London Airport

[Mike Boden]

Just a heads up...I'm currently sitting in London airport on my way to Italy after having gone through airport security, and I was forced to have my film x-rayed. I was able to hand-check the film in Los Angeles, but not here. I tried to put up a fight, but was unsuccessful. Has anybody had a different experience, or is this what's to be expected?

[Mark Mellen]

I have been a couple times to the UK and found the airports all about the same. I was told everything goes through X-ray. So when traveling abroad from the U.S one should expect this....

[Kirk Gittings]

That was my experience a year and a half ago. But I expected it and bought my film in England and had it shipped to my first hotel. On the way back I had it Fedxed home.

[Once]

Just a heads up...I'm currently sitting in London airport on my way to Italy after having gone through airport security, and I was forced to have my film x-rayed. snip

So? What's the big deal?

[domenico Foschi]

I have had HP5+ xrayed 4 times and nothing has happened.
Enjoy the trip

[SAShruby]

I had my film x-rayed through baggage x-rays multiple times, perfectly OK. I stop worrying about x-raying film. Nothing will happen to it.

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but I had film fried by the xray machines in Chicago two years ago and will never trust them again. This is how I make my living and it is not worth the risk.


Just give up false assumptions about x-rays for good.

[Ash]

I'm surprised anybody even bothers to put up a fight anymore.

Last year, I had a 1930's Zeiss Nettar 515... it was in my hand luggage, in it's soft carry case. Because they couldn't identify it on xray they pulled my whole bag apart in front of the ongoing mass of people, had me identify everything down to a tin of mints.

They took my camera from me, walked 5ft away and with a back to me swabbed it for explosives.

It was then returned to me (as was my now emptied bag and contents) and they left me to re-pack it and move on. The film was x-rayed again on the way bag from France. Shots were absolutely fine.


I often get 'random' searched at airports, and more often than not I have my bag emptied and examined.

Such is the way in the UK.


A few years ago at the height of the airport scares (in a smaller airport outside of London) I had many rolls of 35mm and two cameras in my hand luggage. They didn't even both to empty the bag.

[Once]

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but I had film fried by the xray machines in Chicago two years ago and will never trust them again. This is how I make my living and it is not worth the risk.

Hand baggage carry on or checked in baggage?

[Kirk Gittings]

After thoroughly testing the xray machines at airports from Albuquerque to Chicago and Heathrow last year, I got burned on a recent trip to Chicago working on an upcoming exhibit. My 4x5 color neg and b&w readyload film was uniformly fogged adding .20 on average to the base density. This was true on both checked and hand carried baggage with some slight variations in the fog density. These were opened boxes that I had used a couple of days before the trip with no issues.

From my post shortly after it happened.

[Once]

At that time, didn't you know that checked-in baggage x-rays are too strong for films?

[Mark Mellen]

I agree with Kirk, When someone spends thousands of dollars to do a shoot not to mention the time involved which outways the money,why would one want to risk losing a single photo much less many of Photographs that did not come easy. Many shots can't be reproduced again and maybe of great value. On Velvia packages it plainly states keep from X-Ray.
I do comply when I travel abroad, figuring that is how they do things.
When in the U.S. I have given the airport security fits over protecting my film either exposed or not.
If I do have run un-exposed through xray more than once I will throw it away!

[Kirk Gittings]

Once,

a) As I stated I had thoroughly tested this a few months prior with no problems from ABQ to Chicago and back and to Heathrow and back.
b) As I stated it happened on both check film and hand carried from or to Chicago.

Maybe you knew something nobody else did at that time. At that time everyone was claiming it was safe. We discuss this issue all the time here, every couple of months and summarize peoples recent experience.

I for one no longer take any chances. It is not worth playing Russian Roulette with my film.

[Once]

Kirk,
a) you did not say that you tested the machines with OK result - quite the opposite (after thoroughly testing... I got burnt...)
b) how come you got "burnt" when your thorough tests were OK? Apparently, there were two different situations you're speaking about. One OK and the other negative?

The fact that this issue has been discussed here is a well known fact to me. And the common conclusion of these debates is that the hand baggage x-ray is safe. Many tests were done by many institutions with the same conclusion.

[Anupam]

Last week I managed to get my 35mm films hand checked at Heathrow. I tossed in a couple of 3200 rolls and showed it to them. They make a fuss otherwise.

[Once]

Once,

-snip-
Maybe you knew something nobody else did at that time. At that time everyone was claiming it was safe. We discuss this issue all the time here, every couple of months and summarize peoples recent experience.

snip.

What I know is that the check-in baggage x-ray machines are not safe for film. This knowledge is a well known fact, expressed many times in discussions about this subject. Didn't you know it at that time?

[SAShruby]

What I know is that the check-in baggage x-ray machines are not safe for film. This knowledge is a well known fact, expressed many times in discussions about this subject. Didn't you know it at that time?

Well, I can speak from my experience. FP4, TMX, TMY and Delta 100 were gone 4x through check-in baggage x-rays, no problems whatsoever.

