Airport Scanners - the age old question (finally somewhat settled)

[John NYC]

I guess, the whole of this LF community will be speechless and breathless while waiting...

No one makes you read this stuff.

[John NYC]

Recently I took some 120 shots in Montreal and a couple of my Portra 400 rolls had some strange brown-grey spots, so now, I am going to test this newly x-ray exposed roll of Porta and see if there are any issues, though it will be a few weeks until I get back in town and can get the film developed.

Follow up: I shot and dev'ed the Portra 400, the HP5 and the Pan F that went through the long wait time in the scanner in NYC. Only the Pan F roll seems to have been *potentially* damaged, as there are some banding issues in the negs unlike anything I've seen from dev mistakes before.

[BrianShaw]

Hey John, that sounds morelike CAT damage than what one might get from a carry-on baggage scanner, like Rapiscan equipment.

BTW, some of your assumption in earlier post, "All the while my own bag was visibly on the screen and being x-rayed, I am guessing continuously for that time since the pictures move smoothly as the belt moves and not in "snapshots.", isn't completely accurate. Possible, but not completely accurate in the absolute. The Rapiscan and other scanners have a red light on them that illuminates when radiation is being used to image the bag. Often that can't be seen while standing in line being jostled etc, but it is surprisingly off more than it is on. The images captured can indeed be viewed snapshot (still) and manipulated using image enhancement/manipulation software techniques without additional radiation exposure.

[Steve Goldstein]

John, out of Portra400, HP5, and PanF, the one I'd least expect to be affected would be the PanF because it's so much slower. Have you tried another roll from that batch that didn't go through the scanner? Perhaps the problem occurred earlier.

I've personally had no problem with FP4+ and TMY2 that have gone through carry-on X-ray at least 6 times in both 120 and 4x5 formats.

[cyrus]

Look guys, I think we can put this to rest. Anecdotally, I've been through every sort of scanner at every sort of airport in every sort of hitthole third-world country, and have never ever ever never ever never had any fogging problems (we're talking about the scanner that is used on carry-ons and not the scanners used on checked baggage.) In fact I am not aware of a single post by anyone on any photo forum which has made a believable case that the airport scanner fogged their film. Lets just put this to rest.

[BrianShaw]

I agree, cyrus, and add that there is empirical data by a reputable scientific body that trumps all of our anecdotal stories or self-conducted experience. Also, there is factory data on the inner workings and capabilities of airport screening scanners if one goes looking for it. Although I stay away from the third-world, I too have traveled US and second-world extensively with film of all sizes and many speeds (400 and below) TOTALLY without incident -- either in terms of fogging, banding, or disagreable TSA (or "foreign" equivelent) personnel.

But that said... you repeatedly suggesting "put it to rest" is wasted breath (or keystrokes, really). People LOVE this topic and LOVE to have opinions on it, whether based in fact, fiction, or fantasy.

[cyrus]

But that said... you repeatedly suggesting "put it to rest" is wasted breath (or keystrokes, really). People LOVE this topic and LOVE to have opinions on it, whether based in fact, fiction, or fantasy.

So, how long do you think film will last? Isn't digital so much better than film?

[BrianShaw]

I think film will last 17.8 more years. Then the discussion of xray damage will end.

[IanG]

good, now if only other foreign airports have the same up-to-date scanners.

No many US airports have older less safe scanners, so you can't trust all foreign countries.

However ironically many poorer countries usually have much more up to date film safe scanners, mainly as they have newer airports etc and have been forced to upgrade to meet International standards.

Some airports scan ALL luggage on arrival, Lima, Peru for instance but this is for agricultural reasons to safeguard their unique biodiversity and prevent illegal food/plant imports spreading diseases.

Ian

[John NYC]

I agree, cyrus, and add that there is empirical data by a reputable scientific body that trumps all of our anecdotal stories or self-conducted experience. Also, there is factory data on the inner workings and capabilities of airport screening scanners if one goes looking for it. Although I stay away from the third-world, I too have traveled US and second-world extensively with film of all sizes and many speeds (400 and below) TOTALLY without incident -- either in terms of fogging, banding, or disagreable TSA (or "foreign" equivelent) personnel.

But that said... you repeatedly suggesting "put it to rest" is wasted breath (or keystrokes, really). People LOVE this topic and LOVE to have opinions on it, whether based in fact, fiction, or fantasy.

Kodak seems to disagree with you, but whatever.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...7&postcount=27

I think I pointed out quite clearly with the emphasis in my post that I cannot be certain this is what caused it, but the banding is curved and across some of the negs but not all on the roll. It really does look like what is on the Kodak site at the very bottom of the page, but very minor in comparison. None of the other rolls from my same purchase batch have had this. Same lab that delivers almost perfect negs every time.