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.
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.
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.
I never bought ready-loads from either company simply because I saw them as too expensive.
Kent in SD
In contento ed allegria
Notte e di vogliam passar!
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.
I loved the later single-sided Readyloads and Quickloads. They made backpacking with 4x5 much more fun.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
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.
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.Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net
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
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
In contento ed allegria
Notte e di vogliam passar!
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks