an interesting experience at Schipol Airport Amsterdam - re: X-RAYs

[JW Dewdney]

haven't posted in a dog's age but I thought this might be useful to someone:

So I was just coming back to the states from a europe trip. I asked for a 'hand inspection' at the security checkpoint ... they are asking me all kinds of questions about the equipment - well mostly my partly full 4x5 fuji film boxes, which i did not want x-rayed. The more I explained and tried to hold up the boxes - shaking them - to explain that they contained sheets of film - the more attention this seemed to draw (odd, to me) - and eventually I had something like eight security people - including managers, surrounding me. For some reason they thought the film was highly suspicious. In a minor pique of frustration I simply said to one of the senior officials - "well - if it's going to be THAT much of a problem - then please just throw out the film ...it's expensive but really not worth the trouble ...". IMMEDIATE STAND DOWN. As soon as they heard that - i got the all clear. I could take my film with me. So anyway- for what it's worth - if you're in europe (or maybe anywhere) in my situation - you might want to try that if you're having any problems.

thanks for your time

[xkaes]

Or get a copy of the official rules in your country. I always carry a copy of the US rules -- I've only needed to pull them out once.

[Peter Collins]

great idea xkaes, but what do you do if you are returning via Frankfurt, Paris, Schipol, etc. Don't their local rules apply? How does that work, exactly?

[Pete Oakley]

Crap like this is why we have opted to leave the EEC.
Pete.

[Leszek Vogt]

Don't think I'd generalize....or be a consequence of flying from any country. I've experienced several things that were right down silly, but
I'd go to another place and loptop doesn't even have to be pulled out of the backpack. Go figure! Ha, I leave Poland appx 1/2 yr ago and
they asked me to pull EVERY item out of my bag....good thing I didn't have any film. Oy! Anyway, don't think there is any sort of standardization (rules-shmules)....and v. often the local airport security doesn't have the eq the big airports do.....so no telling what will take place. Sometimes you slide with no issues, other times.....(fill in the blanks).

Les

[xkaes]

great idea xkaes, but what do you do if you are returning via Frankfurt, Paris, Schipol, etc. Don't their local rules apply? How does that work, exactly?

Read what I wrote. I said "get a copy of the official rules in your country". That means the country you are in or traveling through -- OBVIOUSLY.

[Bruce Watson]

I learned a long time ago to keep film out of the air transport system. I *always* ship my film separately, both to and from location work. Never carry film into an airport. You're just asking for a) trouble, and b) heartbreak (if they destroy your exposed film, which often happens).

The real problem here is that most of the security staff has no idea what film is. Cameras are digital. Your shots are stored on a memory card. These things are fine to xray. So what's your problem? What do you mean "light sensitive"? Let's take it out and have a look at it....

Keep your film out of the air transportation system.

[Pfsor]

Crap like this is why we have opted to leave the EEC.
Pete.

Because you think that after the Brexit rules for the airport inspection will become less stringent? Good grief!

[Willie]

So why not carry a sheet of developed film to show them what you have in the box? Maybe a Chrome so it looks nice and colorful? Maybe if they can actually see what you are talking about some of the mystery will be over?

[jnantz]

from what i understand
there is more radiation bombarding your film IN the plane as you fly 20K feet up, than the scanners emit ..
==
ive travelled from the states to europe bunces and no one but the states will hand inspect your film.
that said, i have had film travel through these baggage scanners countless times 800+3200 speed
nothing happens. if this was 1980 i am sure it would be a different thing, but its not.


UMMV

[Pfsor]

Read what I wrote. I said "get a copy of the official rules in your country". That means the country you are in or traveling through -- OBVIOUSLY.

VERY OBVIOUSLY, your country is not the country you pass through on the way to your country... Read what the OP wrote.

[Doremus Scudder]

I fly regularly between the U.S. and Europe. You can't expect and shouldn't demand (or even bother to ask for) a hand-inspection in European countries. I find it rather uninformed and culture-centric to expect U.S. regulations to be universal and practiced in other countries. Assuming that security officers in other countries are ignorant or negligent and that you know the rules better than they is simply arrogant.

