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

[Radost]

There's no unifying Europen rule.

Germans in Frankfurt wanted to run all my film through. I protested. The guy showed me a printout paper with the EU logo on top saying 1600iso and bellow can go through the scanners. They run everything but tmax3200

 

[koraks]

The guy showed me a printout paper with the EU logo on top saying 1600iso and bellow can go through the scanners.

There probably are directives in x-ray scanners in general from the European Commission. Whether any of that says something about photographic film or film speeds, I don't know, and I doubt it. It's certainly not actively enforced policy given how security staff in different airports apparently choose (sometimes individually) how to deal with the issue.

Also, anyone can print a flyer with some logos on top. I wouldn't attribute too much value to it. In all likelihood you saw a local policy, possibly in part derived from a EC directive. That doesn't mean there's actually any EU-wide rule on specifically this issue. And as said, it's definitely not a commonly respected directive even if there is one. It has no practical value.

 

[Radost]

There probably are directives in x-ray scanners in general from the European Commission. Whether any of that says something about photographic film or film speeds, I don't know, and I doubt it. It's certainly not actively enforced policy given how security staff in different airports apparently choose (sometimes individually) how to deal with the issue.

Also, anyone can print a flyer with some logos on top. I wouldn't attribute too much value to it. In all likelihood you saw a local policy, possibly in part derived from a EC directive. That doesn't mean there's actually any EU-wide rule on specifically this issue. And as said, it's definitely not a commonly respected directive even if there is one. It has no practical value.

I have passed through Germany many times without a problem.
This guy seamed like a manager of some sort who goes by the book.
It did say photographic film 1600iso and under is safe to be scanned.
Somebody printing a fake document and having it at the Frankfurt airport sounds highly unlikely.
He made me open one of my cameras. I had to roll the film back.

 

[snusmumriken]

I have passed through Germany many times without a problem.
This guy seamed like a manager of some sort who goes by the book.
It did say photographic film 1600iso and under is safe to be scanned.
Somebody printing a fake document and having it at the Frankfurt airport sounds highly unlikely.
He made me open one of my cameras. I had to roll the film back.

‘Can go through’ and ‘is safe’ are surely not the same as ‘must go through’. Seems like an over-zealous local policy at Frankfurt.

 

[koraks]

It did say photographic film 1600iso and under is safe to be scanned.
Somebody printing a fake document and having it at the Frankfurt airport sounds highly unlikely.

I didn't say the document was fake. I said that any organization can decide on a policy, use whatever sources they use including EC directives and print those policies out and attach some logos to them. That doesn't make the policy fake. Neither does it show that there's a EU policy that says that film below 1600 ISO is safe to go through x-ray scanners.

As a EU citizen, film shooter and fairly active traveler throughout Europe (although we tuned it down during and also after covid), I've never noticed anything about a EU-issued film-specific airport scanner policy being in effect. I have not traveled by air through Frankfurt, but a wide selection of other airports in various European countries and of various sizes, usually carrying film and actively approaching security staff about the issue.

There is of course EU legislation that requires airports to check luggage carried on airplanes. There are also EU rules about what cannot be taken on a flight. Those directions don't pertain to photographic film, however. The question if it's safe for film to be taken through a security scanner is also something that's extremely unlikely and illogical to be subject to EU regulation for a number of obvious reasons.

‘Can go through’ and ‘is safe’ are surely not the same as ‘must go through’.

Standing EU policy is that luggage must be checked. EU policy does not dictate how this check must occur. It's up to airport operators to decide how to do this effectively and efficiently. For the EU air travel luggage policy, it doesn't matter if film is checked manually or x-ray scanned.

Since the EU doesn't give a hoot about whether a product might be damaged by treating it to a dose of xrays, it's not something that the EU is likely to ever issue policy on, let alone policy that's ridiculously susceptible to all sorts of technological change and variation. It just doesn't make any sense.

What of course is totally logical, explicable and even likely, is observing a couple of things, and then drawing a conclusion on them that happens to be erroneous. Such as seeing a logo on a piece of paper, someone saying something about 1600-speed film, and then interpreting this as proof that there's a EU policy on film going through x-ray scanners. It's easy to be mistaken.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Wonder if a very slow film like Adox CMS 20 would get through a CT scanner OK.
Otherwise its digital for me on trips abroad.

 

[abruzzi]

has anyone been through Madrid lately? I emailed them to ask if they had installed CT scanners, and they emailed back that for security reasons they couldn't tell me. (which is a little silly since its visually obvious to thousands of people a day!) I also asked if baggage was scanned on arrival--through customs or exiting the airport (something that happens in Mexico, at least León airport), also go no answer.

The did say: "we also have alternative procedures when certain objects cannot be passed through Rx machines" but thats not the most confidence inspiring.

