All Quickloads, R.I.P

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thinner filmholders have also been made by Mido. The original Mido holder was something like a reloadable Quickload with an envelope and was reputed to be tricky to handle, but from what I've read, it may have had more to do with the temperament of the users to put up with a certain degree of fiddliness in exchange for portability than with the design. Mido II holders were like very thin regular filmholders that fit into a clamshell spacer. Midos are not easy to find, but they show up on eBay occasionally, most commonly in 4x5", and they're not cheap. They were also made in 4x10", I believe 5x7", and 8x10". I waited for years to get some in 8x10" where they really provide a huge advantage over regular filmholders in terms of portability.

The original maker, or maybe it was someone associated with the original maker, appeared on eBay himself offering some new Mido holders in odd sizes, and people seemed to think that this indicated the possibility that he would start making them again, but this seems never to have materialized. There was a thread about it on the LF forum a few years ago.

[coriana6jp]

I contacted a couple of the pro photoshops in Tokyo today. They had no information about quickloads being discontinued. I think it needs to be confirmed with Fuji, incase it is a mistake or limited to UK only.


Gary

[SWphoto]

I contacted a couple of the pro photoshops in Tokyo today. They had no information about quickloads being discontinued. I think it needs to be confirmed with Fuji, incase it is a mistake or limited to UK only.


Gary

I would have agreed, except for the Fuji press release by the Fuji spokesperson. Ceasing production is different from not importing. Fuji is very poor at consumer relations- just look at the way they "handled" the discontinuance of Acros in Quickloads- they have never officially acknowledged it on their website or in any PR I have found. To rely on finding anything about it on their website would be futile.
If they have not discontinued it and not replied to the many postings about the discontinuance, they're even worse than I imagined. (Even Tiger Woods eventually did say something..) They've lost me as a customer, along with many of my friends.

[Ian Grant]

The Fuji guys in the UK are usually very well informed.

Over the years there have been products taht allow bulk loading of films and I came across something from the late 1920's last night, available in more than one size and for either Glass plates or Cut film, I'll try post some details tomorrow,

However I've seen & read numerous Patents in the past, but film packs effectively killed off most of these devices. Looking at adverts from around 1935 my Patent Etui's (9x12) either used plates or film packs but not film dark-slides.

One problem with the Readyloads that I used (the Polaroid 100D) is that the film was slightly oversized to allow attachment to the inner part, that in itself adds to manufacturing costs.

It's possible better to explore other options like the Grafmatic holders, could they be remade with newer & cheaper materials, or could an alternative be redesigned.

Ian

[SWphoto]

Ian,

I think you had referenced Johanna Carter's attempt at doing something with a Quickload-like system, and that she had abandoned it due to legal costs. Perhaps this Grafmatic-like holder might be something instead. Do you know her well enough to suggest for her consideration?

Rick

[Ian Grant]

Rick, I have a feeling that the Film holder I have in mind would be better suited to the people making Custom Darkslides, which I think Sandy King is involved in.

Tomorrow I take some photo's of the advert and review of what prompted me, (I've no scanner here in Turkey & it's late evening now :D). I think it needs a radical approach away from Readyloads & their limited range of films available anyway.

It may be film packs could be revived in some form or one of the other older systems, but they go way back over a century and there were numerous approaches.

Ian

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've seen a few one-off or small production bag mags (Glennview has had them occasionally), which are a very compact way of carrying a lot of film and don't require as much precision manufacturing capability as a Grafmatic.

[Ian Grant]

Here's a couple of images with the details of this 1927 offering. I've no idea how it worked but it's worth looking at, as are similar ideas of that era.

Ian

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's a couple of images with the details of this 1927 offering. I've no idea how it worked but it's worth looking at, as are similar ideas of that era.

Ian

From the description it sounds like it works pretty much like a Grafmatic. After the top sheet is exposed, the user pulls out the film drawer containing the other septums, and springs press the exposed sheet or plate to the back of the box, and then the drawer is returned to the box with a new sheet of film on top of the stack as the sheet just exposed slips into the drawer in the back of the stack. Unlike a Grafmatic, the darkslide is on the opposite side of the holder from the film drawer handle, so changing film would have to be done with the holder out of the camera, unless the holder attaches in place of the groundglass panel like a Graflok back, giving access to both sides. On a Grafmatic the darkslide also plays a role in holding the active septum flat, which doesn't seem to be the case with the Adams filmholder, though it wouldn't have been so important in the age of plates.

Another multi-sheet filmholder is the Kinematic, made in my hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. They are fiddlier to operate and not quite as reliable as Grafmatics, but they hold ten sheets instead of six and are only slightly thicker. I have two of them, and it's handy to be able to go out with twenty sheets of film in the space of about four or five regular filmholders.