FWIW, I regularly take exposed and unexposed film, in half-full boxes and even loaded in filmholders on flights in Europe. I simply put them through the scanner, after taking them out of my carry-on and putting them into a separate bin so they won't have to go through twice. I've had 400-speed film scanned eight or more times this way often with absolutely no damage whatsoever. Not having researched this before traveling with film is a bit negligent, IM-HO.

And, information about whether hand-inspection for film is available in your country is readily available from your airline or travel agent. Arguing with security officers in another country (and in a foreign language for them) is a bad idea, period. Add to this the already negative perception of American tourists as being ignorant and condescending and that's a recipe for inconvenience, to say the least. I'm glad the OP managed to get through his security check with everything undamaged and make his flight.

Best,

Doremus

[Pfsor]

You can't expect and shouldn't demand (or even bother to ask for) a hand-inspection in European countries.
Best,
Doremus

Absolutely correct. I fly in Europe several times in several countries each year.

[Louie Powell]

I fly regularly between the U.S. and Europe. You can't expect and shouldn't demand (or even bother to ask for) a hand-inspection in European countries. I find it rather uninformed and culture-centric to expect U.S. regulations to be universal and practiced in other countries. Assuming that security officers in other countries are ignorant or negligent and that you know the rules better than they is simply arrogant.

FWIW, I regularly take exposed and unexposed film, in half-full boxes and even loaded in filmholders on flights in Europe. I simply put them through the scanner, after taking them out of my carry-on and putting them into a separate bin so they won't have to go through twice. I've had 400-speed film scanned eight or more times this way often with absolutely no damage whatsoever. Not having researched this before traveling with film is a bit negligent, IM-HO.

And, information about whether hand-inspection for film is available in your country is readily available from your airline or travel agent. Arguing with security officers in another country (and in a foreign language for them) is a bad idea, period. Add to this the already negative perception of American tourists as being ignorant and condescending and that's a recipe for inconvenience, to say the least. I'm glad the OP managed to get through his security check with everything undamaged and make his flight.

Best,

Doremus


Absolutely true!

And one other point regarding the comment about the EU - this wasn't a case of stringent EU rules. This was a case of typical Dutch thoroughness. That's why I like flying through Schipol - security is very tight, and risk is at an absolute minimum. And normally, it is done with such efficiency that you don't really realize how competent they are at doing the job.

I can recall many instances of pat-down inspections at Schipol that were more thorough that the annual physical done by my GP.

[JW Dewdney]

from what i understand
there is more radiation bombarding your film IN the plane as you fly 20K feet up, than the scanners emit ..
==
ive travelled from the states to europe bunces and no one but the states will hand inspect your film.
that said, i have had film travel through these baggage scanners countless times 800+3200 speed
nothing happens. if this was 1980 i am sure it would be a different thing, but its not.


UMMV

yes, good point John ...

though i was convinced a roll of 120 i processed years back when i was more laissez-faire about x rays got fogged and super grainy ... i think it was due to it getting cooked in the checked baggage scanner ... but since then i have tried to be more cautious ...

[JW Dewdney]

I fly regularly between the U.S. and Europe. You can't expect and shouldn't demand (or even bother to ask for) a hand-inspection in European countries. I find it rather uninformed and culture-centric to expect U.S. regulations to be universal and practiced in other countries. Assuming that security officers in other countries are ignorant or negligent and that you know the rules better than they is simply arrogant.

FWIW, I regularly take exposed and unexposed film, in half-full boxes and even loaded in filmholders on flights in Europe. I simply put them through the scanner, after taking them out of my carry-on and putting them into a separate bin so they won't have to go through twice. I've had 400-speed film scanned eight or more times this way often with absolutely no damage whatsoever. Not having researched this before traveling with film is a bit negligent, IM-HO.

And, information about whether hand-inspection for film is available in your country is readily available from your airline or travel agent. Arguing with security officers in another country (and in a foreign language for them) is a bad idea, period. Add to this the already negative perception of American tourists as being ignorant and condescending and that's a recipe for inconvenience, to say the least. I'm glad the OP managed to get through his security check with everything undamaged and make his flight.

