If true that would be good information. Do you have a reference?
35mm or 645 for travel to Spain
-
A
- Thread starter abruzzi
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Kodak 125PX Plus-X 35mm Film Lot (And More)
- Started by chuckroast
-
For Sale Large format Kodak 1443 Aerochrome color infrared film
- Started by MCB18
-
For Trade FT: My NEW 49mm IR 720 filter for your 52mm IR 720 filter.
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: Mamiya RB-67 / RZ-67 Caps!
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Mint Nikon AI-s Lenses
- Started by Barlow
Forum statistics
If true that would be good information. Do you have a reference?
MattKing
Moderator
It was information shared in a communication concerning a number of other issues.
It is part of what led to the information found here:
https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/transporting-storing-film
Thanks for the response. The first part of your post was suitably vague ( are you working for C.S.I.S. part time
) but I checked your online reference which demonstrates "Effects of High Intensity Explosive Detection System" This is dated 2020 and presumably refers to CT scanners but looking at the 2003 documentWe see the same photographs referencing a Invision CTX 5500 Airport Baggage Scanner
Since this references movie film damage,
VISION3 200T Color Negative Film 5213/7213
For filmmakers who aspire to capture the world as only they see it
www.kodak.com
In any case these are all about baggage scanners and we have long known of the danger of film in the cargo hold baggage.
No one disputes that x-rays can damage film and CT scans are just more damaging x-rays, but there seems to be a dearth of reports of damage so far (possibly cause not as many are travelling or film is not being chosen or photographers are just more careful)
Like Alex Benjamin I am still trying to parse the actual risk of damage with carry on CT scans
I invite you to confirm the situation. Buy an expensive airline ticket to somewhere in Europe or Asia & subject your own film to the CT scanners. Many photographers accepted the message that "a word to the wise is sufficient."
Post #72
I love sarcasm but it is often unhelpful.
Cowan..... the writing is on the wall. buying film or shipping it to location and shipping or having film processed on location has become the way to assure your film isn't ruined. If you choose not to believe the warnings from Kodak & Fuji & don't want to heed the process adopted by professionals...... you need to hazard it for yourself and find out. The discussion is becoming far too much like the one with conspiracy theorists.......
Although the manufacturer and airport security bulletins can reliably stand on their own merit, I’m often skeptical of the reliability of reports from sources so secret that they cannot be divulged. Here are some words on the Kodak basis for concern, in their own words. Not quantitative but a bit more than “trust me, I have evidence and can’t share it”…
www.diyphotography.net
Kodak posts advisory on how to travel with film through new airport CT scanners
Kodak posts advisory on how to travel with film through new airport CT scanners
www.diyphotography.net
Last edited:
Although the manufacturer and airport security bulletins can reliably stand on their own merit, I’m often skeptical of the reliability of reports from sources so secret that they cannot be divulged. Here are some words on the Kodak basis for concern, in their own words. Not quantitative but a bit more than “trust me, I have evidence but can’t share it”…
Kodak posts advisory on how to travel with film through new airport CT scanners
Kodak posts advisory on how to travel with film through new airport CT scanners
Brian, I find it a little hard to believe that this discussion continues....on the same forum as threads decrying the exorbitant cost of film. Do we need to store our color film in a hot attic or fog all our paper with an inadequate safe light to be convinced of reasonable handling of materials?
Last edited:
One reason to discuss this is the sheer humour of being reduced to quoting DIYPhotography, one of those web sites like F-stoppers or Peta Pixel. This one is better though; check out the post on " How to turn an old floppy disc into a free infrared camera filter".
Anyway thank Heavens for DIY Photography and their quoting the post by Kodak Professionals in it's entirety, because the facebook posting has been deleted. Although that post was attributed to Kodak, it was actually by a Facebook personage called Kodak Professional who is actually Kodak Professional Solutions, who is actually Sino Promise, a Chinese distributor who imports and distributes Kodak Alaris, Canon, Epson, Noritsu, Summa, JHF, Minolta and other products. Sino Promise Group is the largest agent of the US company, Kodak Alaris, in the Greater China region.
