B&W film, ISO and airport x-ray scanners

Simple follow-up question to the Current experience with X-ray scanners thread, as I'm about to travel to Europe with a bunch of B&W film. I've read somewhere—cannot for the life of me find the reference—that lower ISO films (20 to 100) are less sensitive to the x-ray scan and therefore not as susceptible to getting fogged.

Anybody has viable and verified info on that?

Alex, Many airports have the new CT scanners. Travelling internationally from Calgary, the scanners are the old X-Ray scanners. I travelled to Seattle at the end of February. On the return trip, Seattle had both X-Ray & CT and the officer in charge of the lines told anyone with film to take the lineup to the XRay machine. I'm also travelling to Europe this summer. I'll take some film with me, as I don't expect YYC to have a scanner change soon, and I'm pretty sure i can get the film hand checked. I'll be buying more film in Paris and (for the first time ever) having my film processed in Paris at the end of my trip. Pro photographers I know who shoot film are following the same kind of practice.
In the past it was said that 400 speed films or lower could be safely X-rayed...... this is not the case with the new CT scanners.

GregY said:

In the past it was said that 400 speed films or lower could be safely X-rayed...... this is not the case with the new CT scanners.

Click to expand...

Well while one or even two swallows do not make a summer( is that a N American expression as well ? ) I have picked up evidence on another site called FADU that suggests that both colour and b&w film passing through airports in the U.K. and Europe might not be affected noticeably by what my research says are the latest CT scanners

This may be of no interest if your travel is N America only but now that there are 2 members on FADU reporting no damage to film from 4 separate major U.K and European airports, I am beginning to wonder if the damage may not be bad enough to amount to noticeable damage

Once again my report of my findings were howled down as being unreliable so I have tended to withdraw from the other major very long thread on the new CT scanners.

If what I have said here is dismissed totally by the same group then OK I'll cease to report any other members finding from FADU

pentaxuser

Eastman Kodak has had examples of real problems with CT scanner damage to film transported internationally to movie shoots.

pentaxuser said:

Well while one or even two swallows do not make a summer( is that a N American expression as well ? ) I have picked up evidence on another site called FADU that suggests that both colour and b&w film passing through airports in the U.K. and Europe might not be affected noticeably by what my research says are the latest CT scanners

This may be of no interest if your travel is N America only but now that there are 2 members on FADU reporting no damage to film from 4 separate major U.K and European airports, I am beginning to wonder if the damage may not be bad enough to amount to noticeable damage

Once again my report of my findings were howled down as being unreliable so I have tended to withdraw from the other major very long thread on the new CT scanners.

If what I have said here is dismissed totally by the same group then OK I'll cease to report any other members finding from FADU

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

the one swallow saying originated with Aristotle. Pretty sure he never made it to Canada...

I can only give anacodatal experience of traveling from Calgary to LHR. I carried both Acros and Delta 400 and I noticed no additional base fog or other defects related to X ray/scanner damage.

I did buy most of my film for the trip in London so it was only scanned once coming home at Heathrow.

Craig said:

I can only give anacodatal experience of traveling from Calgary to LHR. I carried both Acros and Delta 400 and I noticed no additional base fog or other defects related to X ray/scanner damage.

I did buy most of my film for the trip in London so it was only scanned once coming home at Heathrow.

Click to expand...

Was it X-Ray or CT scan?

pentaxuser said:

Well while one or even two swallows do not make a summer( is that a N American expression as well ? ) I have picked up evidence on another site called FADU that suggests that both colour and b&w film passing through airports in the U.K. and Europe might not be affected noticeably by what my research says are the latest CT scanners

This may be of no interest if your travel is N America only but now that there are 2 members on FADU reporting no damage to film from 4 separate major U.K and European airports, I am beginning to wonder if the damage may not be bad enough to amount to noticeable damage

Once again my report of my findings were howled down as being unreliable so I have tended to withdraw from the other major very long thread on the new CT scanners.