Best,

Doremus


some excellent points there. i blame the forums and what i read there rather than any sort of personal cultural attitudes ... i'd simply assumed these 'rules' were 'international' in nature and never really had much of a problem with hand checks in europe before ... well ... live and learn i guess!

the reason i posted though ... was to help anyone else who got in a sticky situation... perhaps they can use the same 'trick' i did ...

[Amedeus]

I believe we all have different experiences, following applies to my experience with Polaroid and Fuji instant film only.

I routinely travel with my Wista 4x5 RF and 12-15 boxes of Fuji FP100c45 and FP3000b45 in checked luggage as I'm carrying on my "digital bag". Last trip went from San Francisco to Hong kong to Shenzhen to Hong Kong to Singapore to Indonesia to SIngapore to Frankfurt to Morocco where the film was ultimately shot after being x-rayed 10 times through airports luggage systems, ferries and two airport arrival systems. There was no sign of any fogging nor X-ray exposure "stripes" on the 100 ISO nor the 3000 ISO film. Maybe I got lucky. I did a similar trip last year to Sicily without any issues after 7 X-ray scanning devices.

OTOH, I've had 5 boxes of Polaroid 803 (ISO 800) ruined by X-ray stripes when shipped from Russia to San Francisco few years back. Diagonal low contrast stripes all over the film ... This is the only time that I've seen issues with air shipping since my foray in shooting LF on instant film.

Cheers,

Rudi A.

[jnantz]

yes, good point John ...

though i was convinced a roll of 120 i processed years back when i was more laissez-faire about x rays got fogged and super grainy ... i think it was due to it getting cooked in the checked baggage scanner ... but since then i have tried to be more cautious ...


lol in that case maybe all my film got cooked because it is all foggy and super grainy, just like i like it !

[stawastawa]

I believe we all have different experiences, following applies to my experience with Polaroid and Fuji instant film only.

I routinely travel with my Wista 4x5 RF and 12-15 boxes of Fuji FP100c45 and FP3000b45 in checked luggage as I'm carrying on my "digital bag". Last trip went from San Francisco to Hong kong to Shenzhen to Hong Kong to Singapore to Indonesia to SIngapore to Frankfurt to Morocco where the film was ultimately shot after being x-rayed 10 times through airports luggage systems, ferries and two airport arrival systems. There was no sign of any fogging nor X-ray exposure "stripes" on the 100 ISO nor the 3000 ISO film. Maybe I got lucky. I did a similar trip last year to Sicily without any issues after 7 X-ray scanning devices.

OTOH, I've had 5 boxes of Polaroid 803 (ISO 800) ruined by X-ray stripes when shipped from Russia to San Francisco few years back. Diagonal low contrast stripes all over the film ... This is the only time that I've seen issues with air shipping since my foray in shooting LF on instant film.

Cheers,

Rudi A.

Thanks for this info - I had been curious about x-rays and shipping.

[Corran]

This seems like a good time to bring up something I've been meaning to post.

I flew from Phoenix, AZ earlier this year and I was alerted on another forum that they were a test airport for a "new" carry-on scanner that may be just as unsafe for film as checked baggage.

I was already planning on asking for a hand-check so I wasn't worried. I did that and it turned out the TSA agent was a nice older man who knew what film was and we had a nice conversation. I thought it was a great time to ask about the supposed new x-ray scanner and if it was dangerous for film.

What he told me was that the new scanner which was being trialed at PHX actually was a much higher resolution imaging machine. The way this is achieved is identical to what many photographers do by stitching multiple images - the machine takes many images and then combines them to achieve that higher resolution. This has the side affect of dosing the x-ray'd item multiple times, perhaps 10-12 or more. If x-ray damage is indeed cumulative, this makes the damage really stack up if these machines are adopted universally.

The TSA agent repeated the typical line that nothing under 400 ISO should be affected, but regardless I personally would rather go for a hand-check. Why risk it?

There's a million anecdotal stories. My assumption is that the TSA or manufacturers aren't doing rigorous tests of these x-ray machines to see if it consistently fogs film over time or in how many doses. Why would they today? I am sure it was demanded of them when film was a billion-dollar industry closely intertwined with travel and leisure, but no longer. So assuming these machines become more commonplace (perhaps in larger American cities, and then abroad?), be careful.