Sino Promise US company information show that in January this year the US subsidiary moved from ‘Non-compliant’ to ‘Delinquent’, due to having not filed any financial reports in the US. The next stage is ‘administrative dissolution’ by the State of Colorado, where it is registered.
The disappeared Sino Promise Facebook post stated "To better assess the risk to film from the new carry on scanners we brought a small quantity of Portra 400/135 to John F Kennedy Airport in NYC. With the help of TSA representatives the film was put through the new carry on CT scanners from 1-10 times."
This might be a serious effort. But it has the tone of a couple of chinese sales reps along with all the other passengers put a role of their holiday snaps though the scanner with the "help" of security before they boarded.
The film was then evaluated at Eastman Kodak Research facilities.
Since the "Eastman Kodak Research Facilities" do not exist , This is an euphemism for what?
Lastly, DIY Photography states "CT scans will destroy pretty much any film almost instantly."Which is patently not true based on Photrio members posts.
Here at Photrio we have long threads about the problems of mottling and backing paper, yet only scanty information about this (barring Ilford, whose assessment is very significant). Nobodies' denying X-rays are bad for us; It's just odd and interesting there are so few reports from actual photographers. As GregY reminds us there are plenty of posts about safe lights on Photrio.
Anyway thank Heavens for DIY Photography and their quoting the post by Kodak Professionals in it's entirety, because the facebook posting has been deleted. Although that post was attributed to Kodak, it was actually by a Facebook personage called Kodak Professional who is actually Kodak Professional Solutions, who is actually Sino Promise, a Chinese distributor who imports and distributes Kodak Alaris, Canon, Epson, Noritsu, Summa, JHF, Minolta and other products. Sino Promise Group is the largest agent of the US company, Kodak Alaris, in the Greater China region.
Sino Promise US company information show that in January this year the US subsidiary moved from ‘Non-compliant’ to ‘Delinquent’, due to having not filed any financial reports in the US. The next stage is ‘administrative dissolution’ by the State of Colorado, where it is registered.
The disappeared Sino Promise Facebook post stated "To better assess the risk to film from the new carry on scanners we brought a small quantity of Portra 400/135 to John F Kennedy Airport in NYC. With the help of TSA representatives the film was put through the new carry on CT scanners from 1-10 times."
This might be a serious effort. But it has the tone of a couple of chinese sales reps along with all the other passengers put a role of their holiday snaps though the scanner with the "help" of security before they boarded.
The film was then evaluated at Eastman Kodak Research facilities.
Since the "Eastman Kodak Research Facilities" do not exist , This is an euphemism for what?
Lastly, DIY Photography states "CT scans will destroy pretty much any film almost instantly."Which is patently not true based on Photrio members posts.
Here at Photrio we have long threads about the problems of mottling and backing paper, yet only scanty information about this (barring Ilford, whose assessment is very significant). Nobodies' denying X-rays are bad for us; It's just odd and interesting there are so few reports from actual photographers. As GregY reminds us there are plenty of posts about safe lights on Photrio.
That might very well be. And is an interesting story if true.
But I don’t think I speak for me only when I think: “What is your real gripe here?”.
Don’t you believe in irradiation damage to film?
What are you trying to say?
The amount of watts radiated onto the material in the form of high energy photons is definitely enough to fog film. And worse still, in a CT scanner the fogging is not close to uniform.
Sigh… deep sigh.
Helge
Well each of my posts states that there is no denying the effect of x-rays on film. And llford's memorandum is serious.
What I am saying is that there is more to learn. That the information we have needs to be confirmed and assessed properly. That the catastrophic fears of the last 4 years, regarding this, are not seeming to be reflected in empirical experience (so far).
This sort of testing need to be confirmed.
And I maintain that Facebook is not a scientific journal.
Brian
Sorry I will shut up.
Well each of my posts states that there is no denying the effect of x-rays on film. And llford's memorandum is serious.
What I am saying is that there is more to learn. That the information we have needs to be confirmed and assessed properly. That the catastrophic fears of the last 4 years, regarding this, are not seeming to be reflected in empirical experience (so far).
