume of sales has dropped to the extent where it is no longer commercially viable to produce Quickload products.

We have ordered one year's worth of stock for the UK market from the final production of Quickload in Japan, but we envisage that the stock may sell out quicker than a year from bulk purchases. We will continue to produce 4x5" cut sheet film for dark slides, which will soon be available in 20 sheet boxes rather then the existing 10 sheet boxes.

Orders and preorders can be placed for the remaining Quickload film from our UK online film shop, Fujilab: http://www.fujilab.co.uk/catalog/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=quickload

Kind Regards
Jerry Deeney

Jerry Deeney
Marketing Manager
Professional Film & Motion Picture Film
Fujifilm UK Ltd

Armin Seeholzer
18-Jan-2010, 10:37
This is very sad news now is my last hope gone!!!!! F..... S.......!!!!!!!!

Armin

Robert Hughes
18-Jan-2010, 10:43
Quickload, shmickload... there's more LF film available than we can all use in this lifetime.

Joanna Carter
18-Jan-2010, 10:57
This is very sad news now is my last hope gone!!!!
Only if you don't support my self-load envelope system :cool:

lilmsmaggie
25-Jan-2010, 13:10
Here is another announcement on QL's:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Fujifilm-Quickload-films-12736

Bummer. Now I need to reconsider. I think the suggestion to write to Fujifilm Japan may be a good idea. This decision not only affects current LF photographers but those like myself who may be thinking about learning LF with 4x5.

There is a fine line between convenience and necessity. The professional has a vested interest and can comfortably resume hand loading film holders.

The first-timer may be more adversely affected when it comes down to shooting or not shooting. Once the wheel has been invented, its hard to go back to what existed before. Students have even less time on their hands than a seasoned professional.

I realize that there will be many that will strongly disagree but the alternative for some considering the move from 35mm to a larger format, looking at moving to MF instead becomes an attraction.

rdenney
25-Jan-2010, 13:58
I realize that there will be many that will strongly disagree but the alternative for some considering the move from 35mm to a larger format, looking at moving to MF instead becomes an attraction.

I would suggest that you write down your requirements. Here are mine:

1. Image management. I want to be able to control the plane of focus and geometric distortion (perspective effects). Hard to do without a view camera (and really expensive to do with most smaller format alternatives).

2. Image quality. I want my prints, even relatively small prints such as 16x20, to have depth and dimensionality. That requires a smooth transition from focused to out-of-focused and the stuff that is in focus to really pop off the print. Very hard to do with smaller formats, and at some level impossible. Some can't get the look they want with 4x5.

3. Flexibility. As my objectives change, the camera can adapt.

My point is that if you have established a standard that only 4x5 (or larger) will fulfill, then you'll just be disappointed with medium-format. And if you are expecting the sort of image-management features provided by a view camera, only a few smaller-format options exist and they are all expensive and are, at best, compromises.

And if you have established those standards, hinging the decision on the availability of Quickload is really the tail wagging the dog. Loading conventional film backs just isn't that hard (it's a lot cheaper, too), and it's easy enough to add roll-film capability to the same camera, especially if it has a Graflok/International back. You can always put the film back in the box and ship it to a lab, same as with the Quickloads.

I am buying up Quickload film because I make so few pictures that 100 sheets of the stuff will last me several years. I'm stocking the freezer with it. But if, after running out of the stuff, I can't get buy with 6x12, then I'll go back to loading film backs.

Rick "who can shoot anything from 6x7 to 4x5 in his Sinar" Denney

lilmsmaggie
25-Jan-2010, 14:41
I would suggest that you write down your requirements. Here are mine:

Rick,

Please understand that I am not taking this from a position of "mine" or "I" type of requirements. And I'm not saying that MF would necessarily fill the gap. I'm looking at this from purely a world market perspective. What market forces are in play that you as a signle photographer has not considered, or even really cares about? How about camera and accessory sales? Could these not be affected as well?

With the advent of digital, everything changed. That is not to say that film is not a viable medium for artisctic expression or appeal. But a decision like Fujifilm's to stop producing quickloads has other implications that may not affect you personally in the short tem, but may in the long term. I think its important for us to step back and look at the bigger picture. Something that is difficult to do from a personal perspective.

There are photographers out there that know doubt shoot 35mm or MF digital that use and can justify the cost of tilit-shift lenses. For them, the non-availability of OL's are a non issue. But aside from digital versus film, "the market" will dictate what gets produced and what is not; availability and shortages; supply and demand.

As technology changes, it has an affect on the decisions we make. Kodak decides to discontinue a product, then perhaps another, Fuji likewise discontinues a product, and so on. What are they as manufacturers seeing in the market that individually you or I don't see?

And besides, you proved one of my points by saying you'd just go back to loading film. :)

Armin Seeholzer
25-Jan-2010, 17:10
I am buying up Quickload film because I make so few pictures that 100 sheets of the stuff will last me several years. I'm stocking the freezer with it. But if, after running out of the stuff, I can't get buy with 6x12, then I'll go back to loading film backs.