[pjd]

I've been through Schiphol quite a few times with film without problem. They've been more understanding and professional than staff at Cardiff and Heathrow in my experience. Luck of the draw? I think staff are trained that anything out of the usual is suspicious, and carrying big film cameras has become increasingly unusual.

A family member visited me in Korea a couple of years back and did me a favour by bringing a batch of film I'd bought with her -unfortunately in checked luggage. The film turned out to be fine, that had gone through scanners in Cardiff and Schipol.

I've not had problems with film going through multiple carry on scans. Maybe fears of x-ray scanners might have been blown out of proportion a little, with regard to film.

[Doremus Scudder]

some excellent points there. i blame the forums and what i read there rather than any sort of personal cultural attitudes ... i'd simply assumed these 'rules' were 'international' in nature and never really had much of a problem with hand checks in europe before ... well ... live and learn i guess!
the reason i posted though ... was to help anyone else who got in a sticky situation... perhaps they can use the same 'trick' i did ...

JW,

It's good then that the subject has come up again and we can emphasize that rules about hand-inspection of film vary from country to country (and even airport to airport it seems!) and that we should study up before we depart. I don't know about recommending your trick though... the security agents might just confiscate the film, especially if they're having a bad day or feel somehow insulted. I recommend smiling and saying "yes, sir" to the security guys now. My impudence and sarcasm got me escorted by a Marine to a flight several years ago (not about film inspection, however). I've toned it down a bit since then :)

It seems some have got lucky a couple of times carrying film in checked baggage. However, and to clear up any confusion here, we should emphasize that film should not be transported in checked baggage, rather in carry-on baggage. The scanners for checked baggage are generally much stronger than those for carry-on, and can (and have) damaged film.

I sure hope that the multi-image scanners that Corran mentions don't become common, or that they at least are not damaging to film. At any rate, it seems they are being introduced in the U.S., where you can ask for hand inspection.

My M.O. when traveling with film is to ask for hand inspection where possible (i.e., the U.S., where I've had nothing but good experiences with the TSA in this regard) and to allow the film to go through the carry-on scanner everywhere else after removing it from the bag and putting it in a separate bin. This ensures that the film only gets scanned once; if you leave it in the bag, especially if you have loaded filmholders or any kind of electronics, the security personnel often aren't sure what it is and will ask you to remove it and run it through the scanner again separately.

Best,

Doremus

[Pere Casals]

from what i understand
there is more radiation bombarding your film IN the plane as you fly 20K feet up, than the scanners emit ..
==
ive travelled from the states to europe bunces and no one but the states will hand inspect your film.
that said, i have had film travel through these baggage scanners countless times 800+3200 speed
nothing happens. if this was 1980 i am sure it would be a different thing, but its not.
UMMV

Problem can be old scanners one can find perhaps in remote locations. The x dose has been shrinking a lot in modern times.

Sebastiao Salgado cited a problem he had with X-Rays on his 220 format TXP as a factor in his move to digital, he got his film scanned 6 times (because a long trip)... but IMHO he got film damaged in a single old scanner.

I'm thinking in a test to know any damage level, this is x-scanning 20 times a sample film and then comparing with a control sample than has not been scanned. This can be made by shotting 2 sample rolls, and always travelling with one of the samples until it accumulates a number of x-scans, then developing both samples...

[Sweep]

On a recent trip from England to Italy I deliberately took a sacrificial roll of 120 FP4, HP5 and Velvia.
They went through the x-ray going out, unexposed, and came back through the x-ray, exposed, and all developed fine.
Give it a try to put your mind at ease.
It didn't, of course, prevent the discussion with the security staff in England about what was this strange 120 roll film stuff :)

[jnantz]

Problem can be old scanners one can find perhaps in remote locations. The x dose has been shrinking a lot in modern times.

Sebastiao Salgado cited a problem he had with X-Rays on his 220 format TXP as a factor in his move to digital, he got his film scanned 6 times (because a long trip)... but IMHO he got film damaged in a single old scanner.