 

[jeffreyg]

My personal experience has been positive except in Paris. Once in Milan I asked for hand check and the agent said that it was safe in the X-ray but his fellow agent was familiar with film and agreed to hand check. My last trip out of Miami and return from Houston we were running late so I took a chance with the X-ray Very bad move fogged Delta 400 Next time my wife will have to get up early. Only hand check for me. Fortunately I was able to salvage with Photoshop but the negatives were useless in the darkroom It’s a shame the TSA can’t come up with something like their preclearance. I take my film out of the boxes and put it in a clear ziplock. If you’re using sheet film what do you do?

 

[abruzzi]

I have been surprised with the TSA--they have always been willing to do the hand check, evel at JFK which was a crowded nightmare compared to most airporst I fly from, they still hand checked my film. Mexico (León) and Russia (Moscow) on the other hand were no-go. Mexico even hand inspected everything but still required te xray...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have been surprised with the TSA--they have always been willing to do the hand check, evel at JFK which was a crowded nightmare compared to most airporst I fly from, they still hand checked my film. Mexico (León) and Russia (Moscow) on the other hand were no-go. Mexico even hand inspected everything but still required te xray...

That is because it is TSA policy to allow hand checks. Do not ask for one in France where I was threatened with arrest just for asking.

 

[koraks]

The did say: "we also have alternative procedures when certain objects cannot be passed through Rx machines" but thats not the most confidence inspiring.

No, but I did fly through Madrid the summer before Covid and didn't have any issues getting a hand check on my carry-on when departing from there. Staff were friendly and cooperative in my case.

 

[Agulliver]

Just processed the Fomapan 400 and Delta 3200 that went through the X-rays at LUT and PMI. THe only issues are focus on some frames which I am certain is user error - ie, my error. No evidence of any X-ray damage whatsoever.

For the record in the past I've had Delta 3200 X-rayed by hand baggage scanners and pushed it to 12,800 and had no issues.

I've learned where possible not to take loaded film cameras because there's always a chance the security bods might ask to see the camera opened or demonstrated. I had that years ago at LHR and the guy sympathised but explained it was the policy to check cameras during a time of "heightened security". He actually agonised over making me open it, I offered to wind the film back...he understood the risk of losing the film in the cassette....in the end I did just that and managed to stop before the end went back into the 135 cassette. I always go through security with an attitude "Let's do what we can together to make this work. You got a job to do. I'm not trying to stop you doing it."

 

[Agulliver]

Wonder if a very slow film like Adox CMS 20 would get through a CT scanner OK.
Otherwise its digital for me on trips abroad.

Why? It's perfectly possible to fly with Delta 3200, which I did just 48 hours ago.

 

[Agulliver]

My personal experience has been positive except in Paris. Once in Milan I asked for hand check and the agent said that it was safe in the X-ray but his fellow agent was familiar with film and agreed to hand check. My last trip out of Miami and return from Houston we were running late so I took a chance with the X-ray Very bad move fogged Delta 400 Next time my wife will have to get up early. Only hand check for me. Fortunately I was able to salvage with Photoshop but the negatives were useless in the darkroom It’s a shame the TSA can’t come up with something like their preclearance. I take my film out of the boxes and put it in a clear ziplock. If you’re using sheet film what do you do?

Can you show us what happened with the fogged film? The more data we all have, the better.

 

[pentaxuser]

koraks, if I have understood what you have said, it is this: Each and every airport in the EU can decide for itself whether to offer a hand inspection and should some decide not to offer a hand inspection then there is nothing that anyone can do about it as there is no EU directive and will be no directive covering such a matter.

However it isn't clear to me if you are saying that this policy of individual airports' decisions on insisting on the use of scanners or offering hand inspections only cover the older safer scanners and that there will be a directive to allow hand inspections when airports install CT scanners

If there is no intention of the EU making a directive on offering hand inspections when CT scanners are installed then the situation for each film user will rely on the discretion of each airport and film users will be lucky at some EU airports and unlucky at others

Have I understood what you have said correctly? If not then can you clear up my misunderstanding? Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[jeffreyg]

At first I thought it could be the camera but I was using two cameras which would be two different backs and two different lenses. I also didn’t use all the rolls. I developed an unused roll which was also fogged. I shot a roll in each camera from the same batch of film that I didn’t take with me They were fine so it wasn’t the cameras it had to be the X-ray. Subsequent rolls in the same cameras have been okay. Hasselblads 80 mm and 250 mm Delta 400 fresh chemicals. I don’t know which airport or both.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Why? It's perfectly possible to fly with Delta 3200, which I did just 48 hours ago.

I guess flying with Delta would indeed be the best solution...

 

[MattKing]

koraks, if I have understood what you have said, it is this: Each and every airport in the EU can decide for itself whether to offer a hand inspection and should some decide not to offer a hand inspection then there is nothing that anyone can do about it as there is no EU directive and will be no directive covering such a matter.

