Colin O

One more thing... I saw lots of "Leicas" for sale in the market stalls around Andriyivskyy Descent in Kiev, many with supposedly Nazi engravings on them. I don't know much about Leicas, but they caught my attention, and after a very short amount of googling, I discovered that they are all invariably fake - not even modified Leicas. I asked one seller how much he was selling it for, and if I recall correctly, the price was 3000 hryvnia - about USD 110.

I finally got to do this trip to Ukraine/Kiev/Chernobyl - my original booking last year was cancelled of course.I have to say, an extremely interesting, insightful... and poignant trip. It exceeded my expectations. Day trips from Kiev to Chernobyl are common and safe. I wanted to use my Noblex panoramic camera, and my film was unharmed. On the way there, you pass through 2 police checkpoints, and I did a quick headcount at the the first one and counted 80 tourists, before another coach-load of tourists pulled up. The website of the Ukrainian government department responsible for the exclusion zone says they had 8870 visitors in August 2021 - that's an average of almost 300 per day. A few in our group hired Geiger counters, and readings basically hovered at less than 1 microsievert per hour during the visit, though there are pockets of higher levels around, and the counters did beep on a couple of occasions. The highest reading I saw during the day was 16.29 microsieverts per hour, but bear in mind that we were exposed to this level only for a second or two. There's an interesting site with information on radiation levels here: Radiation levels now | The Chernobyl Gallery I assume the tours are designed to keep silly tourists away from areas with higher radiation levels, and in any case, everyone is required to wear a dosimeter, which keeps track of cumulative radiation levels and which are monitored in a general sense by the authorities. You're also required to pass through radiation scanners when leaving the zone - though these looked like they were 30+ years old themselves, and nobody was really monitoring them very closely it seemed to me. The reactor itself is now covered by the "New Safe Confinement", which was quite a feat of engineering, but... it's basically just a big metal shed, so you don't get any sense that you are looking at a disaster zone. What I was much more interested in seeing was the city of Pripyat, which was essentially evacuated in a day. You are not allowed to enter any buildings, but many windows are broken, and you can approach and peer inside. I am sure that over the years many things have been moved around - so it's not like you are really looking at things exactly as they were left. But I still felt it was "genuine", and quite poignant, especially when you see a kindergarten with toys, books and children's shoes inside. Overall, if anyone is in Ukraine and thinks they could be interested, I think it's definitely worth a trip.

The lab is giving you back "unprocessed" scans - the right thing to do. The V600 scan has had adjustments made to it - to black/white points. I think you could easily do the same to your original lab scans if you wanted, without re-scanning anything.

Gentle suggestion... Post some samples. I'm sure we'd all enjoy some imagery

For a long time I've thought that a Platypod actually looks like quite a useful thing to have around for those few occasions when I am travelling and want to take a stable (night-time) shot, but where I might be out with others, without a tripod for example. Or in a location where a tripod would create a nuisance, etc. But it seems just a little expensive to me for what it is. However, it never dawned on me that there could be cheaper equivalents, and yesterday I discovered the Desmond Table Top Pod, the Glide Gear LayLow Mounting Plate and the Jobu Design Table Top Pod. I'm just wondering if anyone has any experience with these Platypod alternatives. This is something that I would use probably only a handful of times per year. Thanks

You need a sample larger than 2 to make any kind of statistically significant conclusion. Manufacturers balance robustness of construction against cost, and Minolta would have taken exactly the same view here as Nikon, Canon, Pentax and anyone else making consumer SLRs. I think you were probably just lucky. Plenty of people will have dropped their Minolta camera and not had the same outcome as you.

Forgive the brevity... 1. Try a different computer - maybe a Windows PC? 2. Troubleshooting is always easier if you actually get another human standing next to you.

The best information I've seen about this was posted on this site by Ron Andrews. Take a look at his answer in this thread... Life expectancy for refrigerated film Short answer... the film will be affected by storage, but of course it's still possible to use it for making photographs.

Thank you, I would appreciate that. I do think that for those of us Photo.net users living in Europe, it would be nice to have some local information about airports and film in the 2020s. And apologies to DB_Gallery for derailing his thread on his particular situation, where it seems hand screening has been considered and dismissed.

James, sorry, but what's the point of closing my thread? This thread here is mostly about someone who wants to ship film to some unnamed "cool North Atlantic islands", while my thread is about CT scanners at Heathrow airport. This forum should be for discussion, but also a nice respository of information. I felt I was doing a good deed by opening my thread with the information emailed to me by a Heathrow rep, but now nobody else will be able to reply in my thread with their own (future) Heathrow experiences. A shame. My thread is no more a duplicate of this thread, than this one is of the very many previous threads we've had on this site about film, airports, x-ray damage and so on.

I also think comments like this are just missing the point. There is no battle, and film is not "dead". That's just melodramatic rhetoric. People still sometimes like to shoot film and use vintage cameras. Of course film is not the most practical choice for most professional jobs, but that's not the point. I have a snazzy Sony mirrorless camera, but I also love using my Rolleiflex with Kodak Portra, and I love the images I get with zero post-processing. If someone tells me to "just use a digital camera", that's a bit silly on their part.