I'm thinking in a test to know any damage level, this is x-scanning 20 times a sample film and then comparing with a control sample than has not been scanned. This can be made by shotting 2 sample rolls, and always travelling with one of the samples until it accumulates a number of x-scans, then developing both samples...

yeah, i think you are right ... big places have new-stuff and it is the olde-stuff that is bad.
in hospitals the direct digital scanners use a tiny amount of radiation compared to the olde ones
but CT ( xrays to digitally make 3d images ) still uses a giant amount.
i guess airports are stuck in the vast-middle.
the monitors for the direct digital cost more than $70K
so i am guessing the TSA isnt' there yet ...

[Pere Casals]

yeah, i think you are right ... big places have new-stuff and it is the olde-stuff that is bad.
in hospitals the direct digital scanners use a tiny amount of radiation compared to the olde ones
but CT ( xrays to digitally make 3d images ) still uses a giant amount.
i guess airports are stuck in the vast-middle.
the monitors for the direct digital cost more than $70K
so i am guessing the TSA isnt' there yet ...

Today a torax rx has a dose (0.1 mSv) equivalent of average some 10 days of natural radicativity, while a CT may dose from 6 months to 7 years of natural radiactivity. CT delivers a synthetic image that is obtained after thousands of point to point readings. In fact the computer solves a large amount of Simultaneous Equations, each equation is from a point to point reading, a reading see the added opacity of a row of pixels. From that large number of simultaneous equations it is found the opacity of each pixel, and just displaying the opacity of each pixel the tomographic image is obtained. 20 years ago (still I remember it :)) I studied the EMI case http://tiger.gatech.edu/files/KauffmanPresentations/Teachingnote_Ch1.pdf

There was a UK vynil importer, Odeon, and some guys from Liverpool (The Beatles) signed a contract with them. So Odeon bought Electro Medicine Industries, EMI, since then EMI-Odeon. EMI had a visionary man in the house that invented CT. That business case is a very teached example about patents and tech business. At the end General Electric got the lions share...

Today rx CT machines are increasingly seen in the food industry to detect problems in the food, for example a 2mm fragment of an steel saw inside hamburguers... it is considered safe with food, but not as safe with living humans...


But if it is a NRI (Nuclear Resonance Imaging) there is no dose, the synthetic image is obtained in a similar way, but system uses strong magnetic fields to trigger resonance in H atoms, and antenas take the signals from that. In this way NRI can deliver a large amount of tomographies to build a 3D without any radiactive dose.

Sorry for the off...

[pepeguitarra]

A friend had all his film exposed (even the ones he had shot) when living Israel via Tel-Aviv Airport. They did not care, they wanted to make sure it was safe. Think that when going there.

[Bob Salomon]

Way back in the early 50s my father received an Honorary Deputy Sheriff’s badge for Fairfield County, CT. After he died I was given it and put it in my overcoat pocket. Now forward to the early 80s and I had a business trip to Broncolor in Basel, Switzerland. Since Basel is in Switzerland, Germany and France the airport has separate entry and exits to each country.
When I left I was wearing that overcoat and was having a very difficult time getting my equipment through the security checkpoint which was in the French area. My rudimentary French was not understood by the gendarme and things were getting a bit heated! They then wanded me and the beeper went off as it passed over my pocket which he mimed for me to empty.
Much to my embarrassment the Sheriff’s badge landed on the table in front of the collected crowd of gendarmes! One took a look, said “Ah gendarme” and I said no, but they wouldn’t listen. They closed up my cases and waved me through!

[JMO]

All this discussion about difficulties getting film safely through airports only confirms to me why I am NOT planning to take any of my MF or LF film cameras out of the country, or even on flights within the US where I live. I am retired now about 3.5 years, and travelled all over the world (30+ countries, many visited 3-4 times) for the last 11 years of my work career, usually with DSLR in tow. But when I go out of the country now with my wife on vacation I only take my very compact digital photo kit and a traveller's tripod. Over those many years of international travel I often thought that there are so many interesting places in the US that I have never seen and enjoyed; so now I look forward to driving trips with my cameras to explore, enjoy and photograph!

[Doremus Scudder]

All this discussion about difficulties getting film safely through airports only confirms to me why I am NOT planning to take any of my MF or LF film cameras out of the country, or even on flights within the US where I live. I am retired now about 3.5 years, and travelled all over the world (30+ countries, many visited 3-4 times) for the last 11 years of my work career, usually with DSLR in tow. But when I go out of the country now with my wife on vacation I only take my very compact digital photo kit and a traveller's tripod. Over those many years of international travel I often thought that there are so many interesting places in the US that I have never seen and enjoyed; so now I look forward to driving trips with my cameras to explore, enjoy and photograph!