[Kirk Gittings]

Well, I can speak from my experience. FP4, TMX, TMY and Delta 100 were gone 4x through check-in baggage x-rays, no problems whatsoever.

FWIW,

PETER Yes, me too until that fateful trip. All the contradictory stories bugged me enough so just to be sure I had run test film through both checked baggage and carry on a few months before some important trips. The methodology was to shoot identical exposures of just test shots and unexposed film too and carry them through and check some sheets through too. This was especially important because of the reputation at Heathrow for refusing to hand check film. This was important to me because I had an important project coming up in England. But I also tested it to and from Chicago because I spend so much time there. I then had the film processed at the destination and vice versa on return, checking the film on a densitometer against unexposed processed film. At the time of the tests there was no problem of any kind. My later trip to England went fine but I covered my bases by sending duplicate exposures back by Fed EX. Subsequent trips to Chicago had no problem until the one fateful trip. The film was not ruined, but the x-ray added an obvious additional .20 (on average) base fog to both Acros and 160 color neg film readyloads. That much base fog is noticeable but the negatives are still printable. As a result of that experience, this is just not a risk I am willing to take anymore. Film even at Europeon prices or adding Fed Ex shipping both ways IMO is a small expense compared to travel costs in general.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Examples of X-ray damage that I've seen have always been bands of exposure rather than a uniform increase in base fog, and there are plenty of possible sources of base fog--darkroom light leaks, chemistry problems, film aging or exposure to heat all come to mind. I try to minimize X-ray exposure as a precaution myself, but if I saw a uniform increase in base fog, I would look for other sources.

[SAShruby]

Kirk,

I do see your point, however I didn't encouter it. Maybe, Chicago airport as well as Heathrow airport use some sort of older x-ray scanners or different scanners. Personally, I didn't carry film through those two particular airports, but I went through other airports in US and Canada, and so far, I didn't notice any fogging.

But then, maybe once it would happen to me and then I will determine if it's worth for me to throw extra money every time I travel somewhere or not. Furthermore, I don't make business doing photography, so I'm not dependent that much on failure as you are. You can add those expenses into customer's invoice but I don't. Paying over 100 bucks for Fedex each way is too much money I'm willing to spend on my own.

[Kirk Gittings]

Examples of X-ray damage that I've seen have always been bands of exposure rather than a uniform increase in base fog, and there are plenty of possible sources of base fog--darkroom light leaks, chemistry problems, film aging or exposure to heat all come to mind. I try to minimize X-ray exposure as a precaution myself, but if I saw a uniform increase in base fog, I would look for other sources.

David, I didn't say it was uniform, I said it averaged .20. But it was not banding however. I looked at that issue too, but nothing else explained it as some of the "fogged" film from that trip was unexposed, some was color negative, some was b&w, some I processed, some a lab processed. It was not heat exposure, nor was it out of date. There were no light leaks in the bellows, the test polaroids were fine and there were never any problems since with that VC or the readyload holder or any of the equipment. Nor was there a problem with film shot from some those packages that I shot the week before at home. Film was not loaded in a leaky environment-it was readyloads. The only thing I couldn't rule out was x-ray. If you can think of anything else I would entertain it, but what is left?

[roteague]

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but I had film fried by the xray machines in Chicago two years ago and will never trust them again. This is how I make my living and it is not worth the risk.

It's highly unlikely your problem was with the airport x-ray machine. Those machines are regulated on their output, and the operators wear indicators showing how much exposure they have gotten.

[roteague]

Well, I can speak from my experience. FP4, TMX, TMY and Delta 100 were gone 4x through check-in baggage x-rays, no problems whatsoever.

I've carried Velvia through as many as 10 x-ray checks in a single trip - never any problem. ALL x-ray machines are regulated to how much they can output.

[Kirk Gittings]

From a Kodak site posted today, July 5th 2008, for their motion picture films (which are color negative films asa 100-500), (revised slightly from a similar warning they made in 2001, emphasis mine):