And besides, you proved one of my points by saying you'd just go back to loading film.

What make me feel bad is not because I can't load film in normal filmholders this is easy to do, but not in the field and this makes me sick!

And what really is my feeling if Fuji did waite one year ot two the Quickloads selling would go up a bit again.
I'm so sure every body paid as much Readyloads from the yellow father to use them for quite some time when Kodak anounced the disc. of it. My freezer is still filed up with the Readyloads from Kodak and I'm not the only one which did it!!!!
I do not so often use Quick or Readyloads but for hiking in the mountains and also for very good paid jobs I most of the time used Quickloads or Readyloads!!

Fuji you are making a big mistake!!!!!!!!

welly
25-Jan-2010, 21:40
Rick,

Please understand that I am not taking this from a position of "mine" or "I" type of requirements. And I'm not saying that MF would necessarily fill the gap. I'm looking at this from purely a world market perspective. What market forces are in play that you as a signle photographer has not considered, or even really cares about? How about camera and accessory sales? Could these not be affected as well?

With the advent of digital, everything changed. That is not to say that film is not a viable medium for artisctic expression or appeal. But a decision like Fujifilm's to stop producing quickloads has other implications that may not affect you personally in the short tem, but may in the long term. I think its important for us to step back and look at the bigger picture. Something that is difficult to do from a personal perspective.

There are photographers out there that know doubt shoot 35mm or MF digital that use and can justify the cost of tilit-shift lenses. For them, the non-availability of OL's are a non issue. But aside from digital versus film, "the market" will dictate what gets produced and what is not; availability and shortages; supply and demand.

As technology changes, it has an affect on the decisions we make. Kodak decides to discontinue a product, then perhaps another, Fuji likewise discontinues a product, and so on. What are they as manufacturers seeing in the market that individually you or I don't see?

And besides, you proved one of my points by saying you'd just go back to loading film. :)

Rest assured, as a recent convert to large format photography, quickload was never a deciding factor on whether to start shooting large format :) In fact, I'd never heard of it until I started using this forum!

My personal view is that the discontinuation of quickload probably wouldn't be much of a factor. More the availability and cost of equipment, on deciding which format to go for, rather an a particular film type that I've never seen and never seen anyone shoot (and I know a few LF photographers). But aside from that, you do make points that are definitely worth keeping in mind.

Eric James
19-Mar-2010, 10:49
Bumping this.

If you're trying to decide if you should stock up, soon might be too late. BHPV is showing "discontinued" on my favorite films, Astia 100F and Velvia 100. Badger Graphic has stock-up quantities but are stating that all Quickloads have been discontinued. I placed by bet, now I need to buy a freezer.

David_Senesac
6-Apr-2010, 12:50
Another piece of gear to the museum. My Quickloader has only been collecting dust for the last few years anyway as I became much more efficient using holders. But as Drew mentioned, when one is in the backcountry on shorter overnight trips there is a weight penalty. Vaguely recall figuring out that after about 5 days at my usual modest shooting rate, it balances out. Oh yeah I'm almost always up above 70 lbs carrying weight too. Too old and stubborn to change.

brighamr
6-Apr-2010, 13:51
There is a thread on the uk large format forum that states that Quickloads have been
re-introduced

http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1699

lets see where that one goes ...

robin

London

Songyun
6-Apr-2010, 14:02
Geezzz....:confused: :confused: Hopefully it is true...

There is a thread on the uk large format forum that states that Quickloads have been
re-introduced

http://www.lf-photo.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1699

lets see where that one goes ...

robin

London

Joseph Kayne
1-Jun-2010, 09:44
Geezzz....:confused: :confused: Hopefully it is true...

Any status???

Chris CS
22-Jun-2010, 06:26
Bump.. Any news on this?

Riverman
22-Jun-2010, 18:41
I'm trying to get hold of Acros Quickloads and it seems ordering through Japan Exposures is the only game in town. Works out nearly 110 bucks a box. Ouch. Anyone else ordered QLs through JE?

Rayt
24-Jun-2010, 00:56
My colleague is in Japan now and he is going to bring back a few boxes for me. I don't know the actual retail price yet but if Japan Exposure's mark up is less than 30% then it is still doable for me. I have bought Fuji PF100c45 from Dirk at JE before they were available in the US and the service was quick.

Kirk Keyes
29-Jun-2010, 12:20
I'm trying to get hold of Acros Quickloads and it seems ordering through Japan Exposures is the only game in town. Works out nearly 110 bucks a box. Ouch. Anyone else ordered QLs through JE?

I've bought Acros in cut sheets from Japan Exposures and the service was great. The film arrived very quickly.

Armin Seeholzer
9-Oct-2010, 05:19
I just see that B&H has them still with differnent color and slide film only the Acros is missing!
Fuji is listening, maybe!!!
I still have 5 packs of TMX readyloads in freezer! But after they are cone I will use the color neg Quickloads and convert them into B&W if I can't get Acros to a faire price!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Sheet-Film/ci/335/N/4277998823


Cheers Armin