[Joanna Carter]

The last post I saw from her, maybe 2 months ago, was that she was dropping the idea as she had talked to some attorneys about legal costs (patent costs I think) and they would be at least $10,000 USD. She could not afford it. There was some discussion about "investors" but I lost track of the thread.
I did not drop the idea because of patents; I am simply going to have to rely on people not to steal the idea. Come the New Year and in the light of Fuji's announcement, I am hoping to take the idea further.

[jd callow]

I did not drop the idea because of patents; I am simply going to have to rely on people not to steal the idea. Come the New Year and in the light of Fuji's announcement, I am hoping to take the idea further.

Good Luck to you.

Oh and welcome to APUG.

[gr82bart]

Fuji is very poor at consumer relations <snip> They've lost me as a customer, along with many of my friends.This is quite refreshing to read on APUG - a site known for it's many pro anything but Kodak individuals! :D

Regards, Art.

[jd callow]

This is quite refreshing to read on APUG - a site known for it's many pro anything but Kodak individuals! :D

Regards, Art.

Yeah I was surprised to read this as well.

With regard to customer relations and communication I have always found Kodak to do an excellent job of making information readily available and through multiple communication channels -- channels the naysayers seem to never use. OTOH I have never needed much from Fuji so I can't say whether or not they are good, bad or somewhere between the two. I was made aware of the demise of NPL and RPT well in advance of their discontinuance which were the only emulsions Fuji made that impact my photography. I do think that Fuji has an unusual marketing approach with regard to E6 emulsion naming and Japan only products.

[Tom Kershaw]

Yeah I was surprised to read this as well.

With regard to customer relations and communication I have always found Kodak to do an excellent job of making information readily available and through multiple communication channels -- channels the naysayers seem to never use. OTOH I have never needed much from Fuji so I can't say whether or not they are good, bad or somewhere between the two. I was made aware of the demise of NPL and RPT well in advance of their discontinuance which were the only emulsions Fuji made that impact my photography. I do think that Fuji has an unusual marketing approach with regard to E6 emulsion naming and Japan only products.

Fujichrome Astia 100F in 135 format has been discontinued in the UK, but as far as I'm aware the product simply vanished from price lists without explanation. However, in the interests of fairness, Fuji UK did respond to my e-mail to confirm.

Tom

[Pupfish]

Just got my order of 5 boxes of QLs delivered today from Adorama. The boxes of Pro 160S have a use-by date of 11-2011; guessing the manufacture date of these would have been fairly recent, no?

I'd sure hope they remain available for a number of reasons. I'm finding QLs tremendously less inconvenient by not having to unbox and load, then unload to box film back up to deliver it to a 3rd party lab.

Haven't flown since the latest incident, but when traveling by air, TSA folks would hand inspect QL in ziplock bags. Even though they'd explosive sniff them it still seemed less risky to the film than someone either accidentally opening an unsealed box of exposed film, or the cumulative effects from insistence on running boxes through an Xray machine.

[mark]

This just sucks. I always got scratches on my slides before I used Quickloads.

[David Callard]

:(This is surely bad news to many of us - it certainly is to me. I am wondering: Why must Kodak and Fuji just chop us off cold? Could they perhaps work on an indent basis, where interested groups of photographers, e.g. such as may exist here amongst the APUG membership, club together and undertake to place orders, on a 6/12 monthly basis? I guess we get what we deserve; if we don't buy these products then we can hardly expect manufacturers to go on producing them. I can only say that I am prepared to repent and I just wonder if any others feel the same? I find the Quickload/Readyload filmpacks very useful - no need for a darkroom or changebag and perhaps even more important no need to send off our film holders to outside labs where with the best of intentions one can never be sure of getting the same holders back. Over...
from LF Forum, this report from British Journal of Photography, confirmed by release from Fuji, all Quickloads discontinued:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872222

[DanielStone]

:(- no need for a darkroom or changebag and perhaps even more important no need to send off our film holders to outside labs where with the best of intentions one can never be sure of getting the same holders back. Over...

David: I purchased a pack of 1/2"x2.75" white AVERY labels, the ones designed to be printed on with an inkjet home printer. Made some labels in Mic. Word with my name and telephone number, along with city and state(US), I only send out my color film now to a lab, but using a changing TENT(harrison) helps to minimize the dust issue with loading film holders.

since I switched from a changing bag to the tent, my dust issue is practically nothing compared to the bag, even with vacuuming, compressed air blow-outs, etc....

but I do agree with you though, QL's and RL's are extremely convenient, especially to the backpack 4x5 photographer.

-Dan

p.s. watch craigslist for used 4x5 holders, I just scored another 25 for $40, so the deals are definitely out there, you just might have to wait a bit to get some at a cheap price.