However it isn't clear to me if you are saying that this policy of individual airports' decisions on insisting on the use of scanners or offering hand inspections only cover the older safer scanners and that there will be a directive to allow hand inspections when airports install CT scanners

If there is no intention of the EU making a directive on offering hand inspections when CT scanners are installed then the situation for each film user will rely on the discretion of each airport and film users will be lucky at some EU airports and unlucky at others

Have I understood what you have said correctly? If not then can you clear up my misunderstanding? Thanks

pentaxuser

In order to cause a system wide directive to be put into place, you will need to somehow ensure that the appropriate authorities actually know about the existence of film and the associated problem.
And then you will need patience - these things happen slowly.

 

[Radost]

I have been surprised with the TSA--they have always been willing to do the hand check, evel at JFK which was a crowded nightmare compared to most airporst I fly from, they still hand checked my film. Mexico (León) and Russia (Moscow) on the other hand were no-go. Mexico even hand inspected everything but still required te xray...

Never had problems with TSA. But now days I just let the film through. Never had a problem.

 

[Radost]

I didn't say the document was fake. I said that any organization can decide on a policy, use whatever sources they use including EC directives and print those policies out and attach some logos to them. That doesn't make the policy fake. Neither does it show that there's a EU policy that says that film below 1600 ISO is safe to go through x-ray scanners.

As a EU citizen, film shooter and fairly active traveler throughout Europe (although we tuned it down during and also after covid), I've never noticed anything about a EU-issued film-specific airport scanner policy being in effect. I have not traveled by air through Frankfurt, but a wide selection of other airports in various European countries and of various sizes, usually carrying film and actively approaching security staff about the issue.

There is of course EU legislation that requires airports to check luggage carried on airplanes. There are also EU rules about what cannot be taken on a flight. Those directions don't pertain to photographic film, however. The question if it's safe for film to be taken through a security scanner is also something that's extremely unlikely and illogical to be subject to EU regulation for a number of obvious reasons.


Standing EU policy is that luggage must be checked. EU policy does not dictate how this check must occur. It's up to airport operators to decide how to do this effectively and efficiently. For the EU air travel luggage policy, it doesn't matter if film is checked manually or x-ray scanned.

Since the EU doesn't give a hoot about whether a product might be damaged by treating it to a dose of xrays, it's not something that the EU is likely to ever issue policy on, let alone policy that's ridiculously susceptible to all sorts of technological change and variation. It just doesn't make any sense.

What of course is totally logical, explicable and even likely, is observing a couple of things, and then drawing a conclusion on them that happens to be erroneous. Such as seeing a logo on a piece of paper, someone saying something about 1600-speed film, and then interpreting this as proof that there's a EU policy on film going through x-ray scanners. It's easy to be mistaken.

It also possible that border agent was racist or a nazi to give me all those problems.
He made me open a camera with film inside.

 

[koraks]

Have I understood what you have said correctly

In the first paragraph of your post, yeah. The other paragraphs appear to be speculation on your part and not really directly based on my post. For that part goes that your guess is as good as mine. I'm not working at the EC, so your guess is as good as mine as to what they may or may not intend to do. My personal opinion is that it's not very likely at this point that there will ever be an EC directive that forces airports to offer a hand check.

So I agree with your overall conclusion that in the end, it'll be mostly a matter of luck of being offered whatever kind of leniency when it comes to carrying film on an airplane. Given the economic reality of film photography, which is marginal at best and quite frankly a vanishingly small interest group in the larger scheme of things, I think it's kind of obvious that this will remain the case.

 

[koraks]

It also possible that border agent was racist or a nazi to give me all those problems.

Yeah, very likely, that.

In all seriousness though - seems to me you just misunderstood what was going on. No biggie, happens to all of us.

 

[pentaxuser]

In order to cause a system wide directive to be put into place, you will need to somehow ensure that the appropriate authorities actually know about the existence of film and the associated problem.
And then you will need patience - these things happen slowly.

Thanks Matt but I am not sure if this clarifies my understanding of what koraks had said That last sentence of yours covers most problems in life but seems to belong to the "have faith and thi ng will eventually turn out OK" philosophy without actually adding anything that either increases or decreases hope in terms of getting clarification

It's a big like "smile, things could be worse" so I smiled and things did indeed get worse

pentaxuser

 

[abruzzi]

Never had problems with TSA. But now days I just let the film through. Never had a problem.

well, I'm not going to take a chance with the proliferation of CT machines, and Kodak and Ilfords reccomendation.

 

[Radost]

Yeah, very likely, that.

In all seriousness though - seems to me you just misunderstood what was going on. No biggie, happens to all of us.

Misunderstood? How do you get to that conclusion? I can read and write.