Frank van Riper, who uses a Leica M6 among other cameras, (on topic :-)) wrote the following article about traveling with film and camera equipment after September 11th. I would be interested in learning the experiences of other traveling photographers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/index.htm

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), September 29, 2001

Answers

On monday I have to fly out of Seattle to assist a photographer on a shoot in Idaho. I have to travel with a case of mamiya gear and lighting equipment. And the photographer is coming from NY with his 35mm gear and more lighting equipment. When I return on Wednesday (or while there if I bring my laptop), I will relate experiences.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 29, 2001.

So far my only travel experience since Sept 11 has been a return flight to the US, on a European-based airline, and my bag of cameras and film went through carry-on x-ray uneventfully. The only precautionary measure I had taken was to remove all batteries and put them with my checked baggage, and also my little Swiss Army knife.

Worst-case scenario if I were travelling to most destinations in the first world countries I could buy film upon arrival (or have it FedExed to my hotel) and have it processed before departure, with prior research to locate a reputable pro lab. If hand-carrying my photo equipment was outlawed, I would probably use Nikon AF lenses and mid-level bodies like the n80, which I would divide among my checked bags. If some of it did not make it, replacements could be bought locally for the missing items. Even if all of it were stolen, it still would not represent the monetary loss of a similar Leica system nor require more of an outlay than my credit card could hold, until I could get home and file an insurance claim.

Of course, an African safari would be out of the question, as there is no way I would check-through F5's and AF-S long telephoto lenses. Since most of my photography is in fact air-travel-related, I would no doubt think about divesting myself of the bulk of my Hasselblad and Leica equipment.

I think that the airlines recognize that they need the vacation travelers in order to survive (they can't make it on business travelers alone...the internet and teleconferencing have already eaten into that segment)and that most vacationers carry cameras and film and/or camcorders. Their goal, one can be sure, is to re- attract those passengers. That will of course involve measures to thwart terrorists, but regulations which have little or no security value but thwart only vacation travelers will be rejected...especially with the latest requirements for federal staffing of airport security, my belief is that disallowing of cameras and film in carryon baggage will not be part of long-term changes. Short-term we might expect some interim inconveniences stemming from the shock and confusion as airlines react to the recent events. Personally, as world situations play out in the weeks and months ahead, I intend to spend some time editing the thousands of transparencies I've been meaning to, and to learn more about scanning and digital imaging and printing, and to look at and photograph my own home state with the eye of a traveler.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), September 29, 2001.

I have mentioned this before. I flew out of Sea-Tac on 13 Sept. One of the first flights from the west coast. At that time they required that all of my photo equipment be checked. It all survived. Could be because we were the only plane leaving and the only one arriving at the destination. We had the whole baggage handling crew for major airports handling our baggage.

Don't know how this has changed. I will be returning to Portland very soon. I will see. I think that the rules are evolving.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), September 29, 2001.

The article is terrible. It implies also that insurance premia for photographic equipment are going to increase.

-- Angelique (abischop@earthlink.net), September 29, 2001.

I think that in the short term Fed-Ex, Purolator and the such maybe the way to go. As a supplier I ship high priced photo gear all over the world with these people and have not, in 10 years have anything go missing, nor damaged (contents anyway - a couple of aluminum cases dinged). Plus, unless this past months tragedy have changed things they do not x-ray anything as their are no passengers carried in these planes to blow up.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), September 29, 2001.

I just returned from my trip to the British Isles. I flew from San Francisco to Heathrow, took train and ferry to the Isle of Man, ferry and train back to London and then Heathrow back to San Francisco.

I carried two cameras (Canon EOS IX + 2 lenses, Contax Tix) and 13 rolls of ASA 100 and 400 film. My air carrier was United Airlines and I was a Business class passenger.

Experience:

Film was carried in a Filmshield lead lined pouch, in original packaging. All camera gear (and laptop, PDA, computer accessories, etc) were in my carry on bag, I checked my other bag with clothing, extra books and such. The film pouch was always kept at the top of the bag so that I could request hand-inspection. I did not carry any knives or scissors.

