Airport X-Rays, Part II

[tim atherton]

"As to my having film ruined, it was damaged using the CTX5000 scanner, from multiple passes. "

The CTX5000 scanner is not for checking hand baggage but for chekced baggage and it is accepted that it will damage film, depending on the films orientation. (and doesn't need muliple passes to do so. The scanner is more akin to a CAT scan than an X-Ray machine.

They have been in use since well before 9/11. As far as I know (although there was talk of ti) they have not been introduced for checkign carry on luggage eiuther in N Marica or Europe (for one thing, they are pretty large (they look like a very large hospital type CATScanner)

[Michael Kadillak]

You can be holding a stack of current FTA rules and regulations an inch thick thick to show the TSA inspector staff and I can tell you that it is not worth the paper it is written on. Going through Denver International Airport with this information a while back I ask for the head inspector or supervisor and he told me that it is open the box, go through the x ray machine or go home. I asked for his supervisor and he said that he was the main man. End of discussion. I bring up the word "lawyer", he casually reaches in his front pocket to hand me his business card and tells me he wants to make sure that I have his name and title correct and personally leads me out of the screening area. Boy, I sure showed him didn't I?

If all mail is x rayed, how is it that I we can all get film in the mail from Croatia and elsewhere that has minimal fb+fog?

Be reasonable people. We can whine until the cows come home but it is what it is. And unfortunately, it will probably get worse before it gets any better. I can envision private LF fim cooperatives in various parts of the country that participating photographers can network through to secure film at their destinations wherever it may be so that film and airports will be a thing of the past. All you need to get in would be a 23 cubic foot freezer full of film.

Anyone coming to Colorado soon, I got you covered.

Cheers!

[Jeff Conrad]

George,



Dave’s quotation of 49 CFR 1544.211(e)(4) is correct:

“If requested by individuals, their photographic equipment and film
packages must be inspected without exposure to an X-ray system.”

This is all that the law has to say on the matter, and it’s simply a
restatement of 14 CFR 108.17(e) that was in effect for years prior to 9/11:

“If requested by passengers, their photographic equipment and film
packages shall be inspected without exposure to an X-ray system.”

As has been mentioned, this issue tends to get emotional, as does any issue
affecting a photographer’s freedom. In most cases, however, what we
or anyone else think is reasonable is for the most part
irrelevant—it’s a matter of law rather than belief.
Photographers and enforcement personnel alike should be aware of the
applicable laws, and both should observe them. Obviously, photographers
who cite the law for a particular jurisdiction (in this case, the United
States) must keep in mind that it applies only in that jurisdiction.





A bit of diplomacy often can head off a potentially heated discussion. Many
photographers have had good luck agreeing with TSA inspectors that a single
pass through X-ray equipment isn’t likely to be a problem for low- or
medium-speed film, but pointing out that the same may not be true for
repeated exposures. With this explanation, rather than a challenge to
their authority, many inspectors are more cooperative.





This explanation essentially is the same as that in the

Transporting Film article on the TSA web site:

“If the same roll of film is exposed to X-ray inspections more than 5
times before it is developed, however, damage may occur. Protect your film
by requesting a hand-inspection for your film if it has already passed
through the carry-on baggage screening equipment (X-ray) more than 5 times.”

so a TSA inspector or supervisor easily can check it if he or she is skeptical.

[Paddy Quinn]

"Every time we have an enemy in site, we dehumanize the bums. From 'Japs' to 'krauts' to 'gooks' to 'towelheads'. Too damn bad."

I seem to remember you lost one of those rather badly? By a people who live in what I can only imagine you consider a "sewer infested backwater" And I suppose the jury is still out on the last one.

I so heartening to see that xenophobic isolationism never really went out of fashion in the US. Where would we be without it. Hurrah for our neo-imperialist ambitions and all that.

[george jiri loun]

Good, Jeff, that's one part of Dave's citation but it doesn't make things better, I'm affraid. It's the first part of his citation where it says "...screeners may only inspect the film manually, visually..." (and we know now that this part is not the text of the regulation contrary to the citation) that poses problem. What is this visual inspection in case of a hermetically closed film? Is it just a casual look at the item or a closed look at its content..? It's more the nature of the hand inspection that is the problem rather than just avoiding the x ray. And it's probably there the space for individual imagination of a single inspector what to do with the film you put into his hands... If the regulation doesn't state how far the look can go we're in troubles and the best is probably to put it back on the machine...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LF fim cooperatives in various parts of the country that participating photographers can network through to secure film at their destinations wherever it may be so that film and airports will be a thing of the past.

There is one already, I am susprised more people here dont use it. The LF photographers list is somewhere in this site, you can check if someone lives hwere you are going and e mail him/her to ask them if they would be willing to hold film for you.

Personally I have had 3 guys comming to Mexico who asked me to get chemicals and film for them, I was glad to do so.....

[Tom Diekwisch]

Goerge's comments are really too unfortunate as they use general statements about the safety of airport X-ray machine. As much as there have been many who's film went through the machines without problems, there have been as many who have had X-ray damage. Just from my humble perspective I am sure the FAA wouldn't allow for exceptions if there wasn't a problem. Years ago I also believed that the machines were safe until I had material for an important assignment damaged due to X-ray machines. Just for the sake of accuracy, in this case it was 35mm, and it was bought in those 20 roll pro-packs. I exposed roughly 5 rolls. Another 5 were carried with me for reserve purposes. This was a one-week assignment, and nothing unusual happened to the film other than that I took it with me on the plane. When I got the film developed afterwards in one of Chicago's biggest pro-labs, which always develops my film and routinely does a superb job, the film was damaged to a degree that it was no longer usuable. The entire job was ruined. Just to make sure, I developed some film from the same box that I carried with me and didn't expose and some of the left-over, and it turned out that all the film I took with me had spotty fogging all over the emulsion while the one that stayed at home didn't. I wouldn't even have been suspicious if I wouldn't have had the same experience previous with film that was scanned. George may or may not believe my story, but that was my experience, and there are hundreds or thousands of internet postings with similar experiences. I guess you change your mind after a job has been irreplacibly ruined by X-ray, including an ever-so-small slice of your professional credibility. BTW - the film was 100ASA film. On the other hand, I have never been refused hand-inspection afterwards. The security people see my camera equipment and figure out the rest. I am usually very polite and supportive of whatever they require. From time to time I ask for a superviser. I just explain my situation and I have found security people to be quite accommodating. I'd also argue that the overall-makeup and training of the security crowd has significantly improved after 9/11. I don't know specifics and as much as I don't like blanket statements, but meanwhile I find them to be more intelligent than the pre-9/11 inspectors. I still remember, and here I agree with a previous poster, that the pre-9/11 inspectors often weren't able to comprehend that those metal cases I was carrying were cameras, while today they often spot them first time as such and even engage in conversations about camera equipment. There was one who would have wished to confiscate the entire bag... Anyway, joking aside, X-ray damage happens, and has at least happened to me. If it doesn't happen to you consider yourself fortunate, because you'll make a long face, if all your film was ruined.

[george jiri loun]

I really don't see anything unfortunate on the fact that x ray machines for hand baggage were tested by professionals from photography industry and were declared safe in their limits. Quite the contrary.

[Mike Lewis]

Avoid TSA and the airports and ship your film via FedEx to and from your destination. I ship Quickloads via FedEx Ground in a box prominently marked "Photographic Film-- Do Not X-Ray". Three boxes of Quickloads in a 6x6x12 inch cardboard box weighs about 3.5 pounds and costs about $6-9 to ship domestically in the U.S., taking about five business days. If you're not in a hurry to get your film back, this works. If you are in a hurry, two boxes of Quickloads shipped 3-day FedEx air costs about $18 for domestic U.S. shipment. I've never shipped overnight, but it's hard for me to imagine an LF photographer being in that much of a hurry about, well, anything. :-) I've shipped both FedEx ground and air and haven't had a detectable problem with X-rays, given my marked box.

About that box; it's looking kinda beat-up. Guess I'd better start using a new one. :-)

[Will Strain]

From the same TSA film link provided above:

Specialty film **

Specialty film is defined as film with an ASA/ISO 800 or higher and typically used by professionals.

At the passenger security checkpoint, you should remove the following types of film from your carry-on baggage and ask for a hand inspection:

Film with an ASA/ISO 800 or higher
Highly sensitive X-ray or scientific films
Film of any speed which is subjected to X-ray surveillance more than 5 times (the effect of X-ray screening is cumulative)
Film that is or will be underexposed
Film that you intend to 'push process'
Sheet film
Large format film
Medical film
Scientific film
Motion picture film
Professional grade film

So large format professional grade film hits it on several levels. I'm going to print out this page and take it with me everywhere... at least it has the TSA logo on the top...