Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging

["Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr>]

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 no way of
> knowing which is which.

If you walk into a chain of labs, you'll probably get satisfactory results.  The
same is true of a lab that obviously caters to pros.

> 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.

The client told you that the results were marginal?

> 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.

Prints are not under discussion here.

> 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.

But you are doing much more than describing unfamiliarity; you are assuming a
greater risk abroad than at home, simply because it is abroad.  This implies
that nobody in the world knows how to store or develop film as well as the labs
in your hometown, which is a rather xenophobic viewpoint.