This sort of testing need to be confirmed.
Brian
Sorry I will shut up.
Last edited:
Helge
Well each of my posts states that there is no denying the effect of x-rays on film. And llford's memorandum is serious.
What I am saying is that there is more to learn. That the information we have needs to be confirmed and assessed properly. That the catastrophic fears of the last 4 years, regarding this, are not seeming to be reflected in empirical experience (so far).
This sort of testing need to be confirmed.
And I maintain that Facebook is not a scientific journal.
Brian
Sorry I will shut up.
You know the next time I’m out and about, I’ll throw a rolls of film through the scanner a few times to see what happens.
I might even be able to ask my local airport to allow me to do it without traveling.
Empirical evidence is important, but so is simple inference from knowledge and data.
Are you having a generic textual anxiety attack here?
Last edited:
@cowanw… please don’t shut up. I’m as frustrated as you regarding the lack of authoritative/credible evidence on this topic. I actually value your input.
But most of what we read, especially here, isn’t “empirical experience “; it’s inconclusive experience since many are either talking about past experiences or can’t be sure which device their film was scanned with.
Do you remember when xray scanning was initially rolled out, way back when? There were actual studies by a qualified organization performed, the results were summarized by TSA, Kodak and others… and then the research reports were made public. None of the “I’m not sure of a key parameter (scanner type) in my experience “ or the “I get my insights from a source and it can’t/won’t be available for public scrutiny; trust me”.
@Helge… not anxiety. Frustration.
But most of what we read, especially here, isn’t “empirical experience “; it’s inconclusive experience since many are either talking about past experiences or can’t be sure which device their film was scanned with.
Do you remember when xray scanning was initially rolled out, way back when? There were actual studies by a qualified organization performed, the results were summarized by TSA, Kodak and others… and then the research reports were made public. None of the “I’m not sure of a key parameter (scanner type) in my experience “ or the “I get my insights from a source and it can’t/won’t be available for public scrutiny; trust me”.
@Helge… not anxiety. Frustration.
Last edited:
authorative/credible evidence? the discussion is going in circles like a conversation with anti-vaxxers or flat earth society members....... put your own film into the fire if you need to be convinced it will burn....
No disagreement. It’s not so much a matter of “if”; rather “how much”.
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
I don't know why people are saying skip Barcelona. Even though it has tons of tourists, they can be navigated around. Just avoid Las Ramblas and 90% of the tourists and pickpockets are not an issue. There's some AMAZING architecture there, and not just Gaudi - take the tour of the Palau de la Musica Catalan - one of the most beautiful concert halls I've ever been in.
Some years ago when I was younger and more energetic, I brought a whole Hasselblad kit with me to Spain- 500cm, 50, 80, 120 lenses, a Hassy Superwide, and at least three film backs. Oh, and a Fuji TX1 (aka Hasselblad Xpan). Today, for multiple reasons, I'd take my pair of Rolleis and my Lomo LCA 120 to cover the wide-angle end of things. Or just my standard Rollei, which really is sufficient for the majority of images I'd want to make (I took just a standard Rolleiflex 2.8E with me to France in 2015 and shot some of the best photos of my life). I've also done that in Italy with the 2.8E, the Tele, and a Lomo Belair X/6-12 (for panoramics). So, in regards to your question about 35mm vs medium format, I would take the medium format with you without hesitation. Spain is fairly camera-friendly and certainly highly photogenic. I think you might regret not having the bigger negatives down the road. But then I'm also a little crazy- I took an RZ67 with three lenses (50, 110, and 180) to Mexico and shot street photos with it.