If what I have said here is dismissed totally by the same group then OK I'll cease to report any other members finding from FADU

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Pentaxuser. I'm not willing to risk a month's work to find out. I'll be following my colleague's advice and having my film processed in Paris before flying home.

GregY said:

Was it X-Ray or CT scan?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what's in use at Heathrow right now.

Craig said:

I have no idea what's in use at Heathrow right now.

Click to expand...

Probably CT? I'm trying to find something more recent.

GregY said:

Many airports have the new CT scanners.

Click to expand...

Some smaller ones in Europe don't have. My experience this year: departure from Schiphol (Amsterdam), it is no problem to get a hand check.
In Pisa and Venice (Treviso) the machines were of an older type and had stickers on the "film safe".
My film went through it and it looked normal.

pentaxuser said:

one or even two swallows do not make a summer( is that a N American expression as well ?

Click to expand...

Off topic, but in Dutch it is. Litteraly.

Ernst-Jan said:

Some smaller ones in Europe don't have. My experience this year: departure from Schiphol (Amsterdam), it is no problem to get a hand check.
In Pisa and Venice (Treviso) the machines were of an older type and had stickers on the "film safe".
My film went through it and it looked normal.

Click to expand...

That's good to know! When did you last fly, using those airports?

Ernst-Jan said:

Off topic, but in Dutch it is. Litteraly.

Click to expand...

Slightly modified to "Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps" in French. Don't know why it got changed from summer to spring, but to me it somehow makes more sense.

I know Heathrow was introducing the new CT scanners, but having not been there personally in years I don't know if they have replaced them all or if some are still the older standard X-ray scanners.

Do bear in mind in the UK that the Department for Transport has instructed all civil airports to action requests for hand inspection of photographic film.

Kodak and Ilford reckon that film will (or is highly likely) to be damaged in CT machines. The results would not be uniform fogging but would be patterns, lines, squiggles. What we don't know is if those CT scanners are also able to do regular X-ray scans and if the CT function is only invoked when the staff are wanting a better look at what's in a bag. It's also possible to "get away with it".

Film speed *is* important, but due to the nature of the CT scanners, one can no longer simply say that lower speed film won't show any effects. Lower speed film will show less serious effects.

Agulliver said:

I know Heathrow was introducing the new CT scanners, but having not been there personally in years I don't know if they have replaced them all or if some are still the older standard X-ray scanners.

Do bear in mind in the UK that the Department for Transport has instructed all civil airports to action requests for hand inspection of photographic film.

Kodak and Ilford reckon that film will (or is highly likely) to be damaged in CT machines. The results would not be uniform fogging but would be patterns, lines, squiggles. What we don't know is if those CT scanners are also able to do regular X-ray scans and if the CT function is only invoked when the staff are wanting a better look at what's in a bag. It's also possible to "get away with it".

Film speed *is* important, but due to the nature of the CT scanners, one can no longer simply say that lower speed film won't show any effects. Lower speed film will show less serious effects.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed info, Agulliver.

mooseontheloose said:

That's good to know! When did you last fly, using those airports?

Click to expand...

3 weeks and 3 months ago. I don't have experience with requesting hand checks in big airports other than Schiphol.

Andrew O'Neill said:

the one swallow saying originated with Aristotle. Pretty sure he never made it to Canada...

Click to expand...

Well he must have made it to the U.K. Mind you, the only water you cross from Greece is 21 miles from Calais to Dover. The North Atlantic is another matter

pentaxuser

Did find this on Ilford's FAQ Page. Don't know when it was last updated.

ADVICE FOR AIRPORT X-RAY SCANNERS: FILM & PAPERS​

We are working with the DFT and Heathrow airport in the UK and will shortly be updating our information relating to the new CT type x-ray scanners being installed at major airports worldwide.

Based on our initial testing it is almost certain the new CT type x-ray scanners for cabin baggage will be deemed unsafe for any of our ILFORD and KENTMERE film products irrespective of ISO speed rating.

