Flying & Film

[james zhou]

I took a small hand bag full of mixed films, 120, 4x5 to China last year and asked for hand check. There were three change overs, and each time, they were kind enough to do this. I think if you pack the film in a separate bag and ask them politely, they will be very helpful. IN the past I have sent film through carry-on X-ray and never had a problem.

[Chris C]

I just recently came back from a trip to Nepal where my film went through no less than 14 x-rays (one of which was this incredibly old looking thing at Kathmandu's domestic terminal). I was mostly shooting HP5, and there's not a single sign of any damage to the film. I was going to ask for hand inspection the whole trip, but after getting denied with my first two requests, I just couldn't be bothered any more and the film came through perfect.
I've given up worrying about carry-on x-rays these days.

[Tim Meisburger]

Well, I was in Indonesia over the Christmas holiday, and ruined every sheet of film I shot going through x-ray. Don't be foolish like me and assume that modern machines don't fog. ask fora hand check, or put your film in a lead bag.

[sanking]

Could you explain what you mean by "ruined" and perhaps show some examples of how the film was damaged?


Sandy King

Well, I was in Indonesia over the Christmas holiday, and ruined every sheet of film I shot going through x-ray. Don't be foolish like me and assume that modern machines don't fog. ask fora hand check, or put your film in a lead bag.

[BrianShaw]

Was that your CHECKED luggage or your CARRYON luggage.

There is no argument that the x-rays used for CHECKED luggage will damage film - in one pass. But the general consensus is that if the machines used to scan CARRYON luggage are properly calibrated, they won't damage film.

That looks like CT damage. I'll bet that he put it in checked baggage. A good example of someone who didn't do his homework and then tells horror stories to spread misinformation.

[BrianShaw]

Could you explain what you mean by "ruined" and perhaps show some examples of how the film was damaged?

Here is the standard against which you can evalaute the response to your question, if you ever get a response:

http://www.i3a.org/wp-content/upload...testreport.pdf

There is an accompanying i3a report about CT damage, but that threat/damage is so obvious I won't spend the time to attach the report.

[Jim Michael]

In the referenced report the results are all over the place: 120 400 B&w showed "Slight banding at 5 passes", 135 ISO 1600 "No observed results", etc. This was a test of a specific machine (Rapidscan). It's certainly plausible that the radiation strength may vary widely between countries and that Indonesia has different standards than other countries. I have personally seen film damaged by X-ray exposure, although I don't specifically recall any 400 film damage; I think the 1600 stuff was the main culprit. That was several years ago and I'm sure the sensor technology has improved since then. However nothing is going to change the physics involved: film is sensitive to light; x-rays are light; nothing is going to stop the x-rays. It's only a question of exposure.

Re exposure, they note in their test report "Dosage: 0.3mR as measured by dosimeter on sight." (sic) That dosage number is useful since one could take field measurements of various machines with a radiation meter and determine what the actual dosage being used is compared to the test exposure.

Normal background radiation varies, but a typical number might be .02 mR/hour. Multiply that by 10 or so if you're in an airliner at 35k feet so the previous comment re the exposure being less than you might be exposed to at altitude sounds about right when compared to these published dosage numbers.