RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging

["LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE@advancenet.net>]

>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.

It is obvious that you did not read my post closely; the short portion that
you quoted was within a much larger context which suggested among other
things that one should be specially concerned with refrigeration of film if
one is in certain types of environments and that one should be concerned
with sellers that do not maintain a large variety of films in sizable
quantities since that might indicate that they have relatively slow turnover
in inventories which could mean that you are purchasing short dated films
among other things.  The full quote read:
"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the film may be short dated or out-of-date, may have been obtained from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."

Thus your response is really not very responsive - argumentative yes but
responsive no.

Secondly, yes most large urban industrialized metropolitan cities have photo
stores and even professional suppliers and custom labs; but when one is
traveling, one is not always in or traveling to those large urban
metropolitan centers.  Nor is one always in or near such a center at the
time that one might have to replenish ones film supply.  One could very well
be visiting a rural area far away from any such center or in a not so
advanced industrialized country where even the large urban city does not
have photo retailers that maintain a stock of internationally branded films.
Hence, your suggestion about getting the film when you reach your
destination may not be applicable except as a qualified suggestion applying
to visitors to the major European and North American capitals and urban
centers. Even residents and visitors to the hinterlands of the US may find
that they have to get some of their film via mail order since the selection
carried in the local mass merchandiser is severely limited as to brands,
speeds, and types of films carried in inventory.  Not too many small town
photo stores or mass market stores carry 120 films, 35mm tungsten color
slide film, silver halide black and white films, infrared films, or even
35mm daylight color slide films.

>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.

Yes, we all have and we all have also bought film from non-photo stores with
no ill effects.  However, this may be due in part to luck among other
things; but some of use have also had bad experiences as well.  It really
proves little except that we were either lucky or we made those purchases in
stores that had high turnover rates in inventories and were not located in
places with high temperatures and humidity. I would still stand by my stated
cautions as well as by my statement that those cautions may not be as
important if one is engaging in snap shot photography as they would be for
more serious and significant photography.  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.

>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?

That is a good point and question worth responding to.  The answer is
complex.  If one is going to or thru locations where the climates and
temperature/humidity extremes exist and there is not air conditioning
available in the modes of transportation that one employs, in the places
that one is staying in, or in the places where one stores one's supplies and
equipment, then there is a very good likelihood that there will be no places
where one can get film on location that is fresh and stored under acceptable
conditions anyway. One could always store one's film brought from home - so
to speak - upon arrival in an ice chest which may provide better storage
than the local retailers provide.  If, on the other hand, air conditioning
is available, one's film brought from home would not be subject to those
extreme climatic conditions during one's stay at the destination and maybe
not even in one's journey to the 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.

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.
If one has to use those airports or go to those countries, then of course
one should take all the necessary prior precautions that one can.  However,
once again the nature and importance of the captured images determines how
great the risk and consequences of x-ray based fogging is to be regarded in
light of other factors and what avenues might be available to avoid the
risk.  A professional commercial set of photographic products for a client
or employer may make the risk greater than would be the case for a tourist;
but in the former instance, the client may have connections to expedite and
avoid the traditional security process via brokers, bribes, freight
expediters, etc. which would not be available otherwise to individuals.  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 ( but with a
hand check even though the official process may not provide for such
checks).

>Have it developed and placed uncut into sleeves.  It will then occupy
exactly
>the same space as it did before it was developed

First, if I was shooting E-6 35mm slides, I would want them to be put in
individual mounts not cut into sleeved strips or placed uncut into sleeves,
which would have to be rolled tightly and secured with tape or a band and
which would then be susceptible to being scratched, crushed, creased, and
folded when packed and during transport.  If I were shooting negative film,
I would be concerned about sleeved uncut rolls or cut strips being open to
not only scratching, but folding spindling and other mutilation like
creasing and crushing during storage while in transit.  Second, many places
will not develop only C-41 films but insist on making prints, which is where
they make their money, or charging as if they did make the prints. Thus, one
would have to lug around color prints as well as the negatives or pay a
premium to get film processing only.

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.
Often, unless one gets the film processed and printed in the country in
which it was purchased, one has paid for something that one cannot take
advantage of should one decide not to have the film processed and printed in
the place of purchase but rather have the processing and printing done at
home or should one not be able to get it processed on location due to one's
not being in the destination long enough to pick up the finished work.

Third, unless one is willing to take the risk of uncut sleeved rolls of
processed films being unprotected by, at minimum, a canister and open to
damage during transit and one does not get prints made from the C-41 films,
it will not occupy exactly the same space as it did before the film was
developed as you suggest.  If one gets the slides back mounted rather than
as an uncut sleeved roll or if one gets the C-41 film back in cut sleeved
strips but no prints, it will still take more room than would be the case of
the film in canisters - especially if one has to pack the mounted slides and
cut strips in some protective packaging when storing them during transit.

>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.

First, you seem to have an undoubting faith in automation and machines and
want to minimize or deny the role that the human factor plays in operating,
calibrating, cleaning, and maintaining those machines.  Second, where I live
there are two professional custom labs, several in-house corporate and
university labs and a number of one-hour labs in town; few of them use the
same types of machines.  Some use dip and dunk processors; some use roller
processors; and some even do it by hand using JABO and other rotary drum
processors.  Moreover, they do not all use the same chemistry either.  Some
use Kodak chemistry, some use Fuji chemistry, some use other brands of
chemistry.  While they are all C-41 or E-6 processes and chemistry, there is
some variations between the brands and forms that the chemistry takes (
e.g., replenishable chemistry versus one-shot chemistry).

As for your 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: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:58 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
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, 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.