Airport X-ray

[htmlguru4242]

I think you're right about the industrial stuff. The intensifier screens (i would think) lower the image quality and sharpness significantly; they are designed to increase patient safety. With industrial stuff, there's no practical reason to limit radiation dose or power, so the screens don't need to be used.

There was a film discussed in the X-Ray film for conventional photo thread that was some Kodak Scientific film. I think that's probably what we're talking about.

 

[AgX]

htmlguru,

From what I read so far, and there is nothing more available to me, it seems

that medical X-ray films intended for use with intensifying screens are made with emulsions similar to ortho-emulsions (though for the old-type tungstate screens unsensitized emulsions should be sufficient). I am not sure about the exact degree of coincidence as I lack information on grain size, silver densities for the ortho-materials.

For Industrial X-ray films intended for use with intensifying screens I am not sure, as these are not rare earths screens but lead foils, which produce another kind of radiation.

X-ray films, medical or industrial, intended for direct X-ray exposure are different. They have up to 4times the amount of silver, the emulsion is up to 5times thicker (X-ray quanta, in contrast to photons, may expose several grains).

By the way, for your luggage you should, if available, use medical non-screen X-Ray film. (It could be up to 50times more sensitive to X-rays than pictographical film.)

 

[climbabout]

After scanning some old threads on this subject, it seems the majority of you feel that the x-ray used for carry on baggage to be ok for slower speed film. I'm going away Friday with about a dozen 8x10 holders with fp4+ and some roll film of the same. It would be scanned once on the way out and once on the return. I've always had this hand inspected before, but I'm beggining to question wether it's worth the hassle - Opinions?
Tim

 

[Willie Jan]

last week I developed a (non exposed) roll which was shipped from japan. I got almost a zone V density....
This one was heavily scanned, but it was shipped, it wasnt a bagage scan.

 

[arigram]

I haven't found a problem during my travels so far where I carry roll film of usually 400 iso.
But, considering how difficult is to find film in stores anymore, you barely have a choice.
You either carry some with you or you don't do any photography.

 

[dpurdy]

I think it would be best if you could keep the 8x10 film in an unopened film box for hand inspection. However I just went through 2 scans with a bunch of 120 tmax 400 and have no problems with it. If you have only a few rolls of 120 you can carry those in your pocket as there is no metal to set off the metal detector. I carried 11 rolls 120 Delta 3200 this way with no problem.
Dennis

 

[canuhead]

Six 50 sheet boxes of 4x5 Tri X went through five or six Canadian airport security checkpoint scans no problem.

 

[climbabout]

I probably should have mentioned, I will be carrying loaded holders only and no sheet film in boxes, so each holder would have to be inspected separately.
Tim

 

[GeoffHill]

I've carried HP5 through 2 scans, (one each way) with no visible deterioration. For a slower speed, its probably a waste of time

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Since we've got lots of threads on this topic, I've merged four of them here.

 

[Harry Lime]

I've started to develop my film on the road. For this purpose I carry a 4 roll tank and small measuring beaker. I track down developing supplies at my destination.

I would like to take along some chemicals in power form, but am reluctant to do so. How do explain three or four bottles of white powder and a chemical scale to the police or baggage inspector?

Remember when life was simple?

 

[eddym]

I would like to take along some chemicals in power form, but am reluctant to do so. How do explain three or four bottles of white powder and a chemical scale to the police or baggage inspector?

Tell them it's to develop the pictures that you intend to take of bridges, airports, train stations, and government buildings.
Let us know what they say... :munch:

 

[bdial]

I think you'd be better off with small, factory bottles of developer, say HC110 or Rodinal and fix, in a checked bag. Leave the mix by scratch thing for working from home.

But if you really want to travel with little bottles of misc. white powders, be my guest.

Note also, that there are restrictions on what chemicals dry or wet can be shipped or carried by air, and you probably want to do some checking. One easy, though not definitive method is to select candidate products on a site like Freestyle's or B&H's and see if you can select air shipment, or not. B&H might work especially well for this since they pretty much don't ship stuff that has any sort of restrictions.

 

[haziz]

We just have to hope that at least one Congressman is a shutterbug.

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is a good photographer and has had some of his photos exhibited. I missed his show at the Vermont Center for Photography. Mostly snapshots of goverment officials (often behind the scenes and therefore more interesting) and of his travels. I am not sure if he is now using digital or is still doing "analog photography".

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[Peter_H]

I've had 1600ASA (colour print) film X-rayed three times without problems. Most other films (FP4+, HP5+, Acros 100, T-Max, XP2, even Scala - once! & E-6 transparencies) go out and back through hand-baggage scanners quite routinely now. I've never had any trouble - except when I once asked for hand inspection here in the UK and they got rather formal with me!

I keep a spreadsheet for my film stocks and will go up to 6 scans for anything up to 400ASA. When I went to China, some films had more X-rays than the 6 I had allowed, including some 800ASA Fuji print film - in fact, some even went through a checked baggage scanner at one point at a provincial airport (but I was lucky, I don't think it was actually working!) No problems at all.

 

[Removed Account]

I'd suggest to carry a changing bag too, so if they feel the need to open the film boxes or holders they can do so without racing light.

- Justin

 

[bdial]

Recently going through LA I had just purchased 10 rolls of 120, and I asked for a hand check of that film, and was granted it with no problem whatsoever. It was fairly slow at the time though. I generally put my film through the carry-on scanner routinely but I'm going to be storing this batch for a while and wanted to avoid a round through the x-ray right off the bat.

FWIW, Senator Leahy has a piece up in the current show at Vermont Center for Photography.

Incidentally, does anyone have any experience with IR films and carry-on x-ray scanners? It seems that it might not be a problem since, in theory, the sensitivity is at opposite ends of the spectrum, but a guy at Freestyle insisted that it must not get x-rayed. The closest TSA seems to come in discussing it is "Highly sensitive X-ray, medical or scientific films". I suppose it would qualify there.
Any opinions, facts, thoughts?

 

[Peter_H]

Incidentally, does anyone have any experience with IR films and carry-on x-ray scanners? It seems that it might not be a problem since, in theory, the sensitivity is at opposite ends of the spectrum, but a guy at Freestyle insisted that it must not get x-rayed. The closest TSA seems to come in discussing it is "Highly sensitive X-ray, medical or scientific films". I suppose it would qualify there.
Any opinions, facts, thoughts?

Only Ilford SFX - I've had that go through carry-on scanners (twice) without problems. It should be more sensitive than normal film, since the energy available to expose it is lower than for visible light, which is filtered out. I think the bottom line is that the quantum efficiency of the carry-on scanner CCD detectors is very high and so film exposure is correspondingly minimal. Of course, avoid shielding the film with anything, or else you risk the scanner automatically ramping up the accelerating potential, increasing the energy of the X-ray to penetrate and ultimately (perhaps) trashing your film. Depends on the configuration of their set-up and the absorption edge of the shielding material.

Peter