Deprived of a living by new security regulation at UK airports

[sohoscribbler]

I take photos professionally for a living.

 

On my current assignment, I am covering a country where it is impossible to buy professional quality film.

 

It is also impossible to carry film through UK airport security without it being checked in and ruined by X-ray machines.

 

The BAA website advises that all undeveloped film should be carried as hand luggage. However the current security rules make it impossible to do so.

 

The press office at Heathrow confirms that there are no exceptions to the carry-on rules for professional photographers.

 

I am paying airport tax to cover BAA's expenses.

 

Would I be within my rights to charge BAA the cost of sending my film by courier to my eventual destination?

[sohoscribbler]

Letter I sent to CEO of BAA:

 

I am a professional photojournalist accredited as a foreign correspondent in XXXX (foreign correspondent ID card No XXX issued by the XXX Foreign Ministry) and holding a UK press card (No XXXX) approved by Scotland Yard.

 

As part of my job I need to take photographs, using professional quality film.

 

This is impossible to obtain in XXXX.

 

It is also impossible, under the current security regulations, to carry this film with me.

 

The BAA's own website advises passengers to take unprocessed film as hand luggage. I would send my film by courier but I am travelling frequently and there is no guarantee when the film would reach me.

 

In any case, if I am paying airport tax and the BAA website advises taking all unprocessed film as hand luggage, are you willing to pay the full cost of getting my film to me wherever I am?

 

If not, is there some way I can submit my film to manual inspection? If I were a terrorist, I very much doubt I would want to draw attention to myself by writing to you in this manner.

 

This is an important issue because many people make a living out of photography in foreign countries and there is no way of making a living out of it if it is impossible to travel with film.

[gordonhall]

I'm obviously wrong, but I thought the X-ray arguement was a myth? Does it affect all film or just a small selection?

 

Do you have collegues that you talk with (BBC maybe) who can give advice of how they have dealt with this matter.

 

It's hard right now for a number of people, and whist it's no comfort, it is only for a short time (hopefully).

[sohoscribbler]

Kodak, who make the X-ray machines, advise that film will be ruined if put into checked-in luggage. See Baggage X-ray Scanning Effects on Film.

 

Fujifilm has similar advice (see Untitled Document).

 

And the BAA website advises travellers to carry all film as hand luggage (BAA Heathrow: Advice for Photographers).

[gordonhall]

Good to know, and obviously not a myth!

[JonCris]

I realise this doesn't help but I was surprised to see your thread because my sons an accredited photojournalist & he uses a Nikon 6 or 7 million pixel digital camera as I thought all such photographers did.

 

As you will be aware this enables him to transmit his photo's direct from his laptop to his studio

 

I will nevertheless email him & ask if he can offer any advice & let you know what he says

[barracad]

I don't think it's down to BA to cover your expenses as it is not them imposing the restrictions - they have to follow any restrictions/security procedures imposed by the CAA.

[Rich44]

Buy a high quality Digital SLR, if you buy one from the same manufacturer as your current one then your lenses should fit (check first obviously). Appreciate its not an answer as such but it could mean the difference between getting your work done or not.

 

Also Flash cards aren't upset by X Ray machines etc and in fact in a recent(ish) test by computer active (I think) they put the most popular cards thru many tests inc:

 

run over by skateboard

sat in coke for 10 mins

washing machine

 

and many others the ONLY one that compact flash failed and lost its data was (get this lol) BEING NAILED TO A TREE!!

 

Thus dispelling the myth that flash cards are fragile and they're also very very cheap now too we just bought a 2GB CF card for our Canon EOS 350D for £23.99 inc VAT

 

If you can I really would go this way as it will solve your problem instantly and as has been said you can send the pix back immediately

 

Good luck

[JonCris]

Yeah & it's impossible for the authorities in whatever country you are to censor your pics

[sohoscribbler]

The organisation I am working for demands slide film. So digital is not an option.

[blacksheep1979]

how are couriers going to get the film out to you? they will either have to carry it as carry on - not possible or stick it in a cargo hold - which gets x-rayed. Your only option is overland or someone with diplomatic status who can carry on what they like on diplomatic flights

[sohoscribbler]

Apparently items sent by courier often go into cargo planes. As they do not have passengers they are less likely to be a terrorist target. Therefore packages are not routinely x-rayed. However it is essential to clarify the situation with the company first.

 

These days even diplomats are asked to have their bags x-rayed on a "voluntary" basis and I don't think they are exempt from the new hand luggage restrictions, although I may be wrong. And the rules forbid sending packages by diplomatic bag.

[Rich44]

What do you mean digital is not an option you can make slides from digital you know

[JonCris]

Thats what I'm told also

[sohoscribbler]

Yes, but with a significant loss of quality. Anyway, a professional quality digital camera is far from cheap and there is a learning curve involved with new equipment.

 

I should perhaps add that professional quality slide film is unavailable airside at Heathrow, or was the last time I flew through it.

