Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Readyload conventional B&W

  1. #1

    Readyload conventional B&W

    Is there a reason that no manufacturer is making a conventional film (TriX, FP4, etc.) in a readyload holder? I realize they are expensive, but the convenience of dust-free film without the hassle and the space- and weight-savings are distinct advantages that would seem to create a market.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    184

    Readyload conventional B&W

    Tmax 100 is in readyloads...

    just nothing faster.

  3. #3
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,274

    Readyload conventional B&W

    Tmax 100 is in readyloads. Fuji Acros 100 is in quickloads. AFAIK, that's it for B&W.

    The reason, one way or another, is money.

    Illford elected not to spend the R&D to develop a separate system, and elected not to spend the licening fees to use Quickloads or Readyloads (assuming Fuji and/or Kodak would license).

    Kodak steadfastly refuses to put their best selling B&W film (Tri-X) into readyloads. Rumor has it that the existing packaging isn't lightfast enough for the faster film, but I find that a little difficult to believe. If it leaked any light at all, it would fog Tmax 100 too.

    Another rumor is that Kodak's marketing department (or the bean counters) doesn't want to let the "analog" people create another SKU (they don't want dealers to use shelf space for another film product) lest it take space away from a digital product. This one actually sounds more like the Kodak I know.

    It always comes back to money.

    Bruce Watson

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    625

    Readyload conventional B&W

    It has always baffled me how Kodak figures to make more money by NOT selling the most popular b&w film of all time, including today, in ReadyLoads. The lightfastness theory sounds pretty bogus, but it is the first one I have heard that makes any sense...

  5. #5

    Readyload conventional B&W

    Actually, the Kodak rep informed me a while back that the reason they have not produced trix readyloads is a static electricity issue.

  6. #6
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,274

    Readyload conventional B&W

    Static electricity? That implies that Tmax and Tri-X are coated onto different bases. There's no logical reason for different bases, and it would cost Kodak rather a bit more to develop and stock a separate base. This doesn't seem like the reason to me.

    Bruce Watson

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    184

    Readyload conventional B&W

    Could be static that causes sparking which registers on the faster emusion?

    Beats me... just annoying that I have to use 100 or load my own...

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,695

    Readyload conventional B&W

    As few people as there are who use large format, and as few of those as there are who use Readyloads in any great quantity, why not be grateful we have what we have rather than using this as another occasion to dump on Kodak. We may not have even it much longer.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,952

    Readyload conventional B&W

    Maybe this is a stupid question, I have never used, or even seen, quick/readyloads, but is it possible to "reload" the cardboard quickload sleeves. For example use the t-max then reload with Tri-X?

  10. #10
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,274

    Readyload conventional B&W

    Brian,

    I would be "grateful for what we have" but I don't have anything. Kodak doesn't make a readyload packet choice for me. I would love to use readyloads. I would pay the extra money per sheet without any qualms at all. But I need a 400 speed level film for what I do.

    I'm dumping on Kodak because Tri-X is their best selling B&W film, and they won't put it in readyloads. It's not like they're looking at a lot of R&D to do this. The packet design is done. The readyload holders are already on the market and in many customers' hands. The machines to load the packets are done. If the film sales estimates are to be believed, they should have some excess capacity for the packet loader machines, so they don't even need to build another machine. They would have to adapt the Tri-X logo to readyload packet labeling -- I wouldn't think the labelling effort would be so big that Kodak couldn't handle it though.

    I'm dumping on Kodak because I want to give them money, and they won't take it. Instead they complain about falling revenue from film. Am I the only one to see the irony here?

    I'm dumping on Kodak because they make my life harder for no apparent reason. It would save me lots of weight, lots of filmholder unload/clean/reload time, and lots of spotting time to have Tri-X in readyloads.

    I'm dumping on Kodak because they won't even talk about this issue.

    I'm upset with Kodak over this. I hope it doesn't show too much.

    Bruce Watson

Similar Threads

  1. Luminos quits making conventional materials
    By John Kasaian in forum Announcements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-Aug-2005, 08:12
  2. Bypassing conventional, going directly to digital.
    By Erik The Viking in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 24-Jan-2002, 12:06
  3. Conventional Wisdom on Color Meters
    By John Hennessy in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24-Jul-2001, 00:52
  4. Digital and/or conventional printing options
    By fw in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 6-Jun-2000, 18:28
  5. Qickload and Readyload
    By andrea milano in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25-Oct-1998, 10:21

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
  •