Film stock
AIRPORT X-RAY SECURITY
Security precautions at US airports have been significantly tightened following the tragic events of September 11th. Among precautions that travelers can expect will be the increased use of new, high-intensity x-ray scanners for checked baggage and hand-carried baggage. Passengers should be aware that these high-intensity x-ray machines will fog and ruin all unprocessed film of any speed, whether exposed or not. Kodak recommends that air travelers do not carry unexposed or unprocessed motion picture film. If it is unavoidable that film is carried, passengers should contact the airport in advance to request hand-inspection, allow additional check-in time for such procedures, and follow the advice given below.
CHECKED BAGGAGE
Any checked baggage may be subject to high-intensity x-ray scanning in a machine that is out of sight of travelers. Airline check-in agents rarely, if ever, warn travelers of this. Kodak is pressing for warning notices to be posted at check-in desks and for verbal warnings to be given to travelers. Never pack unprocessed film in baggage that will be checked.
HAND-CARRIED BAGGAGE
Carry-on baggage inspection conveyors using low intensity x-rays, used at security checkpoints in US airports, usually do not affect film. However, these machines may now be supplemented in some cases by high intensity machines that will fog all unprocessed film.Travelers should be wary of all scanners at foreign airports. Travelers should politely insist on hand-inspection of their film. Carry a changing bag for use by the inspector. Demonstrate how it is used, with a can of fogged film as an example. However, there is no guarantee that your request will be granted by local inspectors, who may insist on x-ray inspection. Hand inspection may not be permitted in some airports outside the US.
AIR FREIGHT SERVICES
We understand that express air package shipping services such as Airborne, DHL, FedEx, UPS, etc that use their own aircraft, do not employ x-ray scanning of customers' packages on domestic routes. However, this should be verified when sending film. The same carriers may employ passenger airlines for international routes. Goods shipped as freight on passenger airlines are subject to high-intensity x-ray scanning. It is recommended that film shipped as unaccompanied freight is labeled "DO NOT X-RAY. IF X-RAY IS MANDATORY, DO NOT SHIP / DO NOT X-RAY / CONTACT SENDER URGENTLY".
LOCAL FILM PURCHASE AND PROCESSING
To minimize the risks of shipping by air, Kodak recommends that motion picture film should be purchased locally through the nearest Kodak sales office. After exposure, the film should be processed at a local motion-picture laboratory. After processing, the film may be safely transported by air.
US MAIL STERILIZATION
The United States Postal Service is installing new equipment to sterilize items sent through the mail. For security reasons, they are not disclosing whether this process will be limited to letters, or if parcels and other packages will also be included. Until further tests are conducted, it would be wise to assume that the high energy beams used in the sterilization equipment will fog or damage all film - processed or unprocessed, exposed or unexposed, negative or print. In addition, photographic prints, slides, DVDs, picture CDs, CD-ROMs, video tapes and even the CCD sensors in video cameras and other products may be affected. Because those materials often contain valuable - and sometimes, irreplaceable, images - Kodak recommends that you err on the side of caution until more information is available. All imaging materials should be sent via a courier or an express air shipping company that does not use the US postal system. Local laboratories may have additional information and/or offer alternative shipping arrangements.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Motion-picture film and other photographic products manufactured by Eastman Kodak Company are distributed by means that avoid any risk of damage by x-rays, high-energy electron beams or any other harmful radiations. Kodak is working closely with industry organizations, the FAA and the US Postal Service to minimize the impact of necessary new security procedures on the shipping of its products. As new information becomes available it will be published and placed here.

http://www.kodakcinelabs.ro/RO/en/motion/cinelabs/films/xray.shtml

I'm actually going to start a new thread with this as I think it is important.

[Oren Grad]

Kirk, that same document, posted elsewhere on the Kodak site, is dated Nov. 2, 2001:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/xrays_airport.jhtml

It's hard to know what to make of it now.

[Kirk Gittings]

I see what you mean. It seemed to say here it was posted July 5th 2008?
http://www.kodakcinelabs.ro/RO/en/motion/cinelabs/films/xray.shtml
They must think it is still a valid warning?

[Oren Grad]

It says here it was posted (reposted again?) July 5th 2008?
http://www.kodakcinelabs.ro/RO/en/motion/cinelabs/films/xray.shtml
They must think it is still a valid warning?

If you look at the other pages on that Romanian Kodak site, all of them say July 5, 2008 in the upper right. I looked at the source code for the page, and if I'm reading it correctly there's a function there to grab the current date and post it.

EDIT: The copyright notice at the bottom of the page says 2004, which may be a better indication of when it was last updated. Even then, the content may have already been stale.

Anyway, it may still be a valid warning, but it's been up there for seven years, and experience with both airport carry-on xrays and USPS is largely at variance with that. So I just don't know what to think.

ANOTHER EDIT: The reference to USPS sterilization may be connected with the anthrax-in-the-mail episodes that occurred around then - I don't recall the exact timing.

[Kirk Gittings]

For the sake of argument here is an article from 2007 about ruined cinema film from airport x-rays, which may be why Kodak continues to post this as it appears to continue to be a problem unless someone can explain how cinema color negative film is fundamentally different than sheet film?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/television/2003564825_weblostfilm09.html

[Oren Grad]

For the sake of argument here is an article from 2007 about ruined cinema film from airport x-rays, which may be why Kodak continues to post this as it appears to continue to be a problem unless someone can explain how cinema color negative film is fundamentally different than sheet film?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/television/2003564825_weblostfilm09.html

That one appears to be about film that had been grouped with checked luggage.

I don't mean to be downplaying your concern based on your own experience. I'd be freaked too, unless I was able to come up with a clear and convincing alternative explanation. The best I can say is that I've never had a problem with film going through the carry-on baggage x-ray myself, but I know that doesn't prove anything.

[Kirk Gittings]

There is so much misinformation being spread around. Some people say hand carried is ok. Others that check in is OK. For a start here is what the TSA says (emphasis mine):

ITIP Imaging Materials Travel Guidelines
Film and Cameras

The International Imaging Industry Association (I3A) in cooperation with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has re-issued the warning to airline passengers carrying film: hand-carry your unprocessed film — do not put it in checked baggage.

