Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Why Kodak Redyloads failed?

  1. #1
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,410

    Why Kodak Redyloads failed?

    Did they make a lot of poorly constructed packets? If not, was the effort too expensive, or was it something else?

    I have a lot of them and I suspect poor construction is an issue. Please call me just plain wrong. I am tired of wasting my time with them.

    What a beautiful idea, gone now.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Blue Jay, CA
    Posts
    2,280

    Re: Why Kodak Redyloads faild?

    I never had one fail, if by that you mean come apart or malfunction. I thought Polaroid was involved in making the actual sleeves, then its problems made production impractical. I think I heard that here.

    If you really don't like them and they've been well-stored, sell them.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,881

    Re: Why Kodak Redyloads faild?

    It was a nice idea but never gained any attention from me simply because the cost was more than the convenience was worth to me.

  4. #4
    Foamer
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    1,893

    Re: Why Kodak Redyloads faild?

    I never bought ready-loads from either company simply because I saw them as too expensive.


    Kent in SD
    Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,
    miserere nobis.

  5. #5
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,116

    Re: Why Kodak Redyloads faild?

    The sleeve & holder concept was first designed for Fuji 4x5 film for use in Polaroid 545 holders. Somewhat later this was improved as what became known as the
    Quickload system. Kodak tried to upstage this with a double-film sleeve, which was prone to light leaks. So they essentially copied Fuji with an analogous one sheet sleeve called Readyload, which was quite dependable. I know that the sleeving of Fuji's film was done by Polaroid, and it is probable that Kodak's was too. Polaroid obviously went into a financial tailspin, so it was a question whether or not it was financial worthwhile for either Kodak or Fuji to buy out that equipment or do the necessary R&D to replicate it, or whatever. Someone else might know more details that I do. But they both decided, No, and placed their bets on digital. It's a shame, because these sleeve systems were a dream come true for a backpacking addict like me. I can obviously resort to a changing tent; but one simply does not always have the right conditions at the right time. Weather changes fast, you crawl into a tent dirty and grubby, and film changing is fussy clean work. I've personally resorted to 6x9 roll film holders on long treks. I already have more than my fair share of full 4x5 and 8x10 chrome and negs, and am routinely adding more during day hikes. Quickloads themselves started getting unreliable toward the end, so my hunch is that the original machinery itself needed retooling, and that kind of thing is always expensive and tricky.

  6. #6
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    7,263

    Re: Why Kodak Redyloads faild?

    I loved the later single-sided Readyloads and Quickloads. They made backpacking with 4x5 much more fun.
    Please stop feeding the trolls.

  7. #7
    Corran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North GA Mountains
    Posts
    7,491

    Re: Why Kodak Redyloads faild?

    Are you using the second-generation holder? The one with the red button. I've heard that one works better - it's the only one I've used and never had a problem.

    The only issue with any of the packets I had was trying to use the Polaroid 545 with the Fuji/Kodak packets. Another bit of anecdotal wisdom was that the Polaroid worked for both, but what it did in my experience was NOT work with either! So I just use the Fuji/Kodak holders. It's really helpful for shooting just a couple sheets of color. Have a bunch of Fuji packets left.
    Bryan | Blog | YouTube | Instagram
    All comments and thoughtful critique welcome

  8. #8
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,284

    Re: Why Kodak Redyloads faild?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    Why Kodak Redyloads faild?
    Kodak Readyloads didn't fail. Kodak outsourced the making of the packets to Polaroid. Polaroid declared bankruptcy. So Polaroid ceased making the packets for Kodak.

    Kodak analyzed what it would take to obtain the machines and tooling and move it to a Kodak facility and decided the cost was too high; that they'd never be able to pay for it through sales of boxes Readyload film packets. So, they declined.

    People looked into obtaining the equipment and making the packets independently of Kodak and Polaroid. No one thought they could make enough money to pay off the startup expense.

    Boom. End of Readyloads.

    That said, they worked flawlessly for me, and delivered outstanding negatives that were completely dust free. I've drum scanned quite a few -- hardly any dust to be found. I would have continued to use them for that reason alone, more or less regardless of price. The extra price per sheet easily paid for itself by reducing my spotting time to nearly zero.

    It was a shame they couldn't get the packets to work reliably with high speed (400 ISO) films. Doesn't matter any more I guess. Sigh...

    Bruce Watson

  9. #9
    Foamer
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    1,893

    Re: Why Kodak Redyloads faild?

    You would think that Polaroid would have sold of the machinery cheaply to a start up. It all likely ended up selling for scrap.


    Kent in SD
    Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,
    miserere nobis.

  10. #10
    Vince Donovan
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    102

    Re: Why Kodak Redyloads faild?

    Ready-loaded film for the Polaroid 545 holder is still available from New55 for a variety of emulsions:
    http://shop.new55.net/collections/fr...ant=1194818235

Similar Threads

  1. Failed Feisol IQ Test
    By Jac@stafford.net in forum Gear
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 28-Apr-2016, 06:08
  2. ADOBE is on the run, failed at subscribtion
    By Tin Can in forum Business
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: 23-Jul-2014, 15:40
  3. What do you do with old failed prints?
    By stradibarrius in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 14-Mar-2013, 21:17
  4. jobo heater failed
    By Jim Andrada in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 3-Mar-2013, 14:04
  5. Kalart Experiment: Failed (So Far)
    By rdenney in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 18-Sep-2011, 06:52

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •