Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
on 9/8/01 12:03 PM, Lawrence Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You've got to be kidding. E6 the same everywhere? I've taken identical > shots one minute apart in consistant lighting on separate rolls and had > different labs process them. The results were VASTLY different. How much > experience have you had doing this? Labs make a HUGE difference. > >> -Original Message- >> This is generally true, at least with respect to ordinary C-41 and E-6 >> development. If anyone disagrees, perhaps he can point me to >> some examples that >> show an obvious difference between one lab and another. >> >> > ...and I will add that from my experience, fresh film and quality processing are more important than the brand of the lens or camera. Maybe my standards are just too high, but I struggle to find an adequate E-6 processor. The last lab ignored my "DO NOT MOUNT" instructions even though they were in 72 point font and bold. Jim Snyder
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
> Austin writes: > > > Why? > > Because sarcasm is not seriously intended to generate a rebuttal, > by definition. > Why not?
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Austin writes: > Why? Because sarcasm is not seriously intended to generate a rebuttal, by definition.
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
> Austin writes: > > > What does that matter? > > If it is sarcasm, it can be disregarded. > Why?
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Pat writes: > ... the greater risk to magnetic sensitive > media (e.g. hard drives) is caused by the often > unshielded motors in the conveyor belt system. In general, any magnetic field not strong enough to actively attract the hard drive is not strong enough to harm it.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Austin writes: > What does that matter? If it is sarcasm, it can be disregarded.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
I didn't say that foreign labs are inferior. I said the 'home' lab is a known quantity. I didn't say that the film bought on location was inferior, I said it's condition wasn't known, whereas film brought along out of a purchase made locally is a controlled variable. Yes, risk is introduced by having it go through X-Ray machines, but that risk is the heart of the original question; whether the machines pose a threat. The score so far in the discussion about that original topic is that hand-carried luggage is far less likely to fog film than checked baggage, and the fewer doses of X-Rays the better. Further, US flights allow the privilege of demanding had inspection. As to the ancillary discussion of effects of XRay machines on electronics devices, the greater risk to magnetic sensitive media (e.g. hard drives) is caused by the often unshielded motors in the conveyor belt system. - Original Message - From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 4:07 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Pat writes: > > > ... I think it's damn funny that Anthony, who won't > > touch his computer configuration for fear of disrupting > > a known state, finds it odd that professional > > photographers will limit risk when going on assignment > > by bringing along film from trusted sources, and > > processed at trusted sources. > > I find it odd that they pretend to limit risk when in fact they don't even know > the risk. They take for granted that transporting their own film is safer than > buying and developing on location, but I haven't seen anyone actually show > evidence that this is truly the case. I've seen the documentary evidence of > fogging and I know it happens, but I have not see documentary evidence that > "foreign" labs and film are inherently inferior to labs and film from one's own > neighborhood. This fact, coupled with the fact that one person's "home" lab is > a "foreign" lab to someone else, imply that the risk is actually higher when > film is transported than when it is purchased or processed on location. > > _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
> Austin writes: > > > Anthony, you did not read what I wrote. I said > > "you are, obviously, right". Doesn't that close > > the discussion? > > I read what you wrote, but it appeared to be sarcasm. > What does that matter? If someone says you are right, why continue the argument, unless your only purpose is to argue?
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Pat writes: > ... I think it's damn funny that Anthony, who won't > touch his computer configuration for fear of disrupting > a known state, finds it odd that professional > photographers will limit risk when going on assignment > by bringing along film from trusted sources, and > processed at trusted sources. I find it odd that they pretend to limit risk when in fact they don't even know the risk. They take for granted that transporting their own film is safer than buying and developing on location, but I haven't seen anyone actually show evidence that this is truly the case. I've seen the documentary evidence of fogging and I know it happens, but I have not see documentary evidence that "foreign" labs and film are inherently inferior to labs and film from one's own neighborhood. This fact, coupled with the fact that one person's "home" lab is a "foreign" lab to someone else, imply that the risk is actually higher when film is transported than when it is purchased or processed on location.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Maybe it's just my general punchiness at having only slept about 14 hours this week, but I think it's damn funny that Anthony, who won't touch his computer configuration for fear of disrupting a known state, finds it odd that professional photographers will limit risk when going on assignment by bringing along film from trusted sources, and processed at trusted sources. Pat - Original Message - From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Austin writes: > > > Everyone disagrees, but you've already said you > > don't see any difference, so what's the use? > > Well, another option is to actually put some examples online. I don't generally > believe or disbelieve things just because others believe or disbelieve them; I > like to see objective evidence or proof. That's why I question why nobody > worries about fogging, but everyone worries about "foreign" film and > development, even though I've seen proof that fogging is a problem, but no proof > that foreign labs or films are a problem. > > > Everyone else on this list, professional photographer, > > expert photographer, and otherwise are all wrong and > > you are, obviously, right. > > I believe this argument qualifies as a fallacy of distraction based on > popularity (i.e., the assertion that something must be true because most people > believe it to be so). _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Austin writes: > Anthony, you did not read what I wrote. I said > "you are, obviously, right". Doesn't that close > the discussion? I read what you wrote, but it appeared to be sarcasm.
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Only a scan from the lab that processed the film correctly. I'm wasn't about to scan the other one nor do i intend to take the time to scan it to prove my point. I don't care if you don't agree. Lawrence Smith * * visit my site and participate * * in this weeks image critique * * http://www.lwsphoto.com * * > Do you have any examples online? > >
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
> -- > > Everyone else on this list, professional photographer, > > expert photographer, and otherwise are all wrong and > > you are, obviously, right. > > I believe this argument qualifies as a fallacy of distraction based on > popularity (i.e., the assertion that something must be true > because most people > believe it to be so). Anthony, you did not read what I wrote. I said "you are, obviously, right". Doesn't that close the discussion? I believe I've previously stated that even if everyone agreed with you, you find a way to argue about it. Most interesting.
Re: filter for Anthony (was Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging)
At 08:25 9/09/01 +1000, you wrote: >I wholeheartedly agree with this and would remind list members that to >answer this fool only serves to propagate his drivel. If everybody filters >him and nobody answers he will effectively cease to exist !! :-) > >Geoff If you filter him yourself he will effectively cease to exist in your world. Go fer it I'll go WAY OT here but maybe cause a little chuckle. I look after email for a large group of car wreckers. They all have killfiles and stuff but seem reluctant to use them (and have often forgotten how). They grumble at me that I should exclude certain undesirable users from the mailing list because they don't pay their bills or whatever. When I point out that they can filter the user themselves they go all coy - "he might need to buy something that only I can sell him at an inflated price and for cash". They also get grumpy with people who mix jokes in with the message flow looking for parts. It never helps when I point out that the "delete" button takes a small fraction of a second to activate. AA has his views, defends them quite rationally (for his circumstances) and never loses his rag. A bit droidish I suppose. Stay calm though - his old gear is going to croak one day - when it does his business will fail instantly and he won't be interested in film scanners any more. :) Cheers Bogeyman
Re: filter for Anthony (was Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging)
I wholeheartedly agree with this and would remind list members that to answer this fool only serves to propagate his drivel. If everybody filters him and nobody answers he will effectively cease to exist !! :-) Geoff - Original Message - From: "Robert Meier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:46 AM Subject: filter for Anthony (was Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging) > I would suggest that everybody just sets up a filter that transfers > Anthony's messages directly in the delete folder (there will be a lot > of them from him if you have a peak at the delete folder before > deleting permanentaly). He's not only annoying to the list but he is > plain wrong on most accounts and contradicts himself again and again. > And this is not only the case for this thread. It's not worth arguing > with him because he just turns every word around to make it look he's > right although he's not. > > Just some advice/idea. > > Robert > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger > http://im.yahoo.com >
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Austin writes: > Everyone disagrees, but you've already said you > don't see any difference, so what's the use? Well, another option is to actually put some examples online. I don't generally believe or disbelieve things just because others believe or disbelieve them; I like to see objective evidence or proof. That's why I question why nobody worries about fogging, but everyone worries about "foreign" film and development, even though I've seen proof that fogging is a problem, but no proof that foreign labs or films are a problem. > Everyone else on this list, professional photographer, > expert photographer, and otherwise are all wrong and > you are, obviously, right. I believe this argument qualifies as a fallacy of distraction based on popularity (i.e., the assertion that something must be true because most people believe it to be so).
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Lawrence writes: > I've taken identical shots one minute apart > in consistant lighting on separate rolls and > had different labs process them. The results > were VASTLY different. Do you have any examples online?
Re: filter for Anthony (was Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging)
Sigh. Filters are of course a personal decision and we all have them. I've always felt capable of running my own killfile and don't quite understand why anyone else needs to tell me what should be in it. I guess Robert has Anthony in his killfile already so is no longer annoyed by what he says ... :) >From where I sit the man makes some sense on much of what he says. Not all the time of course but the Lord grants perfection to so few of us these days At least one of us lurkers gets a bit of a chuckle at the extreme reactions he evinces. At 08:46 8/09/01 -0700, you wrote: >I would suggest that everybody just sets up a filter that transfers ,, >Just some advice/idea. As they say - free advice is often worth what you pay for it. IB
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Jeff Moore [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:34:15 -0400 >Actually... I've been able to get hand-checks of film on the way out >of Heathrow the last two times -- after polite but dogged insisting. I >remember reading somewhere that x-raying of film in UK airports ceased >to be strictly mandatory after Lord Snowdon had some film destroyed... Well done! The only official way to avoid x-ray is to contact the airport prior to departure and request hand checking. You will have to have a good reason for it though - ie you are a professional photographer carrying a large quantity of high speed film. It's up to the duty manager whether you are granted this facility. I guess you were just lucky. I wouldn't count on being able to insist! -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Why don't we combine our knowledge and come with a list of good, quick turnaround film processors in the major cities of the world? - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 10:38 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > > Johnny writes: > > > > > Here are the possibilities as I see them. > > > > > > 1. You are right. There is no substantive > > > difference between commercial film processors > > > anywhere in the world. Everyone who uses > > > custom labs is wasting their money. > > > > This is generally true, at least with respect to ordinary C-41 and E-6 > > development. If anyone disagrees, perhaps he can point me to > > some examples that > > show an obvious difference between one lab and another. > > > > Everyone disagrees, but you've already said you don't see any difference, so > what's the use? Everyone else on this list, professional photographer, > expert photographer, and otherwise are all wrong and you are, obviously, > right. >
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Austin, I think you miss the point here: Anthony's standards for film processing quality are sufficiently lower than yours, mine and everyone else on the list, that all processors' work is fungible. It isn't that all are equal. Personally, I don't like getting scratched, mistreated film back. So after trying out several processors, I've settled on the ones that meet my requirements. Pat --- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Johnny writes: > > > > > Here are the possibilities as I see them. > > > > > > 1. You are right. There is no substantive > > > difference between commercial film processors > > > anywhere in the world. Everyone who uses > > > custom labs is wasting their money. > > > > This is generally true, at least with respect to > ordinary C-41 and E-6 > > development. If anyone disagrees, perhaps he can > point me to > > some examples that > > show an obvious difference between one lab and > another. > > > > Everyone disagrees, but you've already said you > don't see any difference, so > what's the use? Everyone else on this list, > professional photographer, > expert photographer, and otherwise are all wrong and > you are, obviously, > right. > __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
> Johnny writes: > > > Here are the possibilities as I see them. > > > > 1. You are right. There is no substantive > > difference between commercial film processors > > anywhere in the world. Everyone who uses > > custom labs is wasting their money. > > This is generally true, at least with respect to ordinary C-41 and E-6 > development. If anyone disagrees, perhaps he can point me to > some examples that > show an obvious difference between one lab and another. > Everyone disagrees, but you've already said you don't see any difference, so what's the use? Everyone else on this list, professional photographer, expert photographer, and otherwise are all wrong and you are, obviously, right.
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
You've got to be kidding. E6 the same everywhere? I've taken identical shots one minute apart in consistant lighting on separate rolls and had different labs process them. The results were VASTLY different. How much experience have you had doing this? Labs make a HUGE difference. Lawrence Smith * * visit my site and participate * * in this weeks image critique * * http://www.lwsphoto.com * * > -Original Message- > This is generally true, at least with respect to ordinary C-41 and E-6 > development. If anyone disagrees, perhaps he can point me to > some examples that > show an obvious difference between one lab and another. > >
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Johnny writes: > Here are the possibilities as I see them. > > 1. You are right. There is no substantive > difference between commercial film processors > anywhere in the world. Everyone who uses > custom labs is wasting their money. This is generally true, at least with respect to ordinary C-41 and E-6 development. If anyone disagrees, perhaps he can point me to some examples that show an obvious difference between one lab and another.
filter for Anthony (was Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging)
I would suggest that everybody just sets up a filter that transfers Anthony's messages directly in the delete folder (there will be a lot of them from him if you have a peak at the delete folder before deleting permanentaly). He's not only annoying to the list but he is plain wrong on most accounts and contradicts himself again and again. And this is not only the case for this thread. It's not worth arguing with him because he just turns every word around to make it look he's right although he's not. Just some advice/idea. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
on 9/7/01 6:43 PM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> ...And when did this thread get limited to C-41 >> only? > > It didn't. But I can say the same about E-6 and B&W as well. You can say that but it wouldn't be true. Here are the possibilities as I see them. 1. You are right. There is no substantive difference between commercial film processors anywhere in the world. Everyone who uses custom labs is wasting their money. They would get the same results in a backstreet in Ulan Bator. 2. You are a poor judge of image quality. 3. You are a hopeless know-it-all with too much time on your hands and a personality problem. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Laurie writes: > Thus your response is really not very responsive > - argumentative yes but responsive no. Your speculation concerning the risks of buying and developing film abroad essentially resolves to superstition, which is not uncommon among photographers. Virtually all of the risks you mention exist at home as well as abroad; they may even be higher at home. Yet you seem to feel concerned about them only when travelling abroad. In reality, however, there may be many foreign cities in which you can buy fresher film and get it developed more competently and reliably than you can at home. The mere fact that a destination is far away doesn't mean that the risks are increased. The risks of fogging are well known and much easier to quantify than the risks you postulate, and the _proof_ of fogging is readily available, whereas proof of the dangers of foreign film and development seems to be lacking. > And that on professional commercial shoots, one > might find the risk of airport security machine > fogging to be less of a risk than buying one's > film on location or having it processed on location. I'm not at all convinced of this. All I see is conjecture that seems uncomfortably close to superstition: It's foreign, therefore it's bad. If your film is developed on location and ruined, there is at least a slight possibility that you may be able to reshoot. If you return home and have your film developed and it is fogged (or ruined by the lab), a reshoot is unlikely to be an option. Therefore, unless you know the exact levels of risk associated with each of these possibilities, it would seem that purchase and development of film on location makes more sense than hauling film around the world. Transporting film means (1) risk of fogging; (2) risk of being ruined at the lab at home; and (3) inability to reshoot. Buying and developing on location means only (2) risk of being ruined by the lab. Therefore, in the absence of additional data, buying film and developing it on location is the less risky of these two paths: it cannot be fogged, and you can reshoot (maybe) if it is ruined. > I do not think the risk of carry-on film being faced > with this is very great except in a few identifiable > countries and at a few identifiable airports. The information I obtained from Kodak seems to conflict with this. It's interesting how people can rationalize away risks that conflict with their preferences, and exaggerate or invent risks that agree with them. I've always been paranoid about the risks of x rays, and I buy and develop on location, where possible. > As such the professional photographer may be able > to get their client to make advance arrangements > for bringing in and shipping out unexposed films > without having to go through the x-ray machine > or the scanner ... Unless the photographer is in Outer Mongolia, I expect him to find film and development on location, so that I don't have to pay for elaborate shipping for film over thousands and thousands of miles. If he can't do that, he's not a professional. Besides, even Outer Mongolia may have good labs these days. Additionally, some photographic applications require rapid feedback, such as contact sheets or (in the movies) daily rushes. This requires local processing. If a "pro" tried to tell me that he had to FedEx this back to the States or somewhere just to get his contact sheets, I'd find another pro. > First, if I was shooting E-6 35mm slides, I would > want them to be put in individual mounts ... Everything you bring up here is just as true at home as it is abroad, so why is it such a risk abroad, but not at home? > This also raises the question about buying films > in some destinations where the cost of the film > includes processing and prints in the selling price. I've seen this only for Kodachrome, outside the U.S. > First, you seem to have an undoubting faith in > automation and machines ... No, I'm just going by real-world results. C-41 negatives look pretty much the same no matter who develops them, in my experience. I hear people speculate about differences between labs, but I've never seen the hard evidence of this, and I've tried both fancy pro labs and ordinary photo-lab chain stores. There is wild variation in the quality of prints, but the negatives all look the same. This is one reason why I develop and scan. Development can be handled by just about anyone, and by scanning I eliminate the large unknown of making prints entirely. > It has nothing to do with wickedness or foreigners; > it has to do with one knowledge, familiarity, and > awareness of ones surroundings. But your underlying assumption appears to be that foreign locales carry a greater risk of problems with development or film, and I've seen no evidence to support that. Don't forget that your hometown is a "foreign" place to visitors--does that make your own labs worse or your own film less fresh? > ... but a newcomer to the location has
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Laurie writes: > This is not the case for visiting tourists or > professional commercial photographers who may be > passing through a given location and not affiliated > with any of the major European or US magazines ... If a so-called pro presumes to charge me $20,000 a day for an assignment, he had better get acquainted with the locals real quick, and find those reliable suppliers and labs locally. I'm not interested in hearing excuses for that kind of money. > This means that the visitor takes a much more > uncontrolled and uncalculated risk than the person > who is from the area in making purchases > of perishable - so to speak - supplies ... Yes, but uncontrollable and uncalculated risk is _not_ synonymous with greater risk. > Some of the precautions include knowing what > countries have airport scanners that are cranked > up to high levels or generate stray x-rays ... How will you find out things like this, if you cannot even find out who supplies fresh film and good lab work in the destination country? > They therefore control the storage conditions of > the supplies which their staff uses so as to assure > as best that anyone can the quality of the supplies > rather than leaving such things up to random chance. Not necessarily. An in-house lab may be there to cut costs, not to maintain quality. I've heard photographers complain about in-house labs for exactly this reason. > They also maintain and control their own developing > and printing processing equipment and activities > with respect to regular changing of chemistry, > filtration of water, cleaning of processors, etc. Yes, so they are free to skimp in order to keep things cheap. Why pay for good quality, when just-barely-sufficient quality will do for the magazine? > Professionals shooting for commercial purposes > are paranoid and concerned about quality ... Then why are they willing to send film halfway around the world? Would they be as willing to ship their wallets and passports that way?
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Laurie writes: > To ignore such possibilities and - I dare say > probabilities - is to be in denial. To assume that the risk is any greater away from home than it would be at home is xenophobic and irrational. Labs in your hometown are not necessarily any more competent or careful than labs anywhere else, so lugging film to and from your hometown because of an irrational fear of foreign labs is counterproductive. Unless you are truly visiting a destination with a very poorly-developed infrastructure, you may as well buy and develop film at your destination, thereby eliminating the risk of fogging the photos that you spent so much effort to obtain.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Harvey writes: > None of us would be in business very long if we > were to just go to the cheapest place for processing. I did not address the cost of processing. > I can't imagine telling a client, after them paying > us $20,000 (US) for a day's work, and spending an > additional $20,000 on models, studio rentals and > expenses etc., that their film was scratched (because > we went to a cheap processor) and unusable. It can't be any worse than coming back after five days and $200,000 worth of work and telling the client that all of it was fogged with diagonal stripes in transit by x-ray machines. My question would be "why didn't you take the time to find a pro lab on location?" There's no excuse for that sort of incompetence, not at those prices. > From your comments, I have a hard time believing > that you are a professional photographer, perhaps > you are not, and *that* was the incorrect assumption > on my part! The preponderance of personal attacks in your own posts as opposed to reasoned technical information or argument leads me to the same conclusion about you, but perhaps we are both wrong.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Pat writes: > One reason that fairly leaps to mind is > being familiar with the particular lot > (batch) of film brought, as well as knowing > how it has been handled. You can buy lots of matched emulsions abroad, too. And how would you know how film at home is handled any better than you would abroad? You have no idea what was done to it before you bought it.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Austin writes: > Then either you are using labs of identical > grade, or the methodology of use you partake in > does not show the differences, or lastly, you > aren't able to distinguish the differences (that's > not meant insultingly). Probably the second of these. There are always differences, but they are generally too small to be significant, and so I don't worry about them.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Harvey writes: > So it's true...You need to get your eyes checked. My vision is normal, as far as I know (at least yearly checkups appear to so indicate).