You must therefore ask for hand inspection of your films if the airport is using one of the new type scanners. We will be issuing more specific advice as we complete our testing and evaluation.

HOW TO IDENTIFY THE CT TYPE X-RAY SCANNERS​

The following machines are currently on the market;

• Smiths – CTIX
• L3 – Clearscan
• Rapiscan - 920CT / Connect CT
• IDSS - Detect 1000
• Nuctech - Kylin
• Analogic Cobra

FOR AIRPORTS WITHOUT THE NEW MACHINES, THE FOLLOWING ADVICE IS STILL RELEVANT.​

If you need to travel on aircraft with film, we recommend always taking your film in carry on cabin luggage. The X-ray scanners used to check hand luggage are safe for all but the highest speed films, so except for DELTA PROFESSIONAL 3200, this is our recommendation. It is also possible to request a hand inspection for films and most security staff will allow this (although this varies between airports and countries). For DELTA 3200 you should request a hand inspection or alternatively buy the film at your destination.

Please Note: We do not recommend taking any film in your checked hold luggage, the X-ray machines used for scanning hold luggage are more powerful than the hand luggage scanners and may cause fogging of your films.


@mooseontheloose : the list of CT Type X-Ray scanners might be relevant info on your sticky page.

GregY said:

Pentaxuser. I'm not willing to risk a month's work to find out. I'll be following my colleague's advice and having my film processed in Paris before flying home.

Click to expand...

Fine and my posts on CT scanners were never intended to dissuade anyone from so doing. All I am trying to do is build up evidence in either direction as to the damage or more probably the extent of damage that CT scanners at various airports may be doing

So far one member from another site has reported no perceptible damage to an Ilford SFX film that passed through Berlin scanners twice and twice through Edinburgh scanners

I can report that another member reports no damage that he can see from C41 film that passed through Manchester and was developed at a min-lab

All I was able to do was to check various sources to try and ascertain if all of the above airports mentioned are using CT scanners and the best I could manage was some evidence that certainly Edinburgh seems to be using CT scanners. In the case of Manchester I asked whether there was any signage to indicate danger to film and the member said none that he could see but it seems strange that in probably the major airport in England outside of Heathrow there would be no signage of danger but equally strange if CT scanners aren't in use there

I had thought that getting a straight answer on whether CT scanners were in use at the above-named airports would be simple but seeming not so

Sp please anyone here using any U.K. or European airport who chooses to risk passing their film thought the scanners, please report your findings or at least ask the security on the scanners if they are CT ones and what they know of the risk to film


All we can do is build up evidence as reliably as possible about the effect of these scanners

Thanks

pentaxuser

For the record, here is the communication I received from the UK DfT last year when I raised this with them.

Agulliver said:

For the record, here is the communication I received from the UK DfT last year when I raised this with them.

View attachment 308834

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting this. It aids in understanding the present situation.

Agulliver said:

What we don't know is if those CT scanners are also able to do regular X-ray scans and if the CT function is only invoked when the staff are wanting a better look at what's in a bag.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. The physical construction and working principle of a CT scanner is different from an X-Ray scanner

Here's a quote of interest, pertaining to radiation doses, from a relevant article which seems legitimate:

Data from dosimeter badges passed through a traditional carry-on baggage machine showed from none to very small amounts of measurable radiation. On page 24, the study notes that the highest dose measured on a dosimeter that was passed 36 times through the machine was 4 mrem or 0.04 millisievert (mSv).

Click to expand...

Dosimeters that were passed through the "checked baggage" system that randomly activates the x ray had highly variable doses. If the dosimeters were near the area randomly selected by the software to activate the x-ray source, a higher dose would be measured. The average dose, after 10 passes through this type of system was about 28 mrem per scan (0.28 mSv per scan).

Click to expand...