As definitively as you make your claim, I am still skeptical. I stand by my earlier suggestion to be polite yet defiant. If you simply refuse to put your film through the scanner, I can't see the security people letting you "hold up the show" for 10 minutes. A supervisor will be called, and I'm sure they will be reasonable. See the thread I just posted... Airport X-ray scanners, CT technology, and Heathrow

Periodically someone posts a question asking if airport X-ray scanning of hand luggage will damage film. I always refer to the test performed by the French civil aviation authority in 2010, which showed that ISO 400 film can withstand 12-24 passes through traditional X-ray scanners, and ISO 100 film can withstand more than 24 passes. It's not as simple as saying ISO 400 film is safe and ISO 1600 film will be damaged - it depends on how many cumulative passes/doses the film receives. It's also been said that the higher levels of cosmic radiation encountered during a flight will technically have more of an effect on your film than any airport X-ray scanning. Because it seems quite safe to me, I routinely carry film in my hand luggage and have never noticed any ill effects. Indeed, I took an extended trip in 2004/2005, when some of my (mostly ISO 100 colour reversal) film went through 30 flights, with no ill-effects. However, now airports are using newer CT (Computed Tomography) technology in their screening equipment, and Kodak Alaris (for one) updated their Storage and Care of KODAK Photographic Materials bulletin with the following info... Last summer I travelled through Heathrow Airport in the UK, and just put my film through the scanner as I'm used to doing. Long story short, everything was OK. However, I contacted Heathrow after my trip, enquiring about whether or not they were using CT scanners, and I got this reply... This was followed up about two months later with another reply... So, it seems that Heathrow will soon widely implement this CT scanner technology, if they haven't done so already. But judging by the advice given to me, a hand inspection should be granted if requested. Of course, as always, be courteous, patient and explain nicely :)

What about hand inspection? If you show up at the airport early (i.e. give yourself and the airport employees plenty of time) and just politely but defiantly refuse to put your film through the scanner, wouldn't some supervisor concede to your request for a hand inspection? I've had recent hand inspections granted.

I would gently suggest... does it matter? You can always just buy another binder that doesn't necessarily match. I like Clear File.

Glen, and others, you might find this piece from NBC from early 2020 a little interesting... Ed Hurley, General Manager of Film at Kodak, says, "We are making more than twice the amount of rolls in 2019 than we made in 2015, and it's been a steady increase – it's gone up 15, 20 even 30% per year..."

Back around the end of the 90s and early 00s, I got a little fascination with panoramic photography. I considered buying a Hasselblad XPan for a while, and even tried one out one day - I called to the Hasselblad distributor in my city, and they let me put a roll into a demo body, and even let me wander around outside with it - I could simply have walked away and never come back. Ultimately I decided against the XPan, and bought a Noblex camera instead (which I have been very pleased with, and which I continue to use), but I always still kind of lusted after an XPan over the years. Now, 20 years later, I've no intention of buying one, but I notice that used prices are still strong - around about 3000 GBP on eBay for an XPan II with 45mm lens. What camera, available now, do you think people will be lusting after in 2040? Is there any? Maybe nobody will be interested in today's digital cameras, and XPans will still be selling strongly on the used market then.

Yes, of course, a QR plate is intended to be left attached to the camera. I won't be attaching/detaching it all the time. But I do also use a table-top tripod from time to time, and for the occasions when I want to use that, I intend to detach the Manfrotto QR plate. I'm just basically naive when it comes to metals/materials, and I wouldn't like to do any damage to the QR plate.

Ed, I don't quite get your post. Is it tongue in cheek? If you really think medium format digital is the way of the future, you're not quite selling it...

Well, I've made a bit of a "sandwich" of things to screw into the camera. At the bottom there's the QR plate, above which there's a spirit level plate, with a few nylon washers in between everything, to space things out just right. That's why I needed the longer bolt. But during adjusting, I suspected I saw some very tiny metal "shavings" falling away, and that's what made me wonder if I could be damaging the QR plate.

Not a totally photographic question, but... On one of my cameras I use a Manfrotto 200PL-PRO quick release plate, but due to the original 1/4" bolt not being quite long enough for my situation, I replaced the bolt with a longer one I got on eBay. However the new bolt is steel, and the QR plate is aluminium. I'm just wondering if this mismatch of a harder/softer metal can somehow damage the threads in the QR plate through repeatedly screwing/unscrewing the plate to/from the camera?

Quickly spotted, and I don't dispute the explanation at all in this case. But just thought it was worth a mention that some versions of Digital ICE could indeed be used with Kodachrome apparently. I believe it was called Digital ICE Professional. Some more info here: Scanning, Digitizing Kodak Kodachrome Films: Basics, Tips, Experiences, Indications, Recommendations, ICE Dust Removal

I don't have any real advice, but I did a little googling and I'm just posting a few links in case they help the OP or anyone else. Minolta developed the "DiMAGE Master" software for converting RAW files... Konica Minolta Photo Imaging Europe GmbH: Products Does DiMage Master Software still exist for download I am quite a laggard when it comes to dealing with RAW files, so there may well be much better ways of dealing with them now. PS. Jochen mentions Picasa... I don't know if this is tongue-in-cheek - Picasa was discontinued several years ago too.