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Hersch writes: > I lost an important roll recently here in California > when the local camera store operative screwed up his > mini lab, with a grossly underdeveloped roll. It can > happen anywhere. Wouldn't it be better to have it happen while you still have the possibility of retaking the pictures, instead of later, when you are thousands of miles away and cannot possibly consider redoing anything?
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
From the quotes that have been included, I am not sure if you are responding to me or to someone else. However, I will make a few counterpoints to your comments. First of all, many of those high quality magazines published in the US which are printed or distributed in Europe have bureaus in Europe whose staffs are full time residents in that location and not temporary traveling staff personnel ( with some of the full time resident staff being professional photographers). Thus they are familiar with the consistent and reliable sources for supplies as well as for processing and if need be pass the information on to visiting photographers from elsewhere who come to their location to shoot for their magazines. In the case of the high quality European magazines that publish and distribute in Europe, their full time resident staffs as well as any freelancers shooting for them are very familiar with the reliable and consistent suppliers and labs in the area or are made so by those in their publications who have that knowledge. This is not the case for visiting tourists or professional commercial photographers who may be passing through a given location and not affiliated with any of the major European or US magazines or newspapers - be they their on vacation, to shoot stock photos or on commercial assignments. Secondly, not all the locations in the US or out of the US are major metropolitan urban areas or near such areas so as to afford visiting photographers access to high quality suppliers and labs that might be found in the major metropolitan urban areas; and if they do exist, the visitor will not know of their existence in advance so as to be able to count on there being at the location when the visiting photographer is in that location. I would hate to arrive in some rural village 200 miles from any major urban metropolitan area with a few rolls of film only to find that there are no suppliers in that village or the surrounding area or that they only carry one type and speed of film in small quantities such that I would have to go 200 miles to get the supplies that I needed. Moreover, not all countries in the world are industrialized so as to even have major urban metropolitan areas that serve as centers for any of the uses of commercial photography so as to have suppliers of international brands of film and modern processing available. Thirdly, you can get bad film anywhere and you can get screwed up processing anywhere; that is not the point. The point is that visitors to a strange area do not know or have any way of knowing who is and who is not reliable on a consistent basis in the area that they are visiting unlike people from the area. This means that the visitor takes a much more uncontrolled and uncalculated risk than the person who is from the area in making purchases of perishable - so to speak - supplies and getting demanding precision processing and/or printing done. Consequently, the risk of fogging via x-rays may frequently be less if one takes precautions than getting supplies on location or having processing done on location. Some of the precautions include knowing what countries have airport scanners that are cranked up to high levels or generate stray x-rays, which airports do not allow hand checking of films, and the like. Furthermore, if one is shooting for some major internationally influential client, the client may have some ways of by-passing the x-raying of their film via some special arrangements with customs and airport security which the individual photographer will not have. Many companies that engage in international commerce use brokers and expediters to get around many of the requirements that mere mortals encounter. As a couple of asides, many of the high quality magazines use their own staff photographers and staff operated labs; they buy their film, paper, and chemistry in bulk direct from the film manufacturers or their distributors. They therefore control the storage conditions of the supplies which their staff uses so as to assure as best that anyone can the quality of the supplies rather than leaving such things up to random chance. They also maintain and control their own developing and printing processing equipment and activities with respect to regular changing of chemistry, filtration of water, cleaning of processors, etc. Another aside has to do with distinguishing between professional photographers and non-professional photographers with respect to their demands and needs concerning the delivery of a high quality successful product. Professionals shooting for commercial purposes are paranoid and concerned about quality because not only is their reputations at stake but their livelihood is as well which is not the case for non-commercial photography done by amateurs or professionals. Thus, while some of what has been said may be appropriate for non-commercial p
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Alas, nothing is foolproof. That a process is automated and even consistent does not mean that the operators are equally competent in performing the process, equally diligent in keeping temperatures consistent or regularly changing chemistry on a consistent schedule, equally concerned with running and examining routine water quality checks for impurities in the water supply or test strips, or equally consistent in cleaning the equipment on a regular and consistent basis which often means shutting down the line for a period of time or paying workers overtime to do it after hours. No matter how automated, there is always room for human error, for changing factors external to the process that are beyond one's knowledge or control which impact on the process itself. To ignore such possibilities and - I dare say probabilities - is to be in denial. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 5:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Laurie writes: > But not everybody uses the same quality controls > or implements them in the same way with regularity. The results I've obtained have been extremely consistent. The process is so highly automated and consistent that it is far less likely to be messed up than, say, the preparation of prints (although recent advances such as the Fuji Frontier appear to be making prints nearly as foolproof as well).
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
r wicked foreigners comment, that was not what I said or meant and you know it. As a traveler in a strange place that is not your home or a place that you frequent on a regular basis, you are not familiar with the establishments in that location, have little knowledge about what are good place that offer quality, price, speed, etc. and what are not from among those that exist in that location, you have no awareness or knowledge of the reputations which different suppliers and labs have as to consistency, reliability, or quality; nor do you have any basis for trusting the recommendations of locals who you do not know as to who is good and who is bad. It has nothing to do with wickedness or foreigners; it has to do with one knowledge, familiarity, and awareness of ones surroundings. Every location has its good and reputable facilities as well as its bad and disreputable facilities; but a newcomer to the location has no way of knowing which is which. As for pro labs versus one-hour labs, there are good one hour labs; but many of them do not do E-6 or medium and large format films. Many do not do custom printing, custom cropping, or print sizes larger than automated 11x14. Many cannot and/or will not do push or pull processing, snip tests, or the like. Once again, the appropriateness of a one-hour lab even if it is a good one will depend on the type of photography that is being done and the requirements of that type of photography. I have shot some commercial jobs that were rush on 35mm film and have used a one-hour lab. Sometimes it worked out fine and other times it was marginal. I have had jobs where I would have preferred to shoot medium format or large format but due to time constraints I was forced to shoot 35mm which I had processed in a one-hour lab. However, I have yet to be able to use prints from a one-hour lab as anything but rough proofs with respect to giving clients prints when they wanted prints as opposed to transparencies. I have always had to get prints made in a professional custom lab so as to get the sorts of corrections, cropping, and sizes that I needed. Professionally, I find that the sorts of things that my clients require often need to be done on medium and large format film rather than 35mm film. I also find that about 50% of my work requires transparencies and 50% prints. Hence, I find it hard to identify 35mm photography , the films it involves, and the labs which serve it as being the end all and be all of mainstream professional photography; just as I find it hard to accept that arguments that would lump professional commercial photography in all its forms into the same class as fine art, photojournalistic, or amateur photography when it comes to defining needs and requirements. Each type of photography makes its own sorts of demands and has its own level of requirements. One size does not fit all. >There seems to be a touch of xenophobia in your viewpoint Xenophobia, I doubt it; there is a touch of truism in my viewpoint that strangers in a strange place will be unfamiliar with the resources of that new place and how to assess those resources as well as who to trust when it comes to accepting recommendations. But if I am xenophobic, then you are paranoid is assuming that when I was describing the fact that strangers to a new place would be unaware of whose opinion and recommendations to take as trustworthy I was playing ugly American and defining people in other countries, such as your self, as wicked foreigners. >Rest assured, in >many countries photography is just as important as it is in your hometown, and >so you'll find labs that are just as competent, I agree which is precisely why I refuse to accept on face value the reliability, competence, consistency, or quality of any lab in any location. And since different people have different standards of quality and adequacy, I refuse to merely accept a third parties recommendation without checking it out - especially if the third person is a stranger to me. That is true for people and establishments in my home town and country as well as elsewhere. Given that my home town has bad unreliable inconsistent labs as well as people whose tastes and standards I disagree with, I assume that the same holds true for your home town and some of the people in it who offer recommendations and suggestions. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Laurie writes: > ... I would stay away from sellers who only stock > a small supply of a few limited types of films ... Most large cities have photo stores. Many of these have refrigerators stocked with fresh film. All you have to do is buy from one that has film stored in this way. It's unlikely they'd pay for refrigeration just to keep ruined film cold. But frankly,
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Give up guys. This fellow knows it all. He doesn't need us so we'd be well advised not to bother reacting to his nonsence. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 11:29 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Johnny writes: > > > you know how it'll turn out > > Virtually everyone uses the same machines. I'd be very hard pressed to identify > the work of one lab as opposed to another in film development. >
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
One reason that fairly leaps to mind is being familiar with the particular lot (batch) of film brought, as well as knowing how it has been handled. Pat --- Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Buy film at your destination, and have it developed > there before you return. > Unless you are venturing into the Third World (and > even if you are, sometimes), > this will give you photographs just as clean as > taking your own film with you in > both directions, and the danger of fogging (or other > unpleasantness) is > eliminated. > > I've never understood why photographers lug hundreds > of rolls of film around the > world when film and development are available > practically everywhere on the > planet. What's so special about film and > development at home? > > - Original Message - > From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 22:59 > Subject: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > > > > Some weeks ago there was a thread about fogged > negs from airport X-rays. > > This is to put everyone on notice that if you > travel in the US, fogging is a > > strong possibility, because it just happened to me > on a trip from Cleveland > > to Seattle--neither of which are particularly > effective smuggling ports. > > > > I am not from Jamaica, I am not Black (well, not > very much, anyway--not > > noticeably), and my family has been out of the > smuggling business for at > > least 300 years. Yet my film got "nuked," either > at Cleveland Hopkins or at > > SeaTac (I'd weigh it as 70% likely SeaTac, on the > conservative side--there's > > little need to take Ohio pot to Seattle!) > > > > This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and > sent corroberating pic to the > > (US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will > do. I'm hoping that the > > people who control air traffic in the US can at > least read! But judging from > > the people I've seen at the check-in gates, I > wouldn't count on it. :-( > > > > Anyone wishing to dialogue with me on this > subject, please contact me > > off-list, because I frankly don't have time to > survey the List at this point > > in time. I'm just coming on--then dropping off > again--to warn you all to use > > the lead bags when you travel (as if that would > help), or buy film at point > > of destination and mail it back home. What a > complete PITA. > > > > Best regards--LRA > > > > PS--I really miss you guys, but it can't be > helped. :-) > > > > > _ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Harvey writes: > > > Your ignorance is showing here. Roller transport > > development is inherently more likely to scratch > > film than dip & dunk. > > I addressed possibility, not probability. > > > Shame on you! > > See above. But life and business plans on based on probabilities. We should do what we can to minimize the problems. None of us would be in business very long if we were to just go to the cheapest place for processing. I can't imagine telling a client, after them paying us $20,000 (US) for a day's work, and spending an additional $20,000 on models, studio rentals and expenses etc., that their film was scratched (because we went to a cheap processor) and unusable. >From your comments, I have a hard time believing that you are a professional >photographer, perhaps you are not, and *that* was the incorrect assumption on my part! Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Harvey writes: > > > Seriously...Are you drugs...Or do you need them to > > correct your eyesight? > > No. > > > ...And when did this thread get limited to C-41 > > only? > > It didn't. But I can say the same about E-6 and B&W as well. Then you are just a fool. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
> > That's a load of hooey. C-41, or E-6 can look > > entirely different depending on development. > > They always look the same in my experience, no matter what lab > develops them. Then either you are using labs of identical grade, or the methodology of use you partake in does not show the differences, or lastly, you aren't able to distinguish the differences (that's not meant insultingly). I see clear differences between my C-41/E-6 development, my pro labs development and my corner mini-lab (yes, they really are on a corner).
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Austin writes: > > > That's a load of hooey. C-41, or E-6 can look > > entirely different depending on development. > > They always look the same in my experience, no matter what lab develops them. So it's true...You need to get your eyes checked. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Note: Checked luggage! I'm pretty sure that they can't generate anything like the high level of baggage X-rays at the passenger gates, or the attendants would at least be wearing lead lined outer clothing like the dental hygienists. The main point is to hand carry the film and cameras in easily-inspected containers, for hand check; and if some stubborn clerk occasionally insists on passing your gear through the gate scanner, it will undoubtedly be OK. Anthony is not being unreasonable. Hersch At 02:32 PM 09/07/2001, you wrote: The FAA announced a number of years ago that it was upgrading all checked baggage x-ray machines to improve the ability to detect bombs and other types of stuff. Prior to this announcement Kodak never admitted that the existing x-ray machines would fog film. With the new machines Kodak did finally admit that the machines would, indeed fog their film. This has been kind of known to American photographers for some time now. At least the ones that read photo and darkroom magazines where it has been well publicized. Brian -- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:59 PM Subject: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Some weeks ago there was a thread about fogged negs from airport X-rays. > This is to put everyone on notice that if you travel in the US, fogging is a > strong possibility, because it just happened to me on a trip from Cleveland > to Seattle--neither of which are particularly effective smuggling ports. > > I am not from Jamaica, I am not Black (well, not very much, anyway--not > noticeably), and my family has been out of the smuggling business for at > least 300 years. Yet my film got "nuked," either at Cleveland Hopkins or at > SeaTac (I'd weigh it as 70% likely SeaTac, on the conservative side--there's > little need to take Ohio pot to Seattle!) > > This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic to the > (US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do. I'm hoping that the > people who control air traffic in the US can at least read! But judging from > the people I've seen at the check-in gates, I wouldn't count on it. :-( > > Anyone wishing to dialogue with me on this subject, please contact me > off-list, because I frankly don't have time to survey the List at this point > in time. I'm just coming on--then dropping off again--to warn you all to use > the lead bags when you travel (as if that would help), or buy film at point > of destination and mail it back home. What a complete PITA. > > Best regards--LRA > > PS--I really miss you guys, but it can't be helped. :-) > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp >
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Just sticking my nose in here, with a little trepidation, we are surely aware that there are numerous high quality publications in Europe, including photographic magazines on sale at Borders and B&N, and I'm sure they didn't have agents in the US getting film at our local stores, or having their stuff processed in the US. I think Anthony has a point. However, photographers are inherently paranoid about having their precious films processed somewhere that they don't know or have experience with. I lost an important roll recently here in California when the local camera store operative screwed up his mini lab, with a grossly underdeveloped roll. It can happen anywhere. Hersch At 03:36 PM 09/07/2001, you wrote: Laurie writes: > But not everybody uses the same quality controls > or implements them in the same way with regularity. The results I've obtained have been extremely consistent. The process is so highly automated and consistent that it is far less likely to be messed up than, say, the preparation of prints (although recent advances such as the Fuji Frontier appear to be making prints nearly as foolproof as well).
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
"Ian Boag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not so long ago that we had a thread from a distressed man with > irreplaceable shots from Puerto Rico or someplace round there which had > been hopelessly fogged by airport X-rays. I don't remember whether the films had ever been in check-in luggage because he not only took the films there, but didn't process them until he came back. They were fast print films. A simple summary of this whole thread would appear to be: 1) Never put unprocessed film in check-in luggage because it will almost certainly get fogged 2) If you can get film hand checked, all the better 3) IF you have the time and money and are prepared to risk mishandling by an unknown lab, process the films in situ. 4) Buying and processing the films in situ is the only way to be guaranteed there's no fogging, but risks film and processing of unknown quality 5) Scanners for carry-on luggage don't appear to do significant damage to slower films but the damage is cumulative, so the less the better, but *don't panic*. Can we get back to film scanning please? :) Rob
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Austin writes: > That's a load of hooey. C-41, or E-6 can look > entirely different depending on development. They always look the same in my experience, no matter what lab develops them.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Harvey writes: > Your ignorance is showing here. Roller transport > development is inherently more likely to scratch > film than dip & dunk. I addressed possibility, not probability. > Shame on you! See above.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Harvey writes: > Seriously...Are you drugs...Or do you need them to > correct your eyesight? No. > ...And when did this thread get limited to C-41 > only? It didn't. But I can say the same about E-6 and B&W as well.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Laurie writes: > But not everybody uses the same quality controls > or implements them in the same way with regularity. The results I've obtained have been extremely consistent. The process is so highly automated and consistent that it is far less likely to be messed up than, say, the preparation of prints (although recent advances such as the Fuji Frontier appear to be making prints nearly as foolproof as well).
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
> >> The X-ray damage is cumulative. > >Yes, and you don't know how much damage has been done until you get home, if you >develop at home. > I'm starting to feel old and crusty. Don't nobody remember NUTHIN here? It's not so long ago that we had a thread from a distressed man with irreplaceable shots from Puerto Rico or someplace round there which had been hopelessly fogged by airport X-rays. Admittedly he had done a roundabout sort of flight He was engaged in a futile search for some way to get info off the film . IB
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
If you look at my e-mail address you will notice that I probably live in the UK. I do not regularly fly but I have hand carried film through Gatwick on quite a few occaisions. Aberdeen removed my lenses from my cameras and checked that it stopped down as usual. But merely glanced at the film. Do you look Iraqi / have an Irish accent ? Steve - Original Message - From: "David Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:07 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Steve Greenbank [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Thu, 6 Sep > 2001 23:55:42 +0100 > > >I have never had a roll go > >through an x-ray machine. > > Planning on coming to the UK? If you do your film will be x-rayed. Or you > won't leave. > > > -- > David Gordon > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
The FAA announced a number of years ago that it was upgrading all checked baggage x-ray machines to improve the ability to detect bombs and other types of stuff. Prior to this announcement Kodak never admitted that the existing x-ray machines would fog film. With the new machines Kodak did finally admit that the machines would, indeed fog their film. This has been kind of known to American photographers for some time now. At least the ones that read photo and darkroom magazines where it has been well publicized. Brian -- respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:59 PM Subject: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Some weeks ago there was a thread about fogged negs from airport X-rays. > This is to put everyone on notice that if you travel in the US, fogging is a > strong possibility, because it just happened to me on a trip from Cleveland > to Seattle--neither of which are particularly effective smuggling ports. > > I am not from Jamaica, I am not Black (well, not very much, anyway--not > noticeably), and my family has been out of the smuggling business for at > least 300 years. Yet my film got "nuked," either at Cleveland Hopkins or at > SeaTac (I'd weigh it as 70% likely SeaTac, on the conservative side--there's > little need to take Ohio pot to Seattle!) > > This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic to the > (US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do. I'm hoping that the > people who control air traffic in the US can at least read! But judging from > the people I've seen at the check-in gates, I wouldn't count on it. :-( > > Anyone wishing to dialogue with me on this subject, please contact me > off-list, because I frankly don't have time to survey the List at this point > in time. I'm just coming on--then dropping off again--to warn you all to use > the lead bags when you travel (as if that would help), or buy film at point > of destination and mail it back home. What a complete PITA. > > Best regards--LRA > > PS--I really miss you guys, but it can't be helped. :-) > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp >
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Barbara writes: > > > My lab here in the states uses dip and dunk > > processing. No machine. What if there is a little > > piece of something in the machine and you end up > > with scratches across your film? > > What if something scratches your film while you dip and dunk? Anthony, Your ignorance is showing here. Roller transport development is inherently more likely to scratch film than dip & dunk. Shame on you! Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Harvey writes: > > > And what world do you live in? > > The one in which C-41 looks the same no matter who develops it. Seriously...Are you drugs...Or do you need them to correct your eyesight?...And when did this thread get limited to C-41 only? Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
If that were the case, it wouldn't run the length of the film. It would just scratch it somewhere. I don't know why I'm gracing this with an answer. Barbara Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > Barbara writes: > > > My lab here in the states uses dip and dunk > > processing. No machine. What if there is a little > > piece of something in the machine and you end up > > with scratches across your film? > > What if something scratches your film while you dip and dunk? -- Barbara White/Architectural Photography http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Yes, that's been my experience on international flights, too. I was responding to the remark about travelling in the USA; i.e., domestic flights. Having a connection from one flight to another within the USA seldom requires traversing the security perimeter. So you could travel, as I recently did, from Salt Lake City to Phoenix to Dallas, changing planes in Phoenix, without having to have your hand baggage rescanned. My travel experience over the past 35 years has been that domestic air travel almost always (with a few unpleasant exceptions) requires hand baggage scanning at the departure point only. Stan At 11:44 AM 9/7/2001 -0500, Laurie Solomon wrote: >This is also true for Toronto when one flies into Toronto on an >international flight, including US flight, and switches to a domestic >Canadian flight or when one flies in on a US flight and switches to an >international flight to Asia, Europe, or elsewhere and/or visa versa. You >not only have to pick up your bags and go through customs; but immigration >and customs is located outside the security perimeter of all the different >terminals so that merely switching terminals results in having to go through >security. > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen >Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:21 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > > >At 12:04 PM 9/7/2001 +1000, Rob Gerahty wrote: > >The problem I experienced when travelling in the USA is the number of > >transfers > >it takes to get anywhere. Direct flights in the US are few and far between > >with the airlines all hubbing through somewhere. > >My experience has almost always been that, when transferring to a >connecting flight, the transfer is made behind the security perimeter. You >don't have to be re-scanned to make a connection. The only exception I have >ever encountered is when forced to collect baggage and re-check-in at the >ticket counter, such as when flying Southwest from Salt Lake City to Dallas. > >I just put my film in my hand baggage and don't worry about it. I've never >had any fogged. I did request (and get, amazingly enough) a hand check of >some Kodak 3200 speed film at DeGaulle Airport in Paris. > >Stan >=== >Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
> I don't mind debating with someone who knows what they are speaking > about, but some of your statements are so outlandish as to frankly be > laughable, and this is not because you are breaking "myths" which I am > dearly holding onto, it is because in numerous cases you do not have the > experience to be making the blanket statements you do. Same movie, different cast! Sorry, Arthur, I couldn't resist ;-)
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
> > And what world do you live in? > > The one in which C-41 looks the same no matter who develops it. That's a load of hooey. C-41, or E-6 can look entirely different depending on development.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Barbara writes: > My lab here in the states uses dip and dunk > processing. No machine. What if there is a little > piece of something in the machine and you end up > with scratches across your film? What if something scratches your film while you dip and dunk?
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Arthur writes: > Then you either live in another universe, or you > are severely sight impaired, or both. All the machines have the same names, usually Noritsu, Fuji, or Agfa. > I don't mind debating with someone who knows what > they are speaking about, but some of your statements > are so outlandish as to frankly be laughable, and > this is not because you are breaking "myths" which > I am dearly holding onto, it is because in numerous > cases you do not have the experience to be making > the blanket statements you do. I just go by the results I see. I don't see any difference between one lab and another. Developing film is not rocket science, after all. Seeing the results is much more persuasive to me than any amount of unsubstantiated assertion on your part or on anyone else's part. > Photo labs equipment and personnel have potentially > hundreds of times more variability than a Color > photocopier. If you actually ever worked in a lab > you'd know that. I knew that already; but as I've said, the results are consistent. So apparently the labs are pretty consistent as well. However, if you want to pay four times more and wait a hundred times longer for your negatives, even though they come out the same, that is your prerogative.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Harvey writes: > And what world do you live in? The one in which C-41 looks the same no matter who develops it.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Again, my experiences with Europe (and Africa) go back 20 years, BUT, the storage I saw in many locales was dismal. The film was dusty and the boxes faded, the stuff was rarely refrigerated. I had no idea if the film was being rotated, sold, or even if the dates could be trusted. I did find a few larger photo stores which obviously did big business dealt with professional photographers, and were moving a lot of film, but in many places I went (and Athens was one) finding fresh film was no easy. I actually had films shipped to me from the US, since I was on extended travel. Back then it was still cheaper that way, and they didn't x-ray parcels, which they now might well do. I know my local supplier goes through hundred of rolls, if not thousands, per week, and they rotate stock, they refrigerate pro films, etc. Lastly, by buying film locally before I go, I don't end up having any language barrier, nor do I have to worry the film will be out of stock, nor do I have to find the shop in a town or city I do not know, and hope I have enough time to get back there before I have to leave. Art Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > Robert writes: > > > Because you don't know how well they have > > stored the film. > > What reason is there to believe that it would be stored any worse than at home? > And how do you know how well film is stored at home? > > How much difference does improper storage make? And what do you consider > improper storage? > > > And I don't really feel like finding a good > > professional place to buy my film when I have > > lots of other stuff to worry about. > > Like having all the photography from your trip ruined by x-ray fogging.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Robert writes: > I have been in the development team of the > biggest company producing these kind of CT > scanners. You're not free of bias, in other words. > What your problem is, is that you don't know > what you are talking about and just mix things > up. As I've said, I just repeat what Kodak says. And Kodak shows the ruined film as proof. If you do not carry unprocessed film, your film will never be fogged.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
2001-09-07-04:07:09 David Gordon: > Planning on coming to the UK? If you do your film will be x-rayed. Or you > won't leave. Actually... I've been able to get hand-checks of film on the way out of Heathrow the last two times -- after polite but dogged insisting. I remember reading somewhere that x-raying of film in UK airports ceased to be strictly mandatory after Lord Snowdon had some film destroyed... I had absolutely no luck with the authoritarian little pimple-faced petit-bourgeois prick in his blazer of authority in a Paris airport. It was all strictly by the film-speed numbers in the guidelines he'd been issued; no room for individual variation. But I've known a couple of French folk who would only recognize established, agreed-on published authorities (for instance, about medical matters) and wouldn't even entertain the notion that people's individual experiences might lend them their own sort of authority. Might be cultural.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Planning on coming to the UK? If you do your film will be x-rayed. Or you won't leave. I can vouch for that - even after a stand up fight with the supervisor I realised they werent going to relent so I put it through the machine . And I wanted to come home to some decent weather so badly;-) Steve
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
> Maybe, but that depends on your destination, and how much does it _really_ cost to lug film around the > > world? In addition, if your film is fogged and > > ruined, how much will that cost you? > > When I see people hauling rolls of film to London > > or Paris or Osaka, I really have to wonder why they > > are doing as they do. It's like coals to Newcastle. In a lot of cases you would probably be right , however , those Professionals , for instance , who buy large lots of film of the same batch no. and test each batch , would probably find it inconvenient or impossible to go testing new batches at every destination... Steve
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Although my experience with European processing is 20 years old, I received some of the worst processing I ever experienced there. That included Kodak England, and Agfa Germany and Holland (there were all slides). I had one batch, which I had addressed to be processed in the US (and had paid for postage to there) get diverted to Holland. I wasn't aware of this until I looked at the film and couldn't believe my eyes. It looked like it had been through a sander. That's when I started to look at labels and realized it never made it to the US lab. Hopefully, things have changed, but knowing how difficult it is even today, here in Canada and the US to find a reliable lab, I would be very shy about using one in a country I was traveling through. Most modern carry on luggage X -ray machines do minimal damage to slower films, although the damage is cumulative, and if measurable even after one exposure. The new machines used for checked luggage can increase X-Ray levels until they "see through" things. Sigma (?) advertises a new leaded bag that they claim protects against even these new X-ray models. As someone else mentioned, there is an FAA regulation which requires hand inspection of film is requested in the US and this reg is also followed in Canada. You do have to allow for reasonable time for the inspection to occur. In the US I have had my equipment electronically "sniffed" for residual explosives. Art Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > Why not just get the film developed in Athens and Rome? > > - Original Message - > From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 01:09 > Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > > > That solution doesn't always work. When we were in Europe (Athens and > > Rome) security would not allow us to do anything but run the film > > through the scanner. However, I was told that the intensity of the > > X-rays of the gate scanner was much less than what is used for checked > > baggage. I don't know how true that statement is. > > --Dana > > ------ > > From: Robert Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > > Date: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:33 PM > > > > > > > > The solution is simple. Don't put your film in your check-in bagage > > but > > carry it with you.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Johnny writes: > > > you know how it'll turn out > > Virtually everyone uses the same machines. I'd be very hard pressed to identify > the work of one lab as opposed to another in film development. And what world do you live in? :- ) Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Rob writes: > Obscanning: And I need to scan them!! I have a backlog of 600 slides and another 450 B&W negatives, plus a few rolls of C-41. I seem to take pictures a lot more quickly than I can scan them.
