CineStill Xpro C-41 800 in Danger ?

trendland · Apr 26, 2017

dmr said:
Interesting bokeh effect there, almost looks like it's dripping.

What I've found at the checkpoint scanners in the airports is that usually they will just let the bag pass as the belt rolls along. I'm sure this is fine for most modern film.

However, every so often they will stop the belt, back it up, move it back and forth as they stare at the screen, then motion over a co-worker or supervisor (is the beam on all this time?), and they talk and point and rock the belt back and forth over and over and over and over and finally let it go on through. It's thinks like this that would scare me. I almost always put the film in a baggie and ask for a hand inspection, which they almost always do without griping.

"dripping " so as rain ? - just have to translate it
Yes - that looks like. Haven't trust my
eyes when I saw this effect first - or should I say :" .....of cause this was the
intention !!

I would more say : "This was my first
real avaible light shooting."

Coming to the conditions.
ISO 800,28mmNikon f/2.8 (old lens)
no light at all (only lights fromm the streets)

The first messurement was 1/4 sec.
at the enry of a theatre 200m away from the set.After this light changes in a park
in front of the theatre1/2...1sek...
....1/2sek.
This shot with the drippings you like was
in total darkness.
I made a series of exposures and began
with 1 sek...then 1 1/2 sek. then 2 sek......3,5 sek......5sek......6sek......
The longest time were not overexposed -
ok .....a little.....but this here belonges
to the longerest - can't belive it because of the sharpness.Perhaps I have it not as well in mind because it must be max.
2-3 sek.
And the light you will see in the face of the model comes from a park latern very far away. And the set was here in the
shadow of trees. So while this shooting
I nearly can't see her standing in directly in front of me.
The street in the backround was nearly
dark as it could be.
There were no very big glowing lights
in that amound you can see now.Not
at all.The street was a simular
street in the dark as often seen with smal ligths.
And the model was a little fixed as you can not seen this in the picture.

Well - hand inspection is a "golden rule".

with regards

Nice pictures seen on your web side

trendland · Apr 26, 2017

dmr said:
Interesting bokeh effect there, almost looks like it's dripping.

What I've found at the checkpoint scanners in the airports is that usually they will just let the bag pass as the belt rolls along. I'm sure this is fine for most modern film.

However, every so often they will stop the belt, back it up, move it back and forth as they stare at the screen, then motion over ......

nice pictures on your
web side <----envious

trendland · Apr 26, 2017

dmr said:
Interesting bokeh effect there, almost looks like it's dripping.

What I've found at the checkpoint scanners in the airports is that usually they will just let the bag pass as the belt rolls along. I'm sure this is fine for most modern film.

However, every so often they will stop the belt, back it up, move it back and forth as they stare at the screen, then motion over ......

nice pictures on your
web side <----envious

trendland · Apr 26, 2017

dmr said:
Interesting bokeh effect there, almost looks like it's dripping.

What I've found at the checkpoint scanners in the airports is that usually they will just let the bag pass as the belt rolls along. I'm sure this is fine for most modern film.

However, every so often they will stop the belt, back it up, move it back and forth as they stare at the screen, then motion over ......

nice pictures on your
web side <----envious

trendland · Apr 26, 2017

trendland said:
"dripping " so as rain ? - just have to translate it
Yes - that looks like. Haven't trust my
eyes when I saw this effect first - or should I say :" .....of cause this was the
intention !!

I would more say : "This was my first
real avaible light shooting."

Coming to the conditions.
ISO 800,28mmNikon f/2.8 (old lens)
no light at all (only lights fromm the streets)

The first messurement was 1/4 sec.
at the enry of a theatre 200m away from the set.After this light changes in a park
in front of the theatre1/2...1sek...
....1/2sek.
This shot with the drippings you like was
in total darkness.
I made a series of exposures and began
with 1 sek...then 1 1/2 sek. then 2 sek......3,5 sek......5sek......6sek......
The longest time were not overexposed -
ok .....a little.....but this here belonges
to the longerest - can't belive it because of the sharpness.Perhaps I have it not as well in mind because it must be max.
2-3 sek.
And the light you will see in the face of the model comes from a park latern very far away. And the set was here in the
shadow of trees. So while this shooting
I nearly can't see her standing in directly in front of me.
The street in the backround was nearly
dark as it could be.
There were no very big glowing lights
in that amound you can see now.Not
at all.The street was a simular
street in the dark as often seen with smal ligths.
And the model was a little fixed as you can not seen this in the picture.

Well - hand inspection is a "golden rule".

with regards

Nice pictures seen on your web side

This here was in a lighted area with much less glow of cause.