The TSA has upgraded its ability to detect explosive devices that a terrorist may place aboard a commercial aircraft. While the imaging industry is in agreement with increased security measures that protect air travelers, the crew and aircraft, we also seek to protect consumers’ precious photo memories.

The I3A and TSA guidelines urge travelers to:

* Never pack unprocessed film in checked luggage;
* Store all film and single-use cameras in clear plastic or mesh bags that fit in carry-on bags;
* Remove film and single-use cameras from carry-on bags and request hand inspection of these items whenever carry-on luggage is subjected to high-intensity x-ray security scanning (hand inspection requests are permitted under Transportation Security Administration regulations);
* When x-ray scanners are used for carry-on baggage, request a hand inspection for film and single-use cameras ISO 1000 speed and higher;
* Request a hand inspection for ISO 800 speed and lower film and single-use cameras when they have been subjected to five or more scans on normal x-ray scanning equipment;
* ALWAYS request hand inspection of moving picture film, medical imaging film and black-and-white film. No precautions are necessary for unloaded film cameras, digital cameras or digital image storage media, either in carry-on or checked baggage.

[Oren Grad]

To make my comment a more useful addition to the "experience database" I should add that I've carried 35mm color neg (no sheet film, though) on several trips this year, with up to three or four passes through a carry-on xray machine on each trip, with no problem. One of the trips was to Chicago, so this includes a pass through security at O'Hare.

[Frank Petronio]

But that Kodak warning also states that FedEx, UPS, etc may use domestic carriers who do X-ray their packages, and that the US Postal Service definitely uses some sort of means, possibly including UV and X-rays, that may affect the film.

Plus I doubt a warning label "Do Not X-ray" is going to be very effective given the common FUBAR experiences all of the shippers manage to have.

So... really, if it is that important, you should be buying AND processing your film on site.

Having said that, the local film lab in Rochester -- which Kirk uses -- does a lot of mail order via USPS and X-ray fogging hasn't been a problem yet. Nor have I had a problem buying film that is shipped to me via USPS, UPS, FedEx...

So if you're going to go through all that pain and expense out of fear of X-rays, it seems like your plan is only as good as the weakest link... which isn't the airport X-ray machines.

Frankly, I suspect your fogging is more of a fluke, it could have been a solar flare that hit your airplane for all we know.

I think keeping all the unexposed and exposed film on your person, in a carry-on, is probably safer than shipping it myself. But everything has risk and it sounds like it is a bit of a crapshoot. Be sure to back up the shots with digital ;-)

[Once]

There is so much misinformation being spread around. Some people say hand carried is ok. Others that check in is OK. ...snip.

Cool down, Kirk, for goodness sake! If there is misinformation being spread around you do exactly that. Still you didn't say if your damaged film was from a check-in baggage or a carry on one - an important detail. Your "fresh" Kodak info is an example of misinformation being spread around - from the text itself you could see it's an old info.

Also - your fogged film is no proof of being fogged by an x-ray machine. X-ray machines make visible patterns on fogged film - if for no other reason, then because you have other things on an around the film box that show their contours/shades on the x-rayed film. As other said, your "proof" can have different cause.

Just because you got once fogged film it doesn't mean than millions of travelers with film are wrong. Quite the contrary. Take to your senses and cool down - defending your "truth" will just make you loosing ground more and more.

[jnantz]

logan heathrow and basel all refused to hand inspect my film ( june 07 / dec 06 ).
asa 25 - 800 passed through carry on xray machines probably 12 times each round trip ( 6 times each way ).

i didn't notice any banding.

[Brian K]

Having your film x-rayed a few times by properly adjusted carry on x-ray screeners is usually safe. However repeated exposures and the possibility of a poorly adjusted x-ray machine make it desirable to avoid the x-rays and get a hand search. You also have to be aware that if you are flying for long distances, that is being in the upper atmosphere for a long time, you and your film are getting a serious exposure to solar and cosmic radiation. On my recent trip to New Zealand I had 6 flights and 40 hours in the air. There's a very high possibility of film fog with that much radiation. Checking your film is NEVER ok. Don't even consider checking your film, it WILL be damaged!

By law in the US if you insist on a hand search they HAVE TO give you one. Flying from LA to NY on the last leg of a NY to New Zealand trip, they swabbed all 188 rolls individually, with 2 people working on it it still took 25 minutes. So if you intend to fly with film in the US make certain you arrive early.

Outside the US you are at the whims of the local airport security. And in some places such as the UK, they will not hand search your film under ANY circumstances. This is why I no longer fly to, or through the UK.

On my recent New Zealand trip I flew Air Tahiti Nui to NZ. I did so because they allow 2 15kg carry ons and Quantas only allows 2 10kg carry ons. And they do enforce this restriction. When I fly internationally I bite the bullet and fly first class. Not because I like the warm nuts and free drinks but because they are far more tolerant of anything relating to first class passengers, especially carry ons. This is a business trip for me, and the film is the sole purpose for the trip. If I were to try to board a plane as a first class passenger and my camera and film bags weighed 10 pounds too much, it will almost certainly be ignored by the flight crew, however if you fly coach, and your bag seems too big or too heavy, it's going into the belly of the plane where it could get crushed, or x-rayed if you have connecting flights. What's the point of shooting on location for 2 months if the airlines are going to destroy your film or gear on the way there and back?