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
This is also true for Toronto when one flies into Toronto on an international flight, including US flight, and switches to a domestic Canadian flight or when one flies in on a US flight and switches to an international flight to Asia, Europe, or elsewhere and/or visa versa. You not only have to pick up your bags and go through customs; but immigration and customs is located outside the security perimeter of all the different terminals so that merely switching terminals results in having to go through security. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging At 12:04 PM 9/7/2001 +1000, Rob Gerahty wrote: >The problem I experienced when travelling in the USA is the number of >transfers >it takes to get anywhere. Direct flights in the US are few and far between >with the airlines all hubbing through somewhere. My experience has almost always been that, when transferring to a connecting flight, the transfer is made behind the security perimeter. You don't have to be re-scanned to make a connection. The only exception I have ever encountered is when forced to collect baggage and re-check-in at the ticket counter, such as when flying Southwest from Salt Lake City to Dallas. I just put my film in my hand baggage and don't worry about it. I've never had any fogged. I did request (and get, amazingly enough) a hand check of some Kodak 3200 speed film at DeGaulle Airport in Paris. Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
They usually know what it is and, unless extraordinarily dumb, do not try and unroll it. Remember that 120 and 120 like roll films have been around a hellava lot longer than 35mm roll film in canisters; and they are likely to be more common than you think in third world countries were old twin reflex cameras may still be in use by a large number of those who own cameras and where one would expect inspectors to a lot less knowledgeable and accepting. When China or the old Soviet Union put out cheap a knock out camera for sale in their countries and for export to other countries, it was a 120/220 camera ( Seagull twin lens reflex in the case of China and a Kiev ( Hassy imitation) in the case of the old USSR). While Germany and Japan had 35mm cameras in the 1940s, they were not popular mass owned cameras until much later and the early ones did not have film that came in canisters but used films that were rolled in wooden spools with a paper interleaf between layers and secured with an adhesive strip similar to today's 120/220 rolls. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Ostrom Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 7:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging >Fogging: Do the people who do the scanning at the airport know >what 120 film even is? Would they want to unroll a 120?? Just to >see if you have a very tiny "whatever" inside. > -- *** Ostrom Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** ***
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
But not everybody uses the same quality controls or implements them in the same way with regularity. Moreover, not everyone uses the same exact chemistry or has the same quality of water. I know of two professional labs in my community that use different brands of chemistry which results in slightly different results in processing film and papers; they also tend to use different brands of paper so as to produce slightly different print results. The net result is that while in many cases the results will be similar; they will not be virtually the same or identical as would be more likely the case if you take your film to the same lab over time whose work you are both familiar with and have come to expect a certain level of quality and type of result in terms of color reproductions. >Virtually everyone uses the same machines Only true in a qualified sense. While most one hour mass market photofinishers may use different brands of roller based processors and printers, many professional labs, custom labs, and even some mail order labs use dip and dunk machines to process film. When it comes to printing it is not so much the type of machine as much as the types of papers and chemistry that is used as well as the sorts of quality control and maintenance that is instituted and performed along with the competence of the technicians who run the machines. I once has a technician at a well known photofinishing chain in the US accidentally use a 110 film holder when printing a 35mm negative without being at all aware of it and arguing that it was my camera's fault that I got only prints of belly buttons despite the fact that there were whole people on the negative. If I were not a professional photographer, I might have not examined the prints and negatives while at the lab so as to raise the complaint. If I was the man on the street, I also might have never compared the negatives to the prints and left believing that my camera or I were at fault and that the technician was competent. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Johnny writes: > you know how it'll turn out Virtually everyone uses the same machines. I'd be very hard pressed to identify the work of one lab as opposed to another in film development.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Anthony Atkielski wrote: In fact, I've really never seen much of > any reason at all not to use a one-hour lab for development; I used to try to > stick to "pro" labs, but they cost far more, they took longer, and yet they used > the exact same machines and produced identical results. My lab here in the states uses dip and dunk processing. No machine. What if there is a little piece of something in the machine and you end up with scratches across your film? This hasn't happened to me, when using machines, I admit, but when it's really important (like for a client) I use the dip and dunk method. Also, here is a web site for anyone who's interested in more xray information: http://www.f-stop.org/ By the way, at least in the third world countries I've been in, I've been successful in charming (?!) my way through the xray point, and getting some nice person to hand inspect my film. But one time, I forgot there was film in my camera (asa 400) and it went through the hand xray twice - in Hong Kong (notorious for strong xray) and it was not fogged. It's the checked baggage you have to worry about. Barbara White Barbara White/Architectural Photography http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Then you either live in another universe, or you are severely sight impaired, or both. May I ask if you were to buy a used car, if you would buy "any" of a specific year and model, regardless of the use on it, how it was maintained, how much mileage it had, and how many accidents it was in? I don't mind debating with someone who knows what they are speaking about, but some of your statements are so outlandish as to frankly be laughable, and this is not because you are breaking "myths" which I am dearly holding onto, it is because in numerous cases you do not have the experience to be making the blanket statements you do. After all the discussions abut film handling in labs and the pitfalls, both in terms of the equipment and the major part personnel play in the results, for you to state (I paraphrase) "the labs all use the same machines and they are automated, therefore the processing is identical" is simply the ravings of a madman. You are the one fostering myths. Color photocopiers, which are designed with all sorts of digital and automated feedback systems, since most users have little direct understanding on how they function or how to fix them, still have results which change daily based literally upon weather conditions. Photo labs equipment and personnel have potentially hundreds of times more variability than a Color photocopier. If you actually ever worked in a lab you'd know that. I'm coming to the same conclusions as others on this list... you don't debate, or even discuss, you argue just for the sake of it, and it is becoming tedious. Art Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > Johnny writes: > > > you know how it'll turn out > > Virtually everyone uses the same machines. I'd be very hard pressed to identify > the work of one lab as opposed to another in film development.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert writes: > > Wrong. You don't know what you are talking > > about. Don't spread rumors that are not true. > > You should mention that to Kodak, since that is my source. I thought > that they > knew something about film, but perhaps you know more; you should > inform them > that they do not know what they are talking about, before the spread > any more > misinformation. Well, let's put it this way. I have been in the development team of the biggest company producing these kind of CT scanners. I have also been working for another company working with CT scanners for medical and industrial applications. There have been a lot of test been done regarding film safety. What your problem is, is that you don't know what you are talking about and just mix things up. I have always said that you should not put film in check-in lugage. That's what all the mentioned articles say as well. The articels say that such x-ray machines might be used in the future for check-in lugage. Except for countries under very high security (i.e. war etc) there won't be any such scanners because they are too expensive. I could go on but you wouldn't believe me anyway and would always have something to complain (which usualy turns out to be wrong anyways). Oh, by the way, check out that sentence in one of the articles you have mentioned: "Be cautious with short-ends and other film purchased from re-sellers." Another reason to buy film at home from a source that you know and have been working with before. Oh, and I am going to add a filter to my email account... Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Robert writes: > Wrong. You don't know what you are talking > about. Don't spread rumors that are not true. You should mention that to Kodak, since that is my source. I thought that they knew something about film, but perhaps you know more; you should inform them that they do not know what they are talking about, before the spread any more misinformation. For examples of Kodak's "rumors," see: http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis98/cis98 .shtml http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/technical/xray4.shtml http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/transportation.shtml Fogging is a danger especially in checked luggage, but _also in hand-carried luggage_. The effects are cumulative, but sometimes a single exposure will fog film. The Kodak site provides a few examples of the damage caused by the "rumors." The only way to protect completely against possible fogging by x rays is to not carry undeveloped film at all.
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
At 12:04 PM 9/7/2001 +1000, Rob Gerahty wrote: >The problem I experienced when travelling in the USA is the number of >transfers >it takes to get anywhere. Direct flights in the US are few and far between >with the airlines all hubbing through somewhere. My experience has almost always been that, when transferring to a connecting flight, the transfer is made behind the security perimeter. You don't have to be re-scanned to make a connection. The only exception I have ever encountered is when forced to collect baggage and re-check-in at the ticket counter, such as when flying Southwest from Salt Lake City to Dallas. I just put my film in my hand baggage and don't worry about it. I've never had any fogged. I did request (and get, amazingly enough) a hand check of some Kodak 3200 speed film at DeGaulle Airport in Paris. Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
>Fogging: Do the people who do the scanning at the airport know >what 120 film even is? Would they want to unroll a 120?? Just to >see if you have a very tiny "whatever" inside. > -- *** Ostrom Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** ***
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Anthony wrote: > Maybe, but that depends on your destination, and how > much does it _really_ cost to lug film around the > world? In addition, if your film is fogged and > ruined, how much will that cost you? > When I see people hauling rolls of film to London > or Paris or Osaka, I really have to wonder why they > are doing as they do. It's like coals to Newcastle. I don't want to drag this OT discussion out too much longer, but cost can be a major factor. When travelling arond the world in 1993 I had been processing films along the way until I got to Paris. When I saw the prices being charged for film and processing, I ended up using the Fuji slide film I'd bought duty free in Australia before I left (carefully guarded in hand luggage). Film and processing was horrifically expensive in Paris, and I was on a very limited budget. So I shot slides and brought the film back to Australia to process later when I could actually afford it. Thankfully it now means I have some great slides of the view from the top of la Tour Eiffel that I wouldn't have had otherwise. :) Obscanning: And I need to scan them!! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Steve Greenbank [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:55:42 +0100 >I have never had a roll go >through an x-ray machine. Planning on coming to the UK? If you do your film will be x-rayed. Or you won't leave. -- David Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And remember, it only has to be > blasted with > x rays once to be ruined--you might be shooting with film that has > already been > fogged. Wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Don't spread rumors that are not true. To everybody else, never put film in check-in bagage. The x-ray machines for carry-on luagage for almost all countries in the world are film-save except for very high-speed film or many times of scanning. In most countries you can ask for hand-inspection although the laws don't mandate it (put it in clear zip-lockers, out of the canister or in transparent canisters). Also, the x-ray machines used for the carry-on laguage expose the film evenly while the CT-machines don't. Therefore, it is much harder to detect any problem with the 'regular' x-rays then the one's from the CT scanners. Also, the later ones work in a quite different way then the 'regular' x-rays which is why they are more dangerous to film. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Ron writes: > How about a third as expensive. Maybe, but that depends on your destination, and how much does it _really_ cost to lug film around the world? In addition, if your film is fogged and ruined, how much will that cost you? > I've hauled film around in my carry-on lugage > for years and to all parts of the world including > Russa, East Africa, and China and never had a > problem although sometimes the film was scanned > eight to twelve times before I got it home. All it takes is one good blast, and you lose it all. And before you object that this isn't likely, keep in mind that it's not likely that any decent local lab in a developed country will ruin the film, either. In Russia, East Africa, and China, you might want to bring your own film. But then again, in those countries, even bringing your own drinking water might not be a bad idea. In countries of Western Europe, Japan, Australia, etc., the story can be quite different. When I see people hauling rolls of film to London or Paris or Osaka, I really have to wonder why they are doing as they do. It's like coals to Newcastle.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Laurie writes: > ... I would stay away from sellers who only stock > a small supply of a few limited types of films ... Most large cities have photo stores. Many of these have refrigerators stocked with fresh film. All you have to do is buy from one that has film stored in this way. It's unlikely they'd pay for refrigeration just to keep ruined film cold. But frankly, I've bought slide film and other film even from photo shops that don't have refrigerators, and I still get the same results. The only places I avoid are _non_-photo shops, as I have no idea of their storage conditions or turnover (mostly the latter). In the few emergencies when I have done so, however, the results were still the same. A good compromise is to look for a chain of photo-only shops, or better still, a chain of lab-only shops. If all they do is sell and develop film and prints, they are typically pretty good at it, and reasonably conscientious. > If the shoot is a professional commercial shoot > or one in which the images have some serious value > like one of a kind pictures of famous people that > you may never see again or pictures of soon to be > dead family, then I would say bring the film with > you ... If you are concerned enough about film to want it refrigerated, why would you bring it unrefrigerated through multiple climates and extremes of temperature and humidity to your destination? And remember, it only has to be blasted with x rays once to be ruined--you might be shooting with film that has already been fogged. > First I am not sure how convenient one would find > traveling with boxes of slides, transparencies, > or prints as contrasted to a brick of film canisters. Have it developed and placed uncut into sleeves. It will then occupy exactly the same space as it did before it was developed. > Secondly, as a traveler in a strange place, you would > be trusting your film to processors whose reputations > are unknown to you based on recommendations of people > who you do not know; you would be trusting your film to > processors who you may never see again ... These wicked foreigners actually use the same machines as your favorite lab at home. Same chemistry, too. And it's pretty hard to screw up development when it is done automatically by a machine. Prints are a different matter (although that is changing, too), but you don't need prints--you just need the film developed so that it is insensitive to x rays and relatively resistant to environmental changes. I know it is popular among some pro photographers and especially many amateur photographers to be a bit snooty about choosing a lab for development, but I've seen photographers doing commercial work on deadlines standing in front of me in ordinary, garden-variety chain photo labs to get their work developed, and they didn't seem to be too worried about it. In fact, I've really never seen much of any reason at all not to use a one-hour lab for development; I used to try to stick to "pro" labs, but they cost far more, they took longer, and yet they used the exact same machines and produced identical results. There seems to be a touch of xenophobia in your viewpoint. Rest assured, in many countries photography is just as important as it is in your hometown, and so you'll find labs that are just as competent, and you don't necessarily have to know any secret passwords to locate them, either, as just a glance at the place may be sufficient.