Dosimeters that were passed through the type of "checked baggage" system that stayed active for the entire screening process had an average dose of 156 mrem per scan (1.56 mSv) per scan. The newer carry-on screening systems are expected to deliver similar doses.

Click to expand...

Source: https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12361.html

This suggests that taking your film through a CT scanner will give results in the same ballpark as running it through checked baggage scanners. The latter is known and demonstrated to be devastating even for one or two passes and for slower films.

Alex Benjamin said:

I've read somewhere—cannot for the life of me find the reference—that lower ISO films (20 to 100) are less sensitive to the x-ray scan and therefore not as susceptible to getting fogged.

Click to expand...

That's correct; the slower the film, the less prone to x-ray damage it will be. This is easy to understand if you keep in mind that this is all about electromagnetic exposure of the silver particles in the film - whether this happens through visible light or 'light' (electromagnetic radiation) of a shorter wavelength does not matter all that much in principle. This also means that faster will be more sensitive to light, as well as to x-rays, and vice versa.
For the older x-ray machines the distinction between fast (notably 1600-3200 speed film) and slower film (anything up to 800 or so) was still relevant; 'slow' film up to at least 400 would typically not suffer visible damage from airport xrays, while 1600/3200 film could suffer visible damage especially after a few passes. I myself never hesitated to run my film (typically 100 and 400 speed) through the older xray machines and never had any problems with it.
The new CT scanners are different in the sense that the radiation doses are typically high enough to give visible damage to the film even in a single pass, and for slower films as well as faster ones. Verifiable reports of this including images have popped up, also on Photrio, and film manufacturing companies have issues warnings about this.

Since the advent of CT scanners, I consistently ask for manual inspection and I carry my film in a dedicated zip-lock bag along with a printed Kodak 'do not xray' leaflet.

As to the scanner situation in Europe: it's a mixed bag. In my experience so far especially the less affluent Mediterranean countries have not yet converted to CT and continue to use xray machines, while especially in NW-Europe CT scanners can be found. For instance Eindhoven Airport in The Netherlands only has CT these days, and Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (a place you should avoid at all cost BTW) has at least partly (but possibly by now completely) converted to CT.

There is usually no information on the websites of airports that clearly indicates what kind of scanner your carry-on luggage will go through. This means that if you are traveling by air, you will have to be prepared to encounter CT scanners along the way, but there's no guarantee you will.

pentaxuser said:

So far one member from another site has reported no perceptible damage to an Ilford SFX film that passed through Berlin scanners twice and twice through Edinburgh scanners

Click to expand...

And CT scanners MAY OR MAY NOT have been involved; we just don't know.

Moreover, if this film went through CT without damage, the other instances of known problems still stand. At best, one example of no damage would make this into a game of Russian Roulette. It's not clear to me how this would realistically influence travel behavior. As long as you know there's a real chance a CT scanner will do damage to your film, all you can do is try and prevent taking your film through one.

The only evidence that might help is if we can reliably ascertain that not a single CT scanner in use on an airport does damage to film. That's the only condition under which the risk would be realistically eliminated. Since we know for a fact that such a situation will not present itself, at least not with the current generation or CT scanners, evidence of a film slipping safely through the cracks here and there just isn't going to help much.

koraks said:

There is usually no information on the websites of airports that clearly indicates what kind of scanner your carry-on luggage will go through. This means that if you are traveling by air, you will have to be prepared to encounter CT scanners along the way, but there's no guarantee you will.

Click to expand...

This is an important point. Partly because airports don't like to share too much info about their security systems and partly because 99% of travellers are just interested in "what to expect" and "how to get through quickly", airports typically do not post any details of the scanning equipment they have. Any info on an airport's website is usually designed to help infrequent or nervous travellers find out what they're going to experience and plan their visit to the airport accordingly.

Often one cannot even contact the relevant people at an airport to ask questions about the security scanners. Which makes sense, we are a very small minority and for most passengers the convenience of not having to remove laptops and tablets outweighs the perceived minor problems of photographic materials.