While this method of travel has always worked well for me, coming back from NZ was a different story because there it is the airport that regulates the weight of carry on bags and not the airlines. So I ended up with some serious problems when i tried to board the plane with my overweight carry ons. (mind you they were legal size, but the security people still weighed them)

Passing through Tahiti on way to NZ, I was the only person at the x-ray machines, mind you I got there like 2 1/2 hours early and it was like 5 am. They did not have a first class security line, which is one of the best perks of flying in first if you have lots of gear, but nevertheless I was the only person there. I politely requested a hand search of my film and they refused. Looking at their x-ray gear and not feeling very comfortable with it I again requested a hand search, told them that this was a 2 month photography trip , that this film was extremely expensive and the cost of this trip prohibitive and that if the film were damaged my losses financially and in time were considerable. They still refused. I ramped it up another notch. I told them that I would not board the plane, ( and I was the ONLY first class passenger on the plane, which if you understand the current state of the airline industry means that I could be the difference between that flight making or losing money) and with that they agreed to hand examine my film.

Mind you they had already x-rayed all my gear and the bag that the film had been contained in, but never the less they hand searched everything. I mean they had me start the computer, turn on the GPS and other devices, then had me remove the batteries, looked through every lens, open every case, look through the filters, etc. They did everything short of a body cavity search. This took over an hour, and by now passengers were starting to show up and there I am pulled aside getting a very severe searching and pretty much scaring all the other passengers. Am I a bad guy, or are they all going to get searched like this? Finally they let me through.

My score card on the NY-NZ trip
NY-LA- hand search- fast and easy
La-Tahiti- hand search- fast and easy
Tahiti to Auckland- hand search, very tough to get, very long
Auckland to tahiti- x-rayed ( I was barely able to get on the plane with my heavy bags, I wasn't about to fight them for a hand search)
Tahiti to LA - NO search at all , I arrived as an in transit passenger and remained in the secured area
LA-NY hand search 188 rolls individually

So 6 flights only one x-ray, however as the film and I spent 40 hours in the air I will not fly again with the unexposed film that I brought back. Also while I was in NZ my wife shipped me via fedex 25 rolls of Tmax100, it got there in 3 days and showed no signs of fog.

So basically a few tips if getting the film there and back safely is the main priority, especially if this is business and there's substantial resources depending on it:

Fly First or Business class- this is a really big advantage- priority boarding, which means you get first shot at the overhead bins and there are less passengers in those cabins so more overhead space to begin with, sometimes they have express security lines so you can zip through security and have less people lining up behind you, and far more tolerance for oversize or overweight carry ons and they really don't like to piss off first class passengers (also if you fly coach, and possibly business class, even if your bags are legal size and weight the flight attendant can still have it put in the belly of the plane if the flight is too full, they will not even consider this with first class) The only disadvantage is cost, which is extreme, frequent flyer miles can help here. However this is why my trips are for long periods, I can not afford to fly this way very often so once I'm there I need to be very productive.

Get there way early- you have a far better chance of a hand search if there aren't 200 people behind you at the security check point and a hand search could take an hour

Make sure your bags are the legal size- carry ons are rarely weighed, but find out before you go if some country has an unusual procedure, but being over size is obvious and gets you pulled out for special consideration

Wear as much of your gear as possible- stuff pockets, wear a photographer's vest and fill it with gear,

Take super early or super late flights, the flights that are the least popular. having the least passengers means less stress on the security people, and that means they might feel more easy going, and more room for your stuff

Flying with film has become such a problem that for all of my shoots in North America, I drive.

[BrianShaw]

The International Imaging Industry Association (I3A) in cooperation with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) ...


Here link to the data from which these statements were made.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum51/51934-120mm-film-x-ray-london-issues-2.html#post649995

[Once]

"My 4x5 color neg and b&w readyload film was uniformly fogged adding .20 on average to the base density." - Kirk
"David, I didn't say it was uniform, I said it averaged .20." - Kirk

???

[roteague]

Having your film x-rayed a few times by properly adjusted carry on x-ray screeners is usually safe. However repeated exposures and the possibility of a poorly adjusted x-ray machine make it desirable to avoid the x-rays and get a hand search.

Sorry, no. Airport x-ray machines are not adjustable in the amount of power they put out.

[Brian K]

Robert, there are many different manufacturers of airport x-ray screening equipment, I know this first hand having gone to their convention. While they may not be adjustable by the user, they are calibrated by the manufacturer and they can go out of calibration. I'm not sure if this affects power output or the duration of the x-ray but there have been cases reported of carry on x-rays damaging film. One thing is undeniable and Kodak and Fuji both warn against this, and that is that repeated x-rays will eventually damage your film.