Nice pictures on you
webside < ---- envious

pentaxuser · Apr 26, 2017

Just out of curiosity,trendland, what have you decided to do about airport scanners now you have most of the evidence from Kodak, APUG and your own instincts?

pentaxuser

trendland · Apr 26, 2017

pentaxuser said:
Just out of curiosity,trendland, what have you decided to do about airport scanners now you have most of the evidence from Kodak, APUG and your own instincts?

pentaxuser

I would advice you to cultivate good manners to TSA officials as it goes to be the friendliest passenger of the month.

You should have your films in a transparent case with you - and you should ask if it is possible to "hand inspect" your films - when you are adviced to take you films to the scanner.

If this will not help you should be aware of to put your films in your baggage (due
to scanning -with hand baggage scanners of cause) - you should make sure to have enough separation (space)
between the last baggage in scan process and your films.

It is not so easy to manage this but just
have a try for make shure your films
will be scanned alone/seperately.
But don't asked for a seperately scan.
TSA is often mutch to bussy for do this.

AND - don't forget you will alert them
if you draw to much attention to you.

In that case TSA operators may have
a view with "red flaged eyes" on their
scanner monitor like so :"film rolls with
this yellow company logo - never seen before"
DANGEROUS OBJECTS

So it could be contraproduktive.

If nothing will help - you can at least trust on that what many others here
stated.And you can hope it will help a bit.

As I said it is no must (x-ray damage)

IT IS ONLY AN ACTUAL RISK

with regards

Agulliver · Apr 27, 2017

I think Trendland makes some good points above.

Don't do anything which might draw your attention to the TSA or foreign equivalent. You can try asking for hand inspection, though remember this is only a right in the USA and in some countries they will just get angry. You draw attention to yourself if you carry lots of cameras or related equipment in your hand baggage - I've had this happen a few times. Also, while you cannot always choose who inspects your bag, I find that older (40s and beyond) security operatives are more likely to know what film and old cameras are.

Case in point....on a trip from London Gatwick to Malta earlier this year I travelled with two film SLRs, a DLSR and a medium format folding camera in my hand luggage...plus several lenses, cable release, filters and a bucket of film. the security guy at Gatwick in his 20s or early 30s scanned it and didn't recognise the contents, asking me to go for a hand search of my bag. The guy doing the hand search was older, late 40s or 50s. He took a brief look and said "Somebody likes cameras"...smiled and said I was "fine to go". Also note that my bag was only x-rayed once, and then sent for manual inspection. I do tent to attract attention because even as a tourist I travel with a fair amount of gear. I also work with explosives which can set of alerts if I am swabbed. Additionally I'm tall and wide, so tend to be noticed.

But...also remember....many of us over many decades have flown with film. And there is perhaps one case of an APUG member having film damaged by airport hand baggage X-ray scans - and even that is debatable. There is also one known instance of a TV film crew losing a day's shooting because someone put their films through the checked baggage/hold x-ray machine. As I said before, this physically CANNOT happen if you are travelling as a passenger on a commercial airline and have your films in your hand baggage. There is simply no way that hand baggage can get anywhere near the checked bag scanners.

Of all the times us APUG members and the general public have travelled with films as airline passengers.....very few *if any* have had film damaged. Hand baggage x-ray machines are designed so as not to damage photographic film. Personally, my biggest advice is not to worry about it.

trendland · Apr 27, 2017

As it has been stated in the very most
cases here on APUG - I should wonder again and again.

It seams to me as it goes to win the olimpic games with the most scanned
film material of all - without damage
of x-rays.

Therefore only one rule at least:

"Hand inspection only"

to all of your films so as Kodak recomanded it to Motion Picture Films.

That will be the best chance to win the challenge of "Never have x-ray damage
at all"

with regards

Agulliver · Apr 28, 2017

Once again...there is nothing magic about MP film. Kodak recommend it is not x-rayed because MP film is usually on large cores which are physically too large to go through hand hag scanners....so if they were to be scanned at all they would be scanned by checked bag scanners, which we know can and does cause damage to films. The Kodak recommendation is not because MP stock is somehow more susceptible to x-rays compared to C41, E6 or B&W film.

For 35mm, medium format and sheet film...even derived from MP stock, you can put it through with your hand baggage and the chances of it receiving any damage are minuscule. Remember, of all the APUG members....just one reports any damage from an airline hand bag scanner. And that itself is debatable. Your film is not going to go anywhere near the checked bag scanners which can damage it, if you have it in your hand baggage.

Finally, here are the recommendations from the Eurostar rail service, which fits in with the practical experiences of people who actually take film on planes and international trains.

The x-ray machines we use at our stations are similar to those used for hand luggage at airports, and according to the British Photographers' Liaison Committee (BPLC), are safe for all normal film types, up to and including ISO 400.

In most cases these films can be x-rayed up to 32 times without suffering any damage, while processed film can be x-rayed any number of times.

Specialist film (ISO 800 and above) can be affected if it’s x-rayed more than eight times, but the change is barely visible to the naked eye and only shows when the film is exposed around 32 times.

In short...my personal advice is don't panic...don't worry too much...chances of any damage to your films including high speed films is minuscule as long as you put it in your hand baggage. If travelling with a lot of film, I tend to put it all in a freezer type bag so it's all together and can easily be removed if required. It is worth noting how many airport scanners your film has been through, because the effect is cumulative. You might want to ensure that film which has been on a few flights isn't taken on future trips, and use fresh film instead.

Prest_400 · Apr 28, 2017

Small contribution: I was flying out of Barcelona early this week and managed to read a small note on the side of scanners:
Paraphrasing it more or less: Safe for film up to ISO 1600 without cumulative damage.

chassis · Apr 28, 2017

Prest thanks for that.

Pretty cool IMO that there is a sign at the scanner mentioning film.

#filmisnotdead

Prest_400 · Apr 28, 2017

chassis said:
Prest thanks for that.

Pretty cool IMO that there is a sign at the scanner mentioning film.

#filmisnotdead

I was surprised to see TSA panels about film up to 800 being safe in scanners while queueing at JFK security control. OTOH, I was able to read this from the Barcelona T1 scanners because I was stopped for a random check. Security controls nowadays are so hectic that I would never ask for a manual check out of the blue.
These scanners are no older than 10 years. I was rather surprised at the "lack of cumulative effect" being mentioned. So, these must put out a quite small dose.

AgX · Apr 28, 2017

As you just indicated, people stating there is (always) a cumulative effect are wrong. Exposure, if small enough, will be of no effect and thus will not cumulate.

trendland · Apr 30, 2017

AgX said:
As you just indicated, people stating there is (always) a cumulative effect are wrong. Exposure, if small enough, will be of no effect and thus will not cumulate.

Ok Agx once again - an other aspect here: "cumulative effects with films."

So - what is cumulative in general to
films - let us together look on some examples.

1.) developping times !

Lets have first 1min. ,then 30 sek. ,
the 3. step is 15min. So do you have
a cumulative of times? Yes - but don't fix
your film between.
The developing time to this example is
16':30"a special type of cumulative effects just as an example to make it clear.
2.) exposure times - the same effect -
thinking to double exposure.
first 1/30 sek. then 1/30 sek. the cumulative of both is 1/15 sek. let us forget "schwarzschild" to these example.

3.) x-ray amounds on films.
Do you realy not thing that you have cumulative effects here too ??

They are working in the exact way like
exposure steps. (may be in very low dosis ) there is indeed a "schwarzschild
effect" due to x-ray exposure - but I don't think so.
I depends to the dosis (theoretically)
but the dosis is not as low as you sugessted - as I refered so many times before.

At least to your understanding: The dosis
of x-rays is never with no effects.There is an effect to the detection mechanism as usable for security controls.
You have an effect of absorbtion and reflection die to the x-rayed material.
When you x-ray films the factor of absorbtion is much greater than the parts of x-rays wich would be reflected from films.
X-rays have ALLWAYS an effect to films
as a simple logical conclusion of that.

BUT in small amunds you will first not
see this effect because of an overlay of
exposure effects on your films.

If they have an (photo) exposure before
or after the x-ray is not the difference - to regard this in this way.

I can realy not believe what should be
so complicate with this simple mechanisms.

Hope thats clear now.

with regards

AgX · Apr 30, 2017

You are quite wrong. Things are not as simple as you think.

trendland · May 1, 2017

I see this quite clear - it is as simple as just following the official Kodak recomendation.
Due to your own films you should handle
them "as Motion Picture Films" because there is absoltute no difference from the emmulsion side (r-ray sensivity)
"NO X-RAY IN ANY FORM" - so this should be not as simple as possible?

But I see - better use "Check In" scanners up to 30x and trust arguments
wich would like to explain tja x-rays have
absoltute no effects on films.

I don't want to say so - and I am realy sorry to the "must" now - but sorry to you : That is (let us say "a little" - Ok?)-
Quite Wrong - Agx

with regards

trendland · May 1, 2017

Agulliver said:
Once again...there is nothing magic about MP film. Kodak recommend it is not x-rayed because MP film is usually on large cores which are physically too large to go through hand hag scanners....so if they were to be scanned at all they would be scanned by checked bag scanners, which we know can and does cause damage to films. The Kodak recommendation is not because MP stock is somehow more susceptible to x-rays compared to C41, E6 or B&W film.

For 35mm, medium format and sheet film...even derived from MP stock, you can put it through with your hand baggage and the chances of it receiving any damage are minuscule. Remember, of all the APUG members....just one reports any damage from an airline hand bag scanner. And that itself is debatable. Your film is not going to go anywhere near the checked bag scanners which can damage it, if you have it in your hand baggage.

