| [This page is now only
of historical value. Double sheet readyloads have not been available
for a long, long time. I'll leave this page in place, however, in
case it's of interest to someone]
Today (2/11/2001) Kodak announced
that Tmax-100 (TMX) would be available in the new single sheet readyloads.
This is good news for those folks who used the old two sheet readyloads
successfully, because for some four months it appear that Kodak would not
offer any B&W film in ANY readyload package.
(3/26/01) To top it off, I've had a chance to
evaluate the new single sheet readyloads. You can check out my
feelings on all the current packet systems including the new single sheet
readyloads here.
(5/1/2001) Single sheet readyloads are now
appearing in stores, including TMX. If you buy some and use them,
please send me the reliability data and I'll collect it and post it here.
When Kodak first introduced the Readyload system back in
the early 1990's, a LOT of people had severe problems with the system.
The problems included:
- packets which came apart either when withdrawing the envelope to
make an exposure, or when withdrawing the entire packet after an
exposure
- fogging of the film, typically at the corners on the metal clip end
of the packet. This fogging was sometimes faint and didn't reach
the image area, and was sometimes severe and destroyed the image.
- holder jams
Kodak has released four different versions of the readyload holder to try
to resolve these problems, but quite a few potential readyload users were
so disgusted with the system that they vowed to never give it another
try. Since I started using readyloads in 1994, I've seen at least
four different packet designs, as well.
To make matters more frustrating, the competitive product from Fuji, Quickloads,
is apparently free of the problems that have plagued the readyload
system. 4x5 photographers who work in color have flocked to the
Quickload system, partly because of the reliability and partly because of
the emulsions Fuji offers in Quickload format.
But this leaves B&W photographers in a fix. First of all,
Fuji offers only one B&W emulsion in Quickloads - Neopan Commercial.
Now, I've never used Neopan Commercial, and it might well be a lovely film, but
the sad fact is that it's not distributed in Quickloads in the US, so it
doesn't matter to me. (Neopan Commercial in Quickloads *is* imported by
Badger Graphics, but the price is $60 for a 20 sheet box.)
To make matter worse, Kodak only sell one emulsion in Readyloads:
Tmax-100 (aka TMX). Fortunately, if I were to choose one emulsion,
this would be it. But it would be nice to have Tmax-400 (aka TMY) as
well. Even better would be if Ilford sold their emulsions (Delta
100, Delta 400, FP-4+, HP-5+) in packets.
So the bottom line for B&W photographers who want a compact and
lightweight film holder solution is this: either you use TMX in
Readyloads, or you use whatever you like in holder that are far more bulky
and weigh a whole hell of a lot more, and perhaps deal with the dust
problems inherent in loading holders in the field.
If readyloads were reliable, it would be a no-brainer. But there
are persistent doubts about the reliability of Readyloads. Part of
the difficulty is that in any discussion of Readyloads, the users who
experienced problems early in the 1990's are indistinguishable from those
who are using the system currently. And, those who encountered
problems tend to be quite vocal, while those who have had no problems tend
to state that fact and move on.
What's a B&W photographer to do? You don't want to use an
unreliable system, but you don't want to carry more weight than you need
to. What we need is to make a realistic assessment of Readyload
reliability. The table at the bottom of this page is my attempt to
do just that.
The idea is that people using readyload packets, either with success or
with failure, will forward their statistics to me. I'll put them in
this table. With luck, over time, a realistic picture of Readyload
reliability will emerge.
So if you use Readyloads, send me your data! Just drop me an
email at butzi@halcyon.com.
|