[Kirk Gittings]

Flying with film has become such a problem that for all of my shoots in North America, I drive. Brian K

I have come to a somewhat similar conclusion, except I would say that flying with the photography equipment that we have to take to a job, including film, (about 8 cases) has become such a pain, that I rarely accept a job that I cannot drive to.

[Paul H]

From my post shortly after it happened:

After thoroughly testing the xray machines at airports from Albuquerque to Chicago and Heathrow last year, I got burned on a recent trip to Chicago working on an upcoming exhibit. My 4x5 color neg and b&w readyload film was uniformly fogged adding .20 on average to the base density. This was true on both checked and hand carried baggage with some slight variations in the fog density. These were opened boxes that I had used a couple of days before the trip with no issues
(emphasis and italics mine)

Then I would very much doubt it was due to the scanners. Check-in baggage scanners and hand luggage scanners are quite different, so I'd expect that you'd see quite different effects or levels of effects between the checked-in and hand-carried film.

I've travelled quite a lot (in Europe and Down Under), and always put my cameras (35mm, 120 and 4x5) through the hand luggage scanner. Even films that have had 10 or more passes through the scanner have shown no ill effects. Sometimes the little Minox 35GT would pass through the scanner 20 or more times with ISO 400 film in, and I don't think its plastic body offers much protection.

Now, I do not have the same experience (or standards probably!) that you do, but I'm pretty sure I'd notice if something was amiss with my film:)

[IanG]

As a regular traveller my film is always scanned at the hand baggage check. On one trip last year, which involved 12 flight, my films all B&W 100 & 400 ISO were scanned over 20 times, my wife's colour films the same. There were no problems with any of the films.

At many airports having your film hand checked is not usually an option, I've had hand checks then they insist on scanning afterwards.

I did some checking and found that UK carry on luggage scanners at BAA airports were upgraded this year, and initial test showed that the first visual (adverse) effect only showed up with film rated over 1600 ISO came after 32 passes through the scanner.

There was an sentence stating that the new BAA scanners were significantly more film friendly than many of the scanners at many US airports.

Ian

[Kirk Gittings]

Paul, I understand your point, but can't find any other possible cause from that trip. Until I do... Close encounter maybe? I intend to do further testing.

[Once]

snip... I intend to do further testing.

Why bother? Tens of tests, more important than you will ever be able to do, have been done and the results have been published. What is more, hundreds of thousands travelers can confirm the validity of these results. You want to do further testing? You think that the labels, officially put on these machines, are all just a lie?

[Jim Ewins]

Who can we vote for that will abolish HomeLand Insecurity? Get the government out of our lives?

[robert amsden]

The best way to get film past tsa facist pigs to remove the foil and hide it somewhere on your on your body.

[BrianShaw]

... at least you didn't say "somewhere IN your body" like drug mules do!

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've carried about 20 rolls of medium format through a metal detector in my pockets. The "foil" these days is usually mylar, so it doesn't set off the metal detector.

[jnantz]

diaper rash ointment will set the scanners off every time.

[Vlad Soare]

I ramped it up another notch. I told them that I would not board the plane, ( and I was the ONLY first class passenger on the plane, which if you understand the current state of the airline industry means that I could be the difference between that flight making or losing money) and with that they agreed to hand examine my film.

Why would they lose? They have already got your money, and I doubt that your refusing to board the plane would qualify as a valid reason for a refund. Besides, the security guy is neither the CEO nor the marketing manager of the airline, so I don't think he'd care too much about customer satisfaction or the company losing a customer. He gets his salary regardless of whether you are boarding or not. :)
I don't know why it worked for you in Tahiti on that specific occasion, but I really doubt it would work in London.

[Brian K]

diaper rash ointment will set the scanners off every time.

John, you still wear that stuff?



Why would they lose? They have already got your money, and I doubt that your refusing to board the plane would qualify as a valid reason for a refund. Besides, the security guy is neither the CEO nor the marketing manager of the airline, so I don't think he'd care too much about customer satisfaction or the company losing a customer. He gets his salary regardless of whether you are boarding or not. :)
I don't know why it worked for you in Tahiti on that specific occasion, but I really doubt it would work in London.

Vlad, bottom line is if I don't get on that plane the airline is not guaranteed getting paid for my seat. And just how much grief is the local security in Tahiti going to give the ONLY first class passenger? On both the flight from LA and to Auckland I was the only person in first, 5 empty seats and me. Air tahiti Nui has only 6 total flights a day through out the world and 3 departing from tahiti. No I don't think the security guy is going to risk a big stink with the airline given that I'm there at 5 am, no one else is on line and I have a reasonable request and face a significant loss.

As for London, of course this strategy wouldn't work. They'd x-ray my film no matter what. So the bottom line there is that I don't go to the UK and they lose the money that I would have spent there. There are a great many other places where I can go and not risk my livelihood.

[IanG]

As for London, of course this strategy wouldn't work. They'd x-ray my film no matter what. So the bottom line there is that I don't go to the UK and they lose the money that I would have spent there. There are a great many other places where I can go and not risk my livelihood.

Unlike some other countries the BAA airports in the UK take security and film safety very seriously. The only reason they don't offer hand checks of film is they are very confident that their machines don't damage films.

I travel in and out of London & Manchester airports frequently, always with film and have complete confidence in their systems.

Ian

[David A. Goldfarb]

They sell film in London, so I don't bring too much, and I buy more there, reducing X-ray exposure. If I were really concerned, I'd process it there too, but I haven't had a problem with X-ray exposure.

[Brian K]

Unlike some other countries the BAA airports in the UK take security and film safety very seriously. The only reason they don't offer hand checks of film is they are very confident that their machines don't damage films.

I travel in and out of London & Manchester airports frequently, always with film and have complete confidence in their systems.

Ian

The acceptability of risk is dependent on what you are risking. For me a photographic trip is a business trip and is solely about returning with useable photographs, to achieve this goal I spend up to 2 months shooting on a trip, a month of preparation and research and $10k-20k in out of pocket expenses. Even if you don't consider the possible monetary value of the exposed film, and my living is derived from the sale of prints produced from that film, I risk a great deal when I hand my film over to someone who's going to x-ray it. While the odds may be greatly in my favor that there will be no discernible damage, the loss to me if there was damage is considerable so I am very cautious.



They sell film in London, so I don't bring too much, and I buy more there, reducing X-ray exposure. If I were really concerned, I'd process it there too, but I haven't had a problem with X-ray exposure.

Having come from the professional end of photography, where failure to produce useable images can make the photographer liable for possibly bankrupting costs, I have learned to take a very cautious approach. I don't shoot film that I haven't previously tested, period. I buy my film in large quantities and immediately shoot and process test rolls. I have come across product defects on more than one occasion on films made by major manufacturers. You never know how a batch of film was stored, how it was shipped and in the act of shipping it may have been x-rayed and maybe with an x-ray utilizing a different, and worse standard than the airport x-rays.

[Vlad Soare]

How about sheet film? If you ask for hand checking, won't they want to open the boxes and see what's inside? :D

[David A. Goldfarb]

How about sheet film? If you ask for hand checking, won't they want to open the boxes and see what's inside? :D

This is the main reason I try to avoid hand checks. Exposed film boxes get tape on four sides of the box and two rubber bands to give me more time to explain in case an inspector starts to open the box.

[BrianShaw]

ditto #56!

In the US... I've had sealed boxes passed through hand check with just the trace detection (when they rub the swab over the box and check for trace amounts of bad stuff) done to the outside... but never seen willingness to do the same with unsealed boxes.

My experience in London (not very recent) is such that I wouldn't even ask for anything other than the regular xray treatment.

[Aahx]

Here is an interesting Technical Bulletin from the Kodak global site concerning baggage x-ray's.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

And from the TSA site:

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1035.shtm

[IanG]

Those links to are to information that is 5 years out of date.

I had an extremely interesting talk tonight/last night with a senior airport security officer in the UK. He assured me that the current scanners at BAA UK Airports are totally film safe. Even high speed films are safe for a reasonable number of scans.

The technology is so fast moving that at Manchester the hand luggage machines installed 2 months ago are going to be replaced by newer updated models soon. They get very heavy almost constant use.

Interestingly he said that the reason that all films are scanned, even when people ask for hand checks, is the wide variety of objects they have discovered concealed in film boxes, inside 35mm cassettes etc.

He went on to say that the scanners at most UK Airports and many other countries were made in the UK by a subsidiary of a US company, and that the research & manufacture took place near Gatwick Airport. He had been to the factory on a number of occasions.

When I asked about the printed leaflets I'd seen 2 years ago which gave advice on Film safety & baggage scanners he said they'd stopped using them because photographers who flew regularly with film knew the machines were completely film friendly.

I should add the 2 year old advice leaflet assured passengers/photographers that the machine were safe, even then.

Ian

[BrianShaw]

I should add the 2 year old advice leaflet assured passengers/photographers that the machine were safe, even then.


Ian, I almost wish that this was your introductory statment rather than a postscript... it is an absolute fact! Some of the even older research shows the same thing, but I think the warnings continued because of lawyers and fraidy-cats.

Out of curiousity, though, what was your contact's definition of "high speed" -- 800 ASA, 1600 ASA, 3200 ASA?

[Kirk Gittings]

IanG,

You say "hand luggage machines". Are you talking about both the x-ray machines that scan the carry on luggage?

[IanG]

Yes hand baggage means what you carry on board by hand, simple use of English :D

It's a misnomer to call these modern scanners X-ray machines, they bear no resemblance to the X-ray machines once used. These don't require the operators to wear dosimeters like the first scanners, so what makes these machines safer for the operators also makes them safer for film.

Many of the new baggage scanners used for checked in baggage (hold) are also now film safe, but because older machines are often used in combination you can't chance risking film through that route.

Brian, the definition of High Speed films appears to be anything over about 800 ISO, but as true speeds vary from box speed anything around 1600/3200 ISO are safe for a small number of scans. Where as I was told 100 - 400 ISO films could withstand quite a substantial number of scans, with no problems, far far more than would be typical on even an extensive overseas trip.

Ian

[Aahx]

I personaly would still rather not play roulette with my work. I ship all my undeveloped film insured via carrier or try and find a developing lab near my departure point, to get it developed prior to my getting on the plane.

[Frank Petronio]

I still don't understand how shipping film, by any courier, is somehow "safer" than going through the airport carry-on inspection and X-ray machine?

According to everything posted above, ALL of the carriers may possibly X-ray our packages, including new film shipped from the factory. While this is probably not the case, and if it were, the X-ray machines would hopefully be of the modern low-radiation type, nevertheless you don't know what happens to your film once it leaves your hands. And nobody can even tell you for sure what happens.... Have you ever tried asking UPS or USPS if they can tell you anything about your package's chain of custody? lol

At least by carrying it, you know its history. That seems more prudent to me.

[SAShruby]

I personaly would still rather not play roulette with my work. I ship all my undeveloped film insured via carrier or try and find a developing lab near my departure point, to get it developed prior to my getting on the plane.

Sorry to be a little bit sarcastic, it's my natural personality, but how do you expose your film if you let it develop in lab? Sounds to me like a biiig roulette to me right here!

First of all, it's a quite roulette to have it processed by lab! My developments vary from 5 minutes to 19 minutes per sheet! Not many labs woould do that for you and frankly, you will waste too much time and money to find lab like this.

Secondly, even if I'll have that damned x-ray fog on it, it's not a biggie, because either you do digital, so it wouldn't matter too much because lovely Photoshop and your top of the line scanner will do it for you anyway or, if you do analog, you would use just higher grade paper. If AA was able to print his Moonrise, with the right technique you can do it too. Unfortunately it takes a lifetime to master it.

Simply I don't get this conversation. If you can bill customer for extra effort, do it, but overall, you won't loose your pfinal print beacuse of x-rays.

[domenico Foschi]

SAShruby, can you really get rid completely of the banding caused by x-rays?

[SAShruby]

Well, Domenico, my name is Peter and to answer your question, I never had that problem, so far.

[claudiocambon]

There are three airports in the world where you will never ever get a hand inspection: London Heathrow (actually all London airports probably), Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Tel Aviv Ben Gurion; perhaps there are more where it is official policy to make everything go through the X-Ray. Once in Heathrow I protested their insisting that 2 rolls of TMZ3200 go through, even though the film box says "do not x-ray." The attendant was more than happy to throw them out for me.

The pathetic thing is that the vapor swab test is the most effective way of detecting explosives. There isn't any way to hide that smell frm the vapor machine, whereas the X-Ray is ultimately dependent on the operator's interpretive capacities, which are bound to have gaps in attention.

[BrianShaw]

... the X-Ray is ultimately dependent on the operator's interpretive capacities, which are bound to have gaps in attention.

Yes, and no. The last couple of generations of machines have software enhancements that help the operator, basically doing much of the interpretation automatically. The product literature htat can be found on-line describes these capabilities. Can't argue about the attention deficit issue though -- there seems to be enough credible stories of bad things getting past the process!

Re: attendants offering to throw things away -- Just last week a TSA agent "offered" to throw my tooth paste away for me. It was a regular size tube (about 8 oz, I guess) but was practically empty. There couldn't have been more than 1 oz of paste in it but this particular TSA agent claimed that the regulation is that the container needs to be less than 3 oz., not the contents. Hmmmm, I said, since I've been using this particular tube of toothpaste for my last 25 airplane trips. None of her colleagues seems to have agreed since I still have the nearly-empty tube (or, maybe, they were all suffering from attention deficit!)

[domenico Foschi]

Even stupid airport types can understand X-ray film will be ruined by X-Rays.

Or they might just think they are compatible...:)

[SAShruby]

SAShruby, can you really get rid completely of the banding caused by x-rays?

X- ray Banding is caused by materials they in some way interfere with x-ray machine. Imagine it like x-raying of your bones. If you pack film in area where you have a number of different materials around your film, i.e. steel, paper, glass, plastic etc. you will get a banding.

Because I knew that, the prevention I do is that I always carry film and my film holders in special case which contains fabric only with dry zippers. Therefore I do not have any "banding".

Just my 2 cents.

[Kirk Gittings]

X- ray Banding is caused by materials they in some way interfere with x-ray machine.

Peter I think you are wrong about that.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

[SAShruby]

Peter I think you are wrong about that.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

I'm just stating my initial scientific approach which works for me. No bandings at all.

[Once]

I'm just stating my initial scientific approach which works for me. No bandings at all.

When science comes to rescue - let's x-ray it all with no steel around, abracadabra - no banding at all! ;)

[Mike Boden]

Well, I'm back from my trip, and I thought I'd follow up with details. Basically, I was forced to have my film x-rayed in London two times...once on the way to Italy and another on the way home. After returning home and processing the film, it appears that the film wasn't affected. I don't see any fogging, color cast, or banding lines. This was true for Provia 100F, 160S Pro, T-max 100, & Tri-X 320.

So, it looks like I worried for nothing. I'll post some images when I get around to scanning.

[SAShruby]

voila.