Some years ago when I was younger and more energetic, I brought a whole Hasselblad kit with me to Spain- 500cm, 50, 80, 120 lenses, a Hassy Superwide, and at least three film backs. Oh, and a Fuji TX1 (aka Hasselblad Xpan). Today, for multiple reasons, I'd take my pair of Rolleis and my Lomo LCA 120 to cover the wide-angle end of things. Or just my standard Rollei, which really is sufficient for the majority of images I'd want to make (I took just a standard Rolleiflex 2.8E with me to France in 2015 and shot some of the best photos of my life). I've also done that in Italy with the 2.8E, the Tele, and a Lomo Belair X/6-12 (for panoramics). So, in regards to your question about 35mm vs medium format, I would take the medium format with you without hesitation. Spain is fairly camera-friendly and certainly highly photogenic. I think you might regret not having the bigger negatives down the road. But then I'm also a little crazy- I took an RZ67 with three lenses (50, 110, and 180) to Mexico and shot street photos with it.
Agreed....theflyingcamera..... Philippe-Georges has posted some very fine architectural photos with the SWC in the architectural thread
www.photrio.com
almost makes one want to splurge for a super-wide!
Post your architectural photos here
L'église Notre-Dame de Saint-Père est une église située à Saint-Père dans le Morvan, dans l'Yonne en France1. Front of the portico, entrance. Hasselblad SWC no filter on Bergger...
www.photrio.com
MattKing
Moderator
Pre-Covid, Sino Promise were the largest volume distributor in the world of Kodak still film. They had been producing most of the Kodak branded colour photochemistry for Kodak Alaris for some time. They had also recently purchased from Kodak Alaris the entire Kodak branded photochemistry, colour photographic paper and lab support business.
And then Covid hit, and the effect on them and their business has been catastrophic.
However, they have strong and deep ties with Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris - most of their worldwide staff were former Kodak Alaris people, most of whom were former Eastman Kodak or Eastman Kodak international subsidiary employees.
People in what remains of the lab world are much more likely to be involved in the airport scanner issue than people in the retail world.
And then Covid hit, and the effect on them and their business has been catastrophic.
However, they have strong and deep ties with Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris - most of their worldwide staff were former Kodak Alaris people, most of whom were former Eastman Kodak or Eastman Kodak international subsidiary employees.
People in what remains of the lab world are much more likely to be involved in the airport scanner issue than people in the retail world.
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
Agreed....theflyingcamera..... Philippe-Georges has posted some very fine architectural photos with the SWC in the architectural thread
almost makes one want to splurge for a super-wide!Post your architectural photos here
L'église Notre-Dame de Saint-Père est une église située à Saint-Père dans le Morvan, dans l'Yonne en France1. Front of the portico, entrance. Hasselblad SWC no filter on Bergger...
I got some of my best images on that trip with the Superwide - a killer shot (that I don't have posted here) I took from the roof of the cathedral in Salamanca, where you can see the two domes of the old and new cathedrals side by side, with the clouds of a clearing thunderstorm in the background.
I used my Superwide all through Greece and the Greek Islands.
I like to travel light, particularly for international travel.... small light carry-on... camera, film and a lens or maybe two. I can be happy with one camera and one lens, assured that i'll come home with some strong images....characteristic of that camera/lens combo. I could easily do it with a Hasselblad Superwide....although i'd be more tempted by a Rolleiwide. The Superwide shows itself to be a superb tool for architectural work.
Last edited:
Compact and simple. For me that would be Nikon F3t & 24/50/105mm with Zeiss Super Ikonta 6x6 and small digital camera. Be advised that Barcelona is the world's top location for professional thieves. There are world class pick-pockets and groups that will swarm you. Take nothing irreplaceable, flashy, or valuable there. Carry no bags.
Carrying a camera, I made the mistake of cutting through the blocks from the hotel to Las Ramblas in Barcelona with my ex-wife. We were followed by another couple and all of us realized by the looks that we were getting that we were in real trouble. We walked heads erect and vigalent, as if we knew what we were doing. No one approached us. As we were about to emerge in came a large group of policemen who must have been tipped off by someone who saw us. The police surrounded both couples, escorted us to Las Ramblas and told us that we had been in danger and to stick to the main streets only. That was the only excitement during the trip.
It depends ENTIRELY on whether you have time on your own. Or you are committed to hanging out with and following other people.
I do my best non studio/street/nature photography when I’m out specifically to shoot.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |