Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / November 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Fuji QuickLoads or Kodak ReadyLoads for B/W?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Foto`s in Monochrome - 27 Oct 2006 19:04 GMT
I am considering using either Kodak (100TMX) in ReadyLoads or Fuji 100 Acros
in QuickLoads for my 4x5 camera. Does any one use either of these films
regularly and are their any pros/cons for using one manufacturers film
holder over another?
darkroommike - 28 Oct 2006 19:04 GMT
In my opinion you're not just buying the film but should also invest in
the holder that matches the film you use.  I've not used Acros in 4x5 (I
shoot some FP-4 and some Tri-X--neither available pre-loaded since film
packs went away--and again--yes I'm that old) but feel that Tmax 100 is
an excellent emulsion in all available sizes, just a bit fussy for the
casual user/beginner so if I were to buy one holder to use with one film
if would be Fuji.

darkroommike

> I am considering using either Kodak (100TMX) in ReadyLoads or Fuji 100 Acros
> in QuickLoads for my 4x5 camera. Does any one use either of these films
> regularly and are their any pros/cons for using one manufacturers film
> holder over another?
Foto`s in Monochrome - 28 Oct 2006 21:21 GMT
I use FP4+ in 4x5 sheets myself, but I am looking for a more convenient
alternative even if it is more expensive. As you say, there is no
alternative from Ilford.
Can either of the Kodak and Fuji film holders take both ReadyLoads and
QuickLoads?
I suppose I should have put this question on a LF NG, although I will
discuss darkroom technique too.
Thanks for replying.

> In my opinion you're not just buying the film but should also invest in
> the holder that matches the film you use.  I've not used Acros in 4x5 (I
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> films regularly and are their any pros/cons for using one manufacturers
>> film holder over another?
Frank Pittel - 29 Oct 2006 03:41 GMT
I use the Polaroid holder (545?). It costs about the same as the Fuji or
Kodak holders. The difference is that it not only works with Polaroid film
but with Fuji and Kodak film as well. One holder for all three films.

: I use FP4+ in 4x5 sheets myself, but I am looking for a more convenient
: alternative even if it is more expensive. As you say, there is no
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
: discuss darkroom technique too.
: Thanks for replying.

: > In my opinion you're not just buying the film but should also invest in
: > the holder that matches the film you use.  I've not used Acros in 4x5 (I
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
: >> films regularly and are their any pros/cons for using one manufacturers
: >> film holder over another?

Signature

-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

Foto`s in Monochrome - 29 Oct 2006 13:25 GMT
>I use the Polaroid holder (545?). It costs about the same as the Fuji or
> Kodak holders. The difference is that it not only works with Polaroid film
> but with Fuji and Kodak film as well. One holder for all three films.
> -------------------
> Keep working millions on welfare depend on you.

I shall check out the Polaroid holder if it takes both Kodak and Fuji,
thanks for the tip.
It seems that 100TMX and 100 Acros are the only B&W films available for this
type of system.
Jakub Roguski - 29 Oct 2006 08:43 GMT
Foto`s in Monochrome (sobota, 28 października 2006 22:21):

> I use FP4+ in 4x5 sheets myself, but I am looking for a more convenient
> alternative even if it is more expensive. As you say, there is no
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> discuss darkroom technique too.
> Thanks for replying.

Have you seen this: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/holders.html ? I
found this site very useful when making my own decision about holder.

Jakub
http://www.roguski.eu
jeroldhartermd@gmail.com - 31 Oct 2006 03:18 GMT
I use Kodak TMAX 100 film so I bought the Readyload holder and have
been using the ready loads occasionally. They cost alot more per sheet
but they are worth it when you have to carry your gear. It is
relatively easy to carry 50-75 sheets of film. I rarely need that much
but even 20 sheets of regular film in carriers is onerous.

I understand that Ilford cannot manufacture readyloads because of
expense and patent issues. Maybe when Koadak stops making readyloads
they will sell the gear etc. to Ilford.

TMAX is more readily available than Acros also.
Foto`s in Monochrome - 31 Oct 2006 17:11 GMT
>I use Kodak TMAX 100 film so I bought the Readyload holder and have
> been using the ready loads occasionally.

> I understand that Ilford cannot manufacture readyloads because of
> expense and patent issues.

Maybe when Kodak stops making readyloads
> they will sell the gear etc. to Ilford.

Why do you suspect that Kodak will stop selling their 4x5 inch sheet-films
as "ReadyLoads"?
darkroommike - 01 Nov 2006 23:26 GMT
It's not "if" it's only "when".
darkroommike

>> I use Kodak TMAX 100 film so I bought the Readyload holder and have
>> been using the ready loads occasionally.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Why do you suspect that Kodak will stop selling their 4x5 inch sheet-films
> as "ReadyLoads"?
Rob Novak - 31 Oct 2006 15:21 GMT
>I am considering using either Kodak (100TMX) in ReadyLoads or Fuji 100 Acros
>in QuickLoads for my 4x5 camera. Does any one use either of these films
>regularly and are their any pros/cons for using one manufacturers film
>holder over another?

I don't own a 4x5, but I shoot Acros in 135 and 120.  It's beautiful
stuff.

I will say, though, that it typically takes more developing than other
films.  I use a rotary processor, so I'll typically have to take
10-15% off the base time on the chemistry's chart due to the constant
agitation.  Acros gets the full time, every time, especially in 120 -
it's more of an ISO 64-80 film.  Anything less just gives me a neg
that's way too thin.  I use Ilford DD-X primarily, so YMMV with other
developers.
Signature

Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.