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Rob writes: > On my travels in the States I did process my > films along the way because processing was cheap > and of reasonable quality in the USA. It was also > possible to find places to do E6. And how did the results compare to the development you got at home? > In a lot of countries the processing quality > isn't as good ... I agree. But if you are in Tokyo, London, or Paris, or any large city in a developed country, good development and fresh film are often trivially easy to find. Here in Paris, for example, you're likely to be able to find fresher film, in wider variety and more plentiful supply, than you can find at home, unless you live in Los Angeles or New York. And you can also find top-quality development at reasonable prices, including express (1-2 hour) development for C-41, E-6, and black and white, in a variety of formats (135, APS, and even MF sometimes). You're actually better off buying and developing here than doing it at home. And Paris is not unique in this respect. > ... and if they screw up the film, you've lost > the images. But you're still in town, and you may be able to retake them. In contrast, if your film is blasted by x rays at _any_ point in your trip, you won't know that your images have been ruined until you get home, and by then it will be far too late to retake anything. If it was a once-in-a-lifetime trip, it will all be gone. > More to the point, a lot of people are on tight schedules > when travelling and can't afford the time to take films > to be processed let alone wait for it to be done. A lot of labs will develop in less time than it takes you to eat lunch. > Next time I fly internationally I might try putting > the rolls into a ziplock bag so they can be hand > inspected easily. If you are going to a major city in a developed country, consider simply buying the film at your destination and having it developed their before you return. You'll travel lighter, and nothing will be fogged, and you'll know whether or not your pictures came out before you leave. > The X-ray damage is cumulative. Yes, and you don't know how much damage has been done until you get home, if you develop at home.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Robert writes: > Because I've seen it many times with my own > eyes. What sorts of things have you seen? > Huh, so you think improper storage doesn't > make any noticable difference? I won't be able to answer that question unless you define what you mean by "improper storage." If you mean simply not keeping the film in a refrigerator, I'm not convinced that it makes much difference. > I don't think the x-ray for handbagage is much > worse (unless you scan it many many times) then > improper storage of film. If many x-ray scans damage the film, then obviously even one scan must be damaging the film, and the effect is simply cumulative. But in fact only one good blast is required to damage the film, so a single passage through an x-ray scanner may ruin a roll. > If you prepare yourself good enough there is > no problem with x-ray. If you are lucky, you mean. As long as it is not heavily blasted with x-rays, it won't be fogged. Similarly, as long as you are lucky, you can buy and develop film anywhere. Personally, as long as you are travelling in the developed world, I don't see why buying and developing film locally would be any riskier than passing unexposed or undeveloped film through x-ray scanners. > Anyway, I have the impression you are only here > to argue ... No. I am examining what appears to be popular mythology. Many people seem to take for granted that you must buy and develop all your film at home, just as they seem to take for granted that "precautions" will prevent their film from being fogged by x rays. But I do not see why the risks must be as people believe--certainly I've seen no proof that they are, whereas I've definitely seen proof that they are not, in some cases (fogged film and the like). Here in Paris, you can get poppin' fresh film very easily, and get it competently developed just as easily. There is no reason at all to come here with a suitcaseful of unexposed film and leave with a suitcaseful of undeveloped film, and yet because of this existing mythology, many visitors continue to do exactly that. > ... even about things that are quite obvious and > without ever changing your opinion by just a tiny > bit. If they were obvious I would not question them. They may be "obvious" to you, but they are not to me, and thus far you've said nothing that makes them any more so in my view. Simply asserting strongly that your point of view is correct is not persuasive, and your resort to personal attacks tells me that you don't actually have any substantiation for your opinion--it is simply your opinion, and you don't wish to reconsider it. All well and good, for you at least, but since you cannot demonstrate why it is better to cart around your own film everywhere instead of just buying and developing it locally, I think it best to at least show the objective equality of both options to others who do not necessarily cling to your opinion. > Therefore, it does not make any sense to respond to > any of your messages anymore. I agree, if your only response would be personal attacks and forceful reassertions of your own opinion.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Johnny writes: > you know how it'll turn out Virtually everyone uses the same machines. I'd be very hard pressed to identify the work of one lab as opposed to another in film development.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
How about a third as expensive. I've hauled film around in my carry-on lugage for years and to all parts of the world including Russa, East Africa, and China and never had a problem although sometimes the film was scanned eight to twelve times before I got it home. Thats for ISO 100 to 400 film. I understand it's a different matter for the really fast stuff. At any rate, I've never been refused hand inspection at the carry-on inspection station when I've requested it. I always repack my film in clear plastic cans (no longer necessary with Kodak slide films) and then into one quart clear zip-lock bags. Each bag will hold 15 rolls of 35 mm film. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 3:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Buy film at your destination, and have it developed there before you return. > Unless you are venturing into the Third World (and even if you are, sometimes), > this will give you photographs just as clean as taking your own film with you in > both directions, and the danger of fogging (or other unpleasantness) is > eliminated. > > I've never understood why photographers lug hundreds of rolls of film around the > world when film and development are available practically everywhere on the > planet. What's so special about film and development at home? > > - Original Message - > From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 22:59 > Subject: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > > > > Some weeks ago there was a thread about fogged negs from airport X-rays. > > This is to put everyone on notice that if you travel in the US, fogging is a > > strong possibility, because it just happened to me on a trip from Cleveland > > to Seattle--neither of which are particularly effective smuggling ports. > > > > I am not from Jamaica, I am not Black (well, not very much, anyway--not > > noticeably), and my family has been out of the smuggling business for at > > least 300 years. Yet my film got "nuked," either at Cleveland Hopkins or at > > SeaTac (I'd weigh it as 70% likely SeaTac, on the conservative side--there's > > little need to take Ohio pot to Seattle!) > > > > This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic to the > > (US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do. I'm hoping that the > > people who control air traffic in the US can at least read! But judging from > > the people I've seen at the check-in gates, I wouldn't count on it. :-( > > > > Anyone wishing to dialogue with me on this subject, please contact me > > off-list, because I frankly don't have time to survey the List at this point > > in time. I'm just coming on--then dropping off again--to warn you all to use > > the lead bags when you travel (as if that would help), or buy film at point > > of destination and mail it back home. What a complete PITA. > > > > Best regards--LRA > > > > PS--I really miss you guys, but it can't be helped. :-) > > > > _ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > >
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Not to beat a dead horse or start an argument; but with respect to buying film on location, I would certainly take into account the purposes of the photography. If it is just snap shots, then there may not be any reason not to buy film on location as long as you get it from a respected and known photo supplier who sells enough film to have a regular and rapid turnover in inventories. I would stay away from places that do not have air conditioning or do not refrigerate the film if the location is a hot humid location like the South Florida, tropics, Central America the West Indies, etc.; I would stay away from sellers who only stock a small supply of a few limited types of films and/or appear to have a slow turnover in inventories which may indicate that the film may be short dated or out-of-date, may have been obtained from irregular and not-traditional distribution chains and sources where it was kept under hot humid conditions or have undergone cross oceanic shipment in unsealed containers allowing for salt air and water pollution or some other type of contamination. On another level, one may not be able to obtain the brand and type of film which one is familiar with working with at one's destination that is the same as one can get at home; thus, one may be forced to use a type or brand of film that one is unfamiliar with. Not all films are created equal or have the exact same properties. If the shoot is a professional commercial shoot or one in which the images have some serious value like one of a kind pictures of famous people that you may never see again or pictures of soon to be dead family, then I would say bring the film with you with the additional caution that you obtain it at home from a reputable supplier who keeps the inventory under reasonably acceptable conditions that are know by you to be so and who has a rapid enough turnover in inventory to assure that the film is fresh film. As for processing the film at your destination, two things can be said against this. First I am not sure how convenient one would find traveling with boxes of slides, transparencies, or prints as contrasted to a brick of film canisters. I would think that it would be easier to travel with undeveloped film in rolls than trying to pack processed film and prints if it is negative film in a safe, easy and economical way. Secondly, as a traveler in a strange place, you would be trusting your film to processors whose reputations are unknown to you based on recommendations of people who you do not know; you would be trusting your film to processors who you may never see again and who know that they may never have to deal with you again. In addition, just as in your own country processing can vary from day to day and processor to processor; but in your own country you can have the film processed by those whom you know and trust and have used before, where you have some idea what their quality of processing is and can be expected and to whom you can return to and complain or threaten with loss of your business if they screw up. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 5:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Buy film at your destination, and have it developed there before you return. Unless you are venturing into the Third World (and even if you are, sometimes), this will give you photographs just as clean as taking your own film with you in both directions, and the danger of fogging (or other unpleasantness) is eliminated. I've never understood why photographers lug hundreds of rolls of film around the world when film and development are available practically everywhere on the planet. What's so special about film and development at home? - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 22:59 Subject: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Some weeks ago there was a thread about fogged negs from airport X-rays. > This is to put everyone on notice that if you travel in the US, fogging is a > strong possibility, because it just happened to me on a trip from Cleveland > to Seattle--neither of which are particularly effective smuggling ports. > > I am not from Jamaica, I am not Black (well, not very much, anyway--not > noticeably), and my family has been out of the smuggling business for at > least 300 years. Yet my film got "nuked," either at Cleveland Hopkins or at > SeaTac (I'd weigh it as 70% likely SeaTac, on the conservative side--there's > little need to take Ohio pot to Seattle!) > > This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic to the > (US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do. I'm hoping that the > people who control air traffic in the US can at least rea
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Hersch wrote: > My understanding is that it is true. The x-ray levels > used on checked luggage would be excessive exposure > for the gate staff. I would still be hesitant with > 800+ speed film, but 'normal' film should be OK, if > they won't accept a hand search. The problem I experienced when travelling in the USA is the number of transfers it takes to get anywhere. Direct flights in the US are few and far between with the airlines all hubbing through somewhere. Anthony wrote: > Why not just get the film developed in Athens and Rome? On my travels in the States I did process my films along the way because processing was cheap and of reasonable quality in the USA. It was also possible to find places to do E6. In a lot of countries the processing quality isn't as good, and if they screw up the film, you've lost the images. More to the point, a lot of people are on tight schedules when travelling and can't afford the time to take films to be processed let alone wait for it to be done. Next time I fly internationally I might try putting the rolls into a ziplock bag so they can be hand inspected easily. I've never put unprocessed film in check-in luggage, but even the gate machines are a worry. If you buy the film at home, it has to go through as many as 4 machines, and you might add two passes for every connecting flight. The X-ray damage is cumulative. In most places the gate staff were happy to hand inspect the films. They were more concerned about ensuring that my camera worked and wasn't packed with semtex. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert writes: > > Because you don't know how well they have > > stored the film. > > What reason is there to believe that it would be stored any worse > than at home? > And how do you know how well film is stored at home? Because I've seen it many times with my own eyes. And I am not even talking about the guys who sell film on the street with the package already faded out, photo shops storing film right behind a glass window where the hot sun shines at it, etc. I am also talking about other photo shops where inproper storage is not that evident. It's not that it happens only in other countries but in other countries I don't know the source whereas here I know it. > How much difference does improper storage make? And what do you > consider > improper storage? Huh, so you think improper storage doesn't make any noticable difference? I don't think the x-ray for handbagage is much worse (unless you scan it many many times) then improper storage of film. > > And I don't really feel like finding a good > > professional place to buy my film when I have > > lots of other stuff to worry about. > > Like having all the photography from your trip ruined by x-ray > fogging. If you prepare yourself good enough there is no problem with x-ray. Thousands of amateur and professional photographers have done it. Anyway, I have the impression you are only here to argue, even about things that are quite obvious and without ever changing your opinion by just a tiny bit. Therefore, it does not make any sense to respond to any of your messages anymore. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
on 9/6/01 6:39 PM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What's so special about film and development at home? you know how it'll turn out -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Robert writes: > Because you don't know how well they have > stored the film. What reason is there to believe that it would be stored any worse than at home? And how do you know how well film is stored at home? How much difference does improper storage make? And what do you consider improper storage? > And I don't really feel like finding a good > professional place to buy my film when I have > lots of other stuff to worry about. Like having all the photography from your trip ruined by x-ray fogging.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
My understanding is that it is true. The x-ray levels used on checked luggage would be excessive exposure for the gate staff. I would still be hesitant with 800+ speed film, but 'normal' film should be OK, if they won't accept a hand search. Hersch At 04:55 PM 09/06/2001, you wrote: --- Dana Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That solution doesn't always work. When we were in Europe (Athens and > Rome) security would not allow us to do anything but run the film > through the scanner. However, I was told that the intensity of the > X-rays of the gate scanner was much less than what is used for > checked > baggage. I don't know how true that statement is. The x-ray machines for hand-lugage is film-save in almost all countries, especially Europe, America, etc. So unless you have to pass through x-ray a dozen time there shouldn't be any problem. If you have to pass through x-ray very often during your trip then you might want to look for alternatives. Just as a side note, in the US you can ask for hand-control and they can't forcue you to put it through x-ray. But you have to add some more time as they often do some visual inspection as well as samples (with a white cloth put into an analyzer). In other countries you sometimes can get hand-inspection although they don't have to do it. Plus you can always put have a dozen of very fast film in your bags to convience them more to do hand-inspection. So again, as long as you don't have to go through many x-rays for hand-inspection you are fine. It's mainly the big CT-scanners that destroy film. In addition, they destroy it not evenly which makes it more visible then the other x-ray machines. robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Why not just get the film developed in Athens and Rome? - Original Message - From: "Dana Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 01:09 Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > That solution doesn't always work. When we were in Europe (Athens and > Rome) security would not allow us to do anything but run the film > through the scanner. However, I was told that the intensity of the > X-rays of the gate scanner was much less than what is used for checked > baggage. I don't know how true that statement is. > --Dana > -- > From: Robert Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Date: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:33 PM > > > > The solution is simple. Don't put your film in your check-in bagage > but > carry it with you.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Dana Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That solution doesn't always work. When we were in Europe (Athens and > Rome) security would not allow us to do anything but run the film > through the scanner. However, I was told that the intensity of the > X-rays of the gate scanner was much less than what is used for > checked > baggage. I don't know how true that statement is. The x-ray machines for hand-lugage is film-save in almost all countries, especially Europe, America, etc. So unless you have to pass through x-ray a dozen time there shouldn't be any problem. If you have to pass through x-ray very often during your trip then you might want to look for alternatives. Just as a side note, in the US you can ask for hand-control and they can't forcue you to put it through x-ray. But you have to add some more time as they often do some visual inspection as well as samples (with a white cloth put into an analyzer). In other countries you sometimes can get hand-inspection although they don't have to do it. Plus you can always put have a dozen of very fast film in your bags to convience them more to do hand-inspection. So again, as long as you don't have to go through many x-rays for hand-inspection you are fine. It's mainly the big CT-scanners that destroy film. In addition, they destroy it not evenly which makes it more visible then the other x-ray machines. robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
--- Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've never understood why photographers lug hundreds of rolls of film > around the > world when film and development are available practically everywhere > on the > planet. What's so special about film and development at home? Because you don't know how well they have stored the film. I've seen enough film, even in photo shops, that was definitely not stored properly. And I don't really feel like finding a good professional place to buy my film when I have lots of other stuff to worry about. Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
That solution doesn't always work. When we were in Europe (Athens and Rome) security would not allow us to do anything but run the film through the scanner. However, I was told that the intensity of the X-rays of the gate scanner was much less than what is used for checked baggage. I don't know how true that statement is. --Dana -- From: Robert Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Date: Thursday, September 06, 2001 2:33 PM The solution is simple. Don't put your film in your check-in bagage but carry it with you.
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Sorry to hear you have had this problem. I always avoid the x-ray machines by wearing something with big pockets (walkers trousers & coats are particularly good). I have never had a roll go through an x-ray machine. Obviously there is a limit to how many you can carry and you get some funny looks when you empty 20 rolls of film out of your pocket. But I have had no fogged film (not due to x-ray at least). regards Steve - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:59 PM Subject: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Some weeks ago there was a thread about fogged negs from airport X-rays. > This is to put everyone on notice that if you travel in the US, fogging is a > strong possibility, because it just happened to me on a trip from Cleveland > to Seattle--neither of which are particularly effective smuggling ports. > > I am not from Jamaica, I am not Black (well, not very much, anyway--not > noticeably), and my family has been out of the smuggling business for at > least 300 years. Yet my film got "nuked," either at Cleveland Hopkins or at > SeaTac (I'd weigh it as 70% likely SeaTac, on the conservative side--there's > little need to take Ohio pot to Seattle!) > > This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic to the > (US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do. I'm hoping that the > people who control air traffic in the US can at least read! But judging from > the people I've seen at the check-in gates, I wouldn't count on it. :-( > > Anyone wishing to dialogue with me on this subject, please contact me > off-list, because I frankly don't have time to survey the List at this point > in time. I'm just coming on--then dropping off again--to warn you all to use > the lead bags when you travel (as if that would help), or buy film at point > of destination and mail it back home. What a complete PITA. > > Best regards--LRA > > PS--I really miss you guys, but it can't be helped. :-) > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > >
Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Buy film at your destination, and have it developed there before you return. Unless you are venturing into the Third World (and even if you are, sometimes), this will give you photographs just as clean as taking your own film with you in both directions, and the danger of fogging (or other unpleasantness) is eliminated. I've never understood why photographers lug hundreds of rolls of film around the world when film and development are available practically everywhere on the planet. What's so special about film and development at home? - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 22:59 Subject: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Some weeks ago there was a thread about fogged negs from airport X-rays. > This is to put everyone on notice that if you travel in the US, fogging is a > strong possibility, because it just happened to me on a trip from Cleveland > to Seattle--neither of which are particularly effective smuggling ports. > > I am not from Jamaica, I am not Black (well, not very much, anyway--not > noticeably), and my family has been out of the smuggling business for at > least 300 years. Yet my film got "nuked," either at Cleveland Hopkins or at > SeaTac (I'd weigh it as 70% likely SeaTac, on the conservative side--there's > little need to take Ohio pot to Seattle!) > > This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic to the > (US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do. I'm hoping that the > people who control air traffic in the US can at least read! But judging from > the people I've seen at the check-in gates, I wouldn't count on it. :-( > > Anyone wishing to dialogue with me on this subject, please contact me > off-list, because I frankly don't have time to survey the List at this point > in time. I'm just coming on--then dropping off again--to warn you all to use > the lead bags when you travel (as if that would help), or buy film at point > of destination and mail it back home. What a complete PITA. > > Best regards--LRA > > PS--I really miss you guys, but it can't be helped. :-) > > _ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp >
