Borderlands

English Bluff Rd – Google Street View

10 English Bluff Rd. It’s a pretty standard two-storey suburban house on a pretty standard suburban street. The asphalt is in okay condition although is a little pockmarked. Maintenance is probably not high on the agenda, given the little traffic this end of the road receives. On one side, number 10 is bordered by Georgia Wynd, another like suburban street, greenery-lined and rather verdant. But on the other side, there is something that makes number 10 unlike almost any other suburban house in the world. You see even though English Bluff Rd is termed a “road”, it is not actually a thoroughfare.

Number 10 sits at the end of English Bluff Rd, but there is no geological reason that prevents it from continuing on its way to numbers 8, 6, 4 and so on. There is no cliff, no hill, no unfordable raging torrent, no insurmountable topographical feature, just a strip of foot-tall concrete kerbing – painted yellow – and a yellow and black checked diamond sign atop a no parking sign. Next to all this is another small sign:

WARNING!

If you are entering the United States

without presenting yourself to an Immigration Officer,

YOU MAY BE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED

for violating U.S. Immigration and Customs Laws.

English Bluff Rd can go on no further because of a political obstacle, an invisible line drawn arbitrarily across the Tsawwassen Peninsula along the 49th parallel by men of two nations in dispute over two centuries ago. Here the Americas were divided by the British and the United States, today forming the border between British Columbia, Canada and Point Roberts, Washington, USA. And while there are plenty of border crossings between the United States and Canada across this imaginary line, there is none quite like the one at the end of English Bluff Rd.

The Oregon Treaty of 1846 extended the boundary between what would become Canada and the United States along the 49th parallel from the Georgia Strait all the way east to the Rocky Mountains. The 49th parallel cut right across the southern tip of the Tsawwassen Peninsula and while an agreement was met between the parties to bend the border around the southern part of Vancouver Island – keeping that island entirely in British territory – such an accommodation was not made for the tip of the Tsawwassen Peninsula.

This southern tip fell below the 49th parallel and as per the Oregon Treaty, became part of the United States. Thus Point Roberts became what geographers term a practical exclave; a part of the USA reachable by land only via Canadian roads. Indeed it's much closer to downtown Vancouver than the nearest major US town. But this doesn't stop the school buses full of US school children from getting a US education. They travel every day over the border into Canada and re-enter the United States at Blaine, before reversing the journey in the afternoon. Similarly, Canadians pop across the border to buy cheaper petrol, groceries and consumer goods where US retailers won't ship to Canada.

The portion of the Tsawwassen Peninsula that falls below the 49th parallel is only 3km from north to south and about 5km east to west. The total area of this tip of America is only 12.25 km², an area roughly equivalent to Melbourne's CBD and immediate inner suburbs.

To an ausländer, this border and its polite sign is truly bizarre. Like many, I am used to seeing images of the Mexican border in pop culture: a frontier no-man’s-land that Donald Trump wishes to turn into a modern concrete and iron curtain.

But here in Point Roberts, this most fortified of national borders is little more than a few feet of concrete and a sign. No barbed wire, no land mines, no watch towers.

Or so it would appear.

There is more to this border points than meets the all-seeing Street View eye. While the end of English Bluff Rd where Canadian asphalt meets the 49th parallel may look like little more than an gentle barrier, technology makes it more fortified than ever. The modern surveillance panopticon means there can be eyes on the ground even when there are not actually eyes on the ground. They might be cameras on poles or even in trees, but somebody is always watching. 

Even pressure sensors are said to line the border, making this invisible barrier a barrier that is truly invisible. A simple jump across any of these deceptively empty strips of land may likely result in a prompt visit from US Border Patrol, helicopters blaring overhead. Just because the overt symbols of surveillance and control aren’t there, doesn’t mean they’re not watching.

It's this security that makes Point Roberts one of the most curious gated communities in the world. In addition to its cheap (for Canadians) petrol, it's apparently a regular home for those in US witness protection programmes.

There are plenty of US/Canada border towns, all of them more secure than a cursory glance might suggest. In Abbotsford, British Columbia, two roads run side-by-side, each adorned with a slightly different yellow line marking, for one is in Canada and the other in the United States. All that lies between them is the legacy of history and a 2-foot-wide strip of grass.

Stanstead, Quebec is another, sitting right across from Derby Line, Vermont. For decades, these two towns have spread geographically with little regard for the imaginary line of long-dead statesmen. The towns’ library and opera house was built straddling the border, so that citizens of both sides could use it. Likewise families and friends built lives with little regards for the map. Neighbours would share a lawnmower or beer, even if there did happen to be an invisible line bisecting their lives.

For years, this was how things were, but in the surveillance era, even casual transgressions of the line are not permitted. The painted line on the road is no longer a symbolic line, but an enforced division. US Border Patrol monitors the streets, having blocked off a number of “unguarded” roads. The US border authorities call the Stanstead/Derby Line region a “unique challenge” – that’s law enforcement parlance for “we’re cracking down and cracking down hard because terrorism”.

It makes me wonder, if Australia had land borders, what would they be like? Despite our secure island geography, Australians are inordinately afraid of the “other”. How Australians enforce their maritime borders might provide an idea of how we would enforce our hypothetical land border.

I think it would be fair to say this imaginary border would bear more resemblance to the USA’s Mexican border than its Canadian border. No small signs asking you to go the long way around to “present” yourself to a member of Dutton's Team Border Force.

Instead I imagine dogs and razor wire and landmines and watch towers, like a scene from a Cold War thriller set in Berlin. "Saving lives at sea" could no longer be used by conservatives as a rationale for strong borders, so some other notionally palatable reason would have to be found, perhaps saving them from being very tired after a long walk. All supported, naturally, by a taxpayer-funded telemovie warning of the perils of coming by land to Australia.

And we’d probably make Indonesia pay for it.

The Tragedy of Routine

Services like Flightradar24 and Flight Aware track thousands of flights every day. The sheer number of flights is equalled only by their mundanity. Humans have conquered the sky; travelling close to the speed of sound at 38,000ft is a routine exercise barely given a second thought by most.

But when this hum-drum routine of almost fantastical logistical tedium is interrupted, the results are rarely pleasant. Yesterday, Germanwings flight 4U9525 was another routine blip on the radar, with a departure and destination: BCN–DUS.

At DUS, it had an arrival gate: Gate 2A. Family and friends waiting, the machinery of the airport whirring seen and unseen all around. Arrivals, departures, luggage conveyers, coffee carts.

As we now know, that flight never made its gate at DUS. For some reason, somehow, in this age of routine (and tedious) air travel, 4U9525 rapidly lost altitude over the course of 8 minutes. Pilots in these cases are trained to aviate, navigate and communicate. At this time, we don't know how many (if any) of these tasks the pilots were able to accomplish.

The wreckage of the aircraft now lies strewn across the French alps, torn to pieces by the force of impact. The sheer force of this impact is almost impossible to comprehend. Schooled by Michael Bay et al. in the laws of physics, we assume forces to be far weaker than they actually are, with lucky protagonists able to survive accidents and disasters that would tear normal people asunder.

It's times like these I marvel at the wonder of flight, about the tens of thousands of people transported in safety every single day to the far corners of the globe. Like with every incident since the dawn of civil aviation, I know the investigators and regulatory bodies will learn something from this tragedy. That is about the only solace that can be taken by the bereaved friends and relatives who will be looking for purpose in the mayhem.

Looking at the density of European airspace, the wonder isn't that events like this occur, but that they do not occur more frequently. 

Travelling with Film, Part II: The Airport

Originally published at richardmckenzie.com.au

[A]irports are sites where identity is confirmed or questioned; they are spaces of public display; they are contested zones where privacy and national security vie for priority; they are complex factories for the production of patriotism and the privilege of mobility. At the same time, airports can be considered as generic spaces, forgettable and often uncomfortable. They are designed to be passed through, and in rapid fashion... 

Christopher Schaberg, The Textual Life of Airports

Travelling with film is not that difficult. However, the airport represents one of the great challenges to a travelling film photographer. If precautions are not taken, standard security screening processes can irreversibly damage unprocessed film. It is in the transition from landside to airside that the performance of modern security theatre can harm our film.

These are the terms of our entry to airports. An acknowledgement that airports offer both incomparable freedom and stringent security. One such security measure is the screening of passenger luggage. While it is intended to keep air travel safe by preventing dangerous items from getting on planes, common screening methods, such as X-ray machines may damage unexposed film. This damage takes the form of "fogging" our film, a bit like opening the back of a camera half way through a roll. Film is sensitive to radiation, of which visible light and X-rays are but two wavelengths.

Fortunately, there is plenty we can do to prevent this from occurring. Here are a few golden rules you can follow to make the film photographer airport experience run as smoothly as possible:

1: NEVER EVER PLACED UNPROCESSED FILM IN CHECKED LUGGAGE

Checked luggage is subject to very intense explosive detecting, space-time warping X-ray screening that will SEVERELY DAMAGE YOUR UNPROCESSED FILM. GUARANTEED. Never, ever leave your unprocessed film in there. 

Processed film is fine to place in check luggage. That said, processed film may be immune to the effects of X-rays, however it is not immune from being sent to Melbourne, FL, instead of Melbourne, Australia. It is highly recommended you keep all processed film on you at all times.

2: ALWAYS place unprocessed film in your hand luggage

Keep your film with you at all times. No, this is not a canned security announcement, it's for the sake your film and irreplaceable images. Hand luggage screening uses a less-intense form of X-rays, meaning your film should be relatively safe. 

Any exposure to X-rays will affect your film, but it won't be visible from only a few passes. According to a 2003 Kodak technical publication, 400 ISO film will start to see some degradation after 6 X-ray scans, but results can vary. Some of my film (up to 800 ISO) went through up to 8 scans over my two months of travel and I've not noticed any degradation.

The higher the speed of your film, the more sensitive it is to all forms of radiation, including X-rays! It's important to note you can request a hand inspection of your film in order to avoid the X-ray machine entirely, but your mileage may vary (see below).

3: ALWAYS place your film in a clear and accessible container/bag

Keep your film accessible at all times. Better yet, don't place it in your carry-on bag, keep it in your hand. A general rule every air traveller should follow is to be prepared for the processes of security before reaching the queue. Don't hold the queue up by fiddling around with a dozen different rolls of film stuck somewhere between your copy of the Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Repetition by Eric Van Lustbader and your boarding passes. Keep your film together and place it separately on the X-ray conveyer.

A few sandwich bags never go astray when travelling

Even after your film gets x-rayed, inquisitive security-types may wish to take a closer look, so keep it accessible. I cheated a bit here and used an opaque Japan Camera Hunter 120 case, but at least it's easy to open for inspection and keeps all the film together. 

I often get asked about my cameras by security staff, although they've usually impressed by the gear. One security guard at Munich Airport took such a liking to my Leica, I was getting a bit concerned. He was a bit confused by an Australian owning a German camera, but he was happy nonetheless. That said, I'm told a Hasselblad and Leica look pretty awesome on X-ray.

4: ASK for a hand inspection of your film, but be prepared to be rebuffed

At most screening points, you can ask for a hand inspection of you film. In theory. In practice, this may not occur. The security staff will usually state that the X-ray machine is "safe" up to 1600 ISO. Alas this doesn't take into account any cumulative X-ray exposure your film may have incurred from prior screenings. 

Be polite, you might get lucky, but will the staff will more likely counter that the machine is "safe" for film. Don't get angry. That won't be good for anyone. Some photographers recommend placing a "dummy" 3200 speed roll in their bag, just so they can justify a hand inspection. Again, not something I've ever done, but has been known to work.

Be aware that asking for a hand inspection of goods may single you out for further forms of "enhanced" screening, such as explosives testing and hand inspection of all your carry-on luggage.

5: UNLOAD your camera before screening

Although this isn't always critical, it is best to travel without loaded cameras. It's never happened to me, but have heard of security staff wishing to inspect the innards of cameras. Best case, you waste part of a roll by having to rewind it to open the camera. Worst case, some clumsy security fool opens your camera for you (rare, but it has reportedly occurred).

6: NEVER use "X-Ray Safe" lead-lined bags for film storage

These foil and lead-lined bags were popular items back in the day, however these days they're, at best, useless. At worst, they will lead to the irreversible damage of your film. These bags theoretically render items contained within opaque to X-ray screeners.

If you were an X-ray operator, would you allow a giant grey blob of mystery through to the gate? Probably not. Best case, the operator asks you to open the bag and inspects the contents, worst case the operator increases the power of the X-ray radiation in order to penetrate the bag. Whoops. Film. Fogged. Pictures. Gone.

7: BE POLITE and do not rage against the (X-ray) machine

Getting angry with security staff will not get you anywhere. Whatever your personal opinions may be on the "security theatre" of the airport, it's a shit job and the security staff are there for the protection of the air-travelling public.

Yes, it's not hard to find evidence of over-zealous officials, but in Australia, the experience seems to be a fairly benign one. Unless you're not white and have Channel 7 camera crews in your face.

It is much better to grin a bear a few minutes of security screening than risk missing your flight.  

I'll have a lot more to write on airports at another time, thanks to the inspiration of The Textual Life of Airports. I'm sure you can't wait.

Continued in Part III - Buying Film and Developing

Travelling with Film, Part I: The Gear

Every roll of film was recorded, along with the camera used, location, date started and date finished (Panasonic Lumix GX7, Leica DG Summilux 15mm, VSCOCam)

First published at richardmckenzie.com.au

61 days, 21 cities, 9 countries, 76 rolls of film.

These were an amazing two months on the road (well, rails more often than not) with all the sights, sounds and intellectual stimulation that only Europe can provide. But when I tell people I shot 76 rolls of film, they give me a puzzled look before saying, "Don't you work in a place that sells digital cameras?"

Why?
Photographing with film this trip was one of the most rewarding experiences I've had. We film photographers often have to justify our continued use of the medium, but the simplicity and pleasure of using my Hasselblad, Leica M4 and Olympus µ[mju:]-II - and the results I achieved - speak for themselves.

First off - and this is a rule most photographers can learn from - the less gear, the better. Photographers often think that more gear=better shots. Maybe, but for most, it's a recipe for empty wallets and vacuous photography. Although three cameras may seem a little bit over the top, they were three very individual cameras, each with a different purpose.

What

Hasselblad 503CX with Zeiss 80mm C T* f/2.8

Hasselblad at the Birkenkopf, Stuttgart (Panasonic Lumix GX7, Leica DG Summilux 15mm, VSCOCam)

I'd never shot 6x6 in Europe, so this was a must-do for me. Paired with the 80mm lens, it allowed me to capture the straight-on architecutral, street and landscape shots I'd so admired in many other photographers, but not been able to make myself.

I only carried one 120 back with me, swapping largely between Kodak Portra 400 and Kodak Tri-X 400.

Leica M4 with Summicron-M 35mm

Leica M4 (and your incidental photographer) at the Birkenkopf, Stuttgart (Panasonic Lumix GX7, Leica DG Summilux 15mm)

My workhorse and my unabashed favourite camera. It's the all-rounder for all situations with the perfect focal-length to match. Many, many words have been written about Leica M rangefinders, but they are discrete, incredibly rugged and very German. This is a good thing.

Like the Hasselblad, I shot primarily Kodak Portra 400 and Kodak Tri-X 400 (with Leitz yellow filter).

Olympus µ[mju:]-II

The MJU is easy to use in all situations, even while smoking with eyes shut (Panasonic Lumix GX7, Leica DG Summilux 15mm)

Another 35mm focal length camera? Yes and don't let its compact size fool you, the results from this camera were stunning. The MJU's purpose was to go in my pocket when I was weighed down by my wife's my luggage in transit and unable to reach the other cameras. It performed this purpose admirably, with its 35mm f/2.8 lens suitable for almost any situation. Its small size and unobtrusiveness makes it the ideal camera to use when you don't want to use a camera.

A Different Point of View

A photo posted by Richard McKenzie (@purplecamel) on Dec 26, 2014 at 4:58am PST

Two focal lengths and three cameras. The paradox is that by limiting choice of equipment, I was freer than ever to concentrate on my photographic vision. I saw the world through the framelines of my leica or the ground glass of my Hasselblad without grabbing either out of my bag. I didn't look at a scene and feel the urge to capture it with a 12-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm and 105mm macro "just in case". It's a trite turn of phrase, but less really is more.

To be continued in PART II - The Airport...

On the Road Again

Originally published at richardmckenzie.com.au

For the next few weeks, I'll be in Europe, mixing up business with pleasure and study with leisure. It's a strange sensation, going away to another continent, yet feeling as connected as ever via social media. This is something I want to actively avoid. Devices, as useful as the can be, have a habit of occupying the time that used to be spent idly daydreaming or thinking about nothing much.

The gear I am taking away is intended to refocus my photography and travel to the bare essentials. Well, not quite bare essentials. My primary photographic tools will be my Leica M4 with 35mm Summicron and my Hasselblad 503CX with Zeiss 80mm. Sure, I will have a digital (Lumix GX7 w/15mm Leica DG Summilux), but that will mainly be used sporadically for "business" related purposes.

A 35mm lens and a 80mm "normal" lens. What could be simpler?

Literary-wise, I've been inspired by Verso's 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep and A Philosophy of Walking. Both offer solace from the modern world with their slow-burn approach to pressing life issues at play today. Of course books are the sort of thing I could never go without. Bloomsbury's The Textual Life of Airports will keep me occupied (on the off-chance I need it!) in transit while an iPhone full of engaging documentaries and podcasts, along with Mahler, Tchaikovsky et al., will keep me busy in-flight. Yes, I know, "keeping busy" is probably anathema to the slow-burn ideas of the first two books, but time will tell.

Until next time...