JMO,

Do what you will, but really, getting film through airports is easy and safe as long as you carry it in your hand luggage. I do it all the time. In the U.S., the TSA agents are more than willing to do a hand inspection if asked. However, unless you anticipate your film getting scanned more than 6 times, just let it go through the scanner. No problems these days with multiple scans of film.

When traveling abroad, hand inspections are usually not available; just let them scan the film. Again, no problems with multiple scans.

I currently have homes on two continents and travel a lot with film. I've never had any film damaged from hand-luggage scanners (320/400 ISO). I've carried loaded 4x5 filmholders, both unexposed and exposed, and boxes of unexposed and exposed film - no problems with up to 8 scans at times. As far as I'm concerned, the bulk of traveling with LF gear is more of a constraint than carrying film.

I recommend removing your film, filmholders, camera backs, etc. from your hand luggage and having them go through the scanner separately. That's it; no fuss, no muss and no film damage.

BTW, I like road trips too! (Doesn't stop me from flying, though.)

Best,

Doremus

[Bernard_L]

Crap like this is why we have opted to leave the EEC.
Pete.
And if a plane from an EU (EEC became EU in Maastricht, 25 years ago...) country suffers a hijacking or worse, people like you will be the first to comment on lax security at them EU airports.

[jackdab]

I always keep an exposed sheet or film to show them what film looks like. Some of these airport security officials are just kids who grew up in a digital world and do not understand what film is. I never have problems especially when I show them the effect of X-rayed film on a damaged 120 roll.

[Rayt]

I travel quite a bit and often had to explain to younger security people what is this "film" thingy. When my Rolleiflex TLR or Hasselblad SWC goes through the x-ray immediately I get flagged. This happens 9 out of 10 times. So no way will I draw attention to sheet film. Some one will inevitably ask me to open a box and I am out of Readyloads. Anyway 50 rolls of TMY 120 got zapped between Brussels airport and Morocco at least 10 times last month with no apparent damage so I don't worry about it. But the last time I flew out of SFO they were using the new MRI type scanners. Hmmm.

[germansaram]

I always keep an exposed sheet or film to show them what film looks like. Some of these airport security officials are just kids who grew up in a digital world and do not understand what film is. I never have problems especially when I show them the effect of X-rayed film on a damaged 120 roll.

This sounds like a great handy solution for all the people here having problems to explain what film is while insisting on hand inspection. But seems like the radiation isn't that grave as some expect. Anyways, I wish everybody safe films and great results.

[Bob Salomon]

This sounds like a great handy solution for all the people here having problems to explain what film is while insisting on hand inspection. But seems like the radiation isn't that grave as some expect. Anyways, I wish everybody safe films and great results.

But showing them a piece of film doesn’t really explain what might be in a sealed film box. Just because the box is labeled “film” isn’t a guarantee that it actually contains film!

[Willie]

Or get a copy of the official rules in your country. I always carry a copy of the US rules -- I've only needed to pull them out once.

Get the wrong official at the place and pull out "official rules" and be ready for body cavity searches, tearing apart anything and everything you have with you and a miserable time as you are held long enough to miss your plane. Then when you act frustrated they will start with "resisting", "acting in a suspicious manner" and any of a list of things that they can pile on.

[Bob Salomon]

Get the wrong official at the place and pull out "official rules" and be ready for body cavity searches, tearing apart anything and everything you have with you and a miserable time as you are held long enough to miss your plane. Then when you act frustrated they will start with "resisting", "acting in a suspicious manner" and any of a list of things that they can pile on.

Better would be to request, politely, they call the supervisor over for an opinion.

[germansaram]

But showing them a piece of film doesn’t really explain what might be in a sealed film box. Just because the box is labeled “film” isn’t a guarantee that it actually contains film!

You are right! But it might help with all the confusion what film is. I thought that was the main problem, which many users described here.

[parkcy31]

Or get a copy of the official rules in your country. I always carry a copy of the US rules -- I've only needed to pull them out once.

I tried this and it worked! Ty