[JonCris]

In that case don't know what to suggest. As has already been stated it's very doubtful if not impossible to envisage you being given compensation (in any form) because of a terrorist threat. Most such threats aren't insured anyway.

 

Also apart from the holidaymakers there must be thousands of business travellers who have found themselves in a costly situation. None of whom will receive any form of compensation.

 

Unless anyone else knows different of course

[sohoscribbler]

And I DO have quasidiplomatic status where I am based. I go through the diplomatic channel at customs. In fact the last time I flew out, when I tried to go through the EU passports channel, a customs officer told me I had to go to the diplomatic queue.

 

The problem is in the UK.

 

I don't agree that insurance companies, airlines or airport authorities can use terrorism as a get-out clause under the current situation. There has been no terrorism. There is only an alleged threat of terrorism. The stringent restrictions in place are just a reaction to the threat.

 

Still, if the recent events persuade more people to travel by train (and it's not really a viable option for me) instead of flying, perhaps it's a good thing for the planet.

 

I just wish there were as much competition for international railway transport as there is between airlines...

[Rich44]

Theres no significant loss of quality making a tranny from a digital picture the only problem is that theres less information there to start with so if you are wanting to blow it up to billboard size there's your problem if its for magazine/newspaper/slideshow use the quality issues are not really relevant on professional kit.

 

We've had trannys made up from shots with our Canon EOS 350D and theyre excellent (although not as good as 35mm film obviously as its not a professional camera) and thats with 8Mpixel CMOS sensor and quite a large sensor, if we were to couple that with one of Canons L series lenses I imagine there would be a noticable improvement in the image just from that but the standard EF lenses are more than enough for our use.

 

As for the cost well yes that is an issue but with photography it always will be it and dont forget you will be saving the cost of film and developing it wasnt that long ago a film SLR cost a lot more than a digital SLR currently does. Also I did say that if you bought the same make as you have now then all you need buy is the body as you can reuse all your existing lenses cutting down the cost a hell of a lot.

 

Again with the learning curve TBH if you already know your stuff (which you obviously do) then theres not really too much to it TBH, if you have the same make the layout of the control is very similar, in our case compare the Canon EOS300V to the 350D and theyre very similar except for the LCD on the back obviously.

 

I know its not the answer you're looking for but other than this I really dont see an answer for you, from what we've seen it looks like the days of carry on luggage are gone forever now and we'll be stuck with no books, drinks, film etc on flights for some considerable amount of time

 

On a side note did anyone notice George Bush is trying to lump Hezbollah in with the people who are alleged to have been planning this bombing campaign? Unbelievable that man!

 

Anyway good luck with the film issue I hope you manage to find a solution to it and I hope it doesnt interfere with your work too much. The only other thing I could think of was if you know where you're going in advance maybe you could setup some kind of PO box and send the stuff you need there ahead of you probably no good but just thought id mention it

[sohoscribbler]

I appreciate all your help and advice, guys. Seriously.

 

However I think I should be able to choose whether I want to use digital or slide film and not be forced into making a decision either way by some fear of a terrorist threat.

 

For me, the results with slide film (especially Velvia 50 or 100) are astonishing and with digital embarrassing.

 

I know many photographers prefer digital and increasingly publishers do too.

 

However my publisher prefers slides and so do I.

 

Why should I have to switch to digital because of a temporary and alleged threat?

[JonCris]

Bush has to try & justify what's happening somehow & like that other great liar will stop at nothing. Anyway don't get me started.

 

PS they could both go & work for the money lenders & be good at it

[Rich44]

Exactly my thoughts Jon lol.

 

Soho we all I think agree with you it was just the simplest attempt to get around the restrictions, you shouldnt be forced into anything and this whole thing is wrong and I shall be very surprised if anyone ever ends up in court over this it'll be another cock up im sure but in the meantime we have to live with the consequences I for one shall NOT be flying anywhere and its unfeasable to have to board a plane with nothing other than a boarding card and your passport.

 

another way for the airlines to rip people on with "Fun size" cans of drink for £2 grrrrrr

[patdavies]

I don't think it's down to BA to cover your expenses as it is not them imposing the restrictions - they have to follow any restrictions/security procedures imposed by the CAA.

 

The current restrictions are nothing to do with the CAA.

 

They are imposed on BAA and all other UK airport operators by the DfT

[patdavies]

There is little or no ppint in writing to the CEO of BAA. They only run 7 UK airports and the restrictions apply to ALL UK airports. For example, Manchester is not a BAA airport, but the restrictions are in place.

 

Although MAN has implemented the new allowed cabin baggage whilst BAA airports must wait until 4:30 tomorrow morning.

 

Whilst the updated restrictions allow cabin baggage again, it must all be x-rayed - so no relief there.

[JonCris]

The current restrictions are nothing to do with the CAA.

 

They are imposed on BAA and all other UK airport operators by the DfT

 

Who in turn are being ordered to implement it by the Home Office