At SFO, a complete hand-inspection of the carryon bag was performed as well as it being put through the xray scanner. The film pouch was removed from the bag before scanning and the film examined. Everything was found in order with no delays or hassles.

At the ferry stations, both bags were put through the scanner and my request for hand inspection of the film was not honored.

At Heathrow, again my request for hand inspection was not honored and the entire carryon bag went through the scanner, the other bag was checked.

Results:

I exposed a roll of 400 B&W and 100 Color neg while on the Isle of Man and had them processed locally. I exposed 9 more rolls of film during the course of the trip and had them processed when I arrived back home, along with one 400 speed B&W roll that made the trip and was unexposed and one 400 speed B&W roll that never traveled, also unexposed. I examined the two unexposed films and found them to be equally clear. Inspection of all the other films show no signs of xray damage that I can detect.

Recommendations:

- Carry what you need, keep extras to a minimum. - Keep your photo gear with you as much as possible. - Keep your film in a lead lined bag and inform security that it is film. It might not be perfect protection, but it's better than none. - Request hand inspection of film but do not assume the request will be honored. - Don't cause problems for security processes as this will likely delay your travel. - Inform security personnel when at a checkpoint carrying film so that they can do their best to keep your photo work safe. - Process your film before taking it through a checkpoint if you can, it's always the safest bet.

The airlines and security personnel seem to be cognizant of the value of photo sensitive materials and do their best to take care of passengers who work with them courteously. They will run roughshod over you if you try to balk and complain at them ... I saw this happening and it isn't a pretty sight.

I did not find any particular reason to feel threatened or insecure about my person or the safety of my camera equipment. It was a wonderful trip.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), September 29, 2001.

David,

I travelled between Chicago O'Hare and Minneapolis / St. Paul this week (23/Sep - 28/Sep). I had an M6, lenses, SF-20 flash, extra batteries, table-top tripod, and assorted other odds n' ends in a beat-up Domke bag.

Everything went through the X-Ray machine. I did not ask for a hand inspection. I had one additional carry-on bag (my briefcase).

The only changes to my normal routine were to stuff my Swiss Army Knife into my checked luggage and not load the camera with film in case the security dude / dudette wanted me to open the back.

No problems and no fuss at either airport.

-Nick

-- Nicholas Wybolt (nwybolt@earthlink.net), September 30, 2001.

Godfrey,

Thanks for your post. At Heathrow, was you film in a lead lined bag when it went through X-ray? If so, how did security personnel react?

David

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), September 30, 2001.

Hello All:

I have been travelling for years in Asia & Europe and never had a problem with film up to 800 speed. I even mistakenly left some expensive 4x5 film in checked baggage through Tokypo and other large airports and no damage at all.

I have just returned from a trip in Asia- Shanghai & Singapore- with 800 film and no problem.

I have also carried film through carry-on X Ray machine 10 times or more on a trip and again no problem.

I was one who raised a stink at Heathrow and no luck-no exceptions, and, no damage to film.

I have yet to hear of authenticated damage from carry-on X Ray examination. I did have a roll of Konica 3200 fogged but that is a different story.( My son took my camera without asking me one day to get some pictures of Sting at a book signing and took that roll of 3200 film-all fogged. Served him right for not asking me.)

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), September 30, 2001.

In October (post 9-11), the FAA web site still stated that anyone can request hand inspection of film and photographac supplies.

I found this warning on the Kodak web site:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/images/november99/presca ns.shtml

I have found 400 speed Fuji roll film to be significanty less sharp. after the two x-rayings it received during a recent trip; colors were also sort of flat. Since I shoot a Zeiss lensed Rolleiflex TLR for fairly close-in pictures (no more than two meters), I don't believe it is the fault of the camera. The work from this is usually very sharp. Maybe it was my fault, maybe it was the X-raying.

The Albany (NY) airport was particularly intrusive. I arrived at the screening center two and one half hours early and told them that I would happily wait until they had a break in traffic so that they could perform the hand inspection as required by FAA regs. There was a new sign posted stating this policy. They refused, indeed the supervisor (who refused even to stand up from his chair leaning at an angle against the wall) refused even to admit the existance of the sign.

Go figure.

-- Mr. Aschen (kaschen"lose this"@att.net), December 10, 2001.