Finally, here are the recommendations from the Eurostar rail service, which fits in with the practical experiences of people who actually take film on planes and international trains.

The x-ray machines we use at our stations are similar to those used for hand luggage at airports, and according to the British Photographers' Liaison Committee (BPLC), are safe for all normal film types, up to and including ISO 400.

In most cases these films can be x-rayed up to 32 times without suffering any damage, while processed film can be x-rayed any number of times.

Specialist film (ISO 800 and above) can be affected if it’s x-rayed more than eight times, but the change is barely visible to the naked eye and only shows when the film is exposed around 32 times.

In short...my personal advice is don't panic...don't worry too much...chances of any damage to your films including high speed films is minuscule as long as you put it in your hand baggage. If travelling with a lot of film, I tend to put it all in a freezer type bag so it's all together and can easily be removed if required. It is worth noting how many airport scanners your film has been through, because the effect is cumulative. You might want to ensure that film which has been on a few flights isn't taken on future trips, and use fresh film instead.

Comming once again to the scanner technology.

On Airports there are more different types of scanner in use one could now.

And of cause - should not know.

With advanced features you can not immagine - and should not ......

The newest generation uses 3d scans.
The operator is software suported able
to look in your baggage from all sides out of each perspektive.

You have it like 3d animated films have shown.
Therefore you need a multiple scan at once and higher power.
So you can just forget the sighn : "Up to 800 ISO"

But you may have luck if your stuff L ooks like very normal.
In the other side you have damaged films
it is just so simple.

with regards

trendland · May 1, 2017

Prest_400 said:
Small contribution: I was flying out of Barcelona early this week and managed to read a small note on the side of scanners:
Paraphrasing it more or less: Safe for film up to ISO 1600 without cumulative damage.

Yes you quite have noticed this.
Indeed manufactures rated some scanners "Up to 1600ISO" but don't be so simplehearted to trust anything on
a note on the side of scanners.

Have a look to volkswagen with clean diesel.

with regards

removed account4 · May 1, 2017

trendland said:
Indeed manufactures rated some scanners "Up to 1600ISO" but don't be so simplehearted to trust anything on
a note on the side of scanners.

i trust them because i have put film through the scanners
and had no problems, as mentioned sometimes 15+ times a trip,
and some of the flm i haven't yet exposed has gone through
IDK another15 times since then.
high and lo iso.
im happy for you that you don't trust kodak
and camera film manufacturers
and you take extra precautions ...
but i find it is unnecessary
if every time someone put their film through
an airport scanner
and
it got damaged,
even though the scanner's maker,
and KODAK
and probably
fuji and agfa and ferrantia, and forte and foma and ilford say ( like bobby M )
"dont' worry be happy"
and then
it got damaged ...
people wouldn't fly with film,
and peoplewould disregard+distrust what manufactures of scanners
and film &c have to say
and
the perception would be
that these companies were playing a game
to get people to buy more film in an already shrunk-industry.
it isn't like "box speed" or "developing times"
which are starting points some of the time
and i'm not sure, but i would guess if
scanners said " fine for upto iso 800" and people
had ruined film every time, it would be grounds for
a law(yer in a)-suit
i can see where you are coming from but i am sorry to say
i'll follow bobby M's advice ... until i see a reason to act differently.

trendland · May 1, 2017

jnanian said:
i trust them because i have put film through the scanners
and had no problems, as mentioned sometimes 15+ times a trip,
and some of the flm i haven't yet exposed has gone through
IDK another15 times since then.
high and lo iso.
im happy for you that you don't trust kodak
and camera film manufacturers
and you take extra precautions ...
but i find it is unnecessary
if every time someone put their film through
an airport scanner
and
it got damaged,
even though the scanner's maker,
and KODAK
and probably
fuji and agfa and ferrantia, and forte and foma and ilford say ( like bobby M )
"dont' worry be happy"
and then
it got damaged ...
people wouldn't fly with film,
and peoplewould disregard+distrust what manufactures of scanners
and film &c have to say
and
the perception would be
that these companies were playing a game
to get people to buy more film in an already shrunk-industry.
it isn't like "box speed" or "developing times"
which are starting points some of the time
and i'm not sure, but i would guess if
scanners said " fine for upto iso 800" and people
had ruined film every time, it would be grounds for
a law(yer in a)-suit
i can see where you are coming from but i am sorry to say
i'll follow bobby M's advice ... until i see a reason to act differently.

As I said before - it is no "must" to have film damage with check in scanners.
There are many reasons that you could go through several checkpoints with multiple scans and no have no damaged films at all since years.
But it depends on your personal prefers with your baggage.
What is the stuff you always have with you? There you should see the reason of being happy with films.
Because it seams to be so as so with the very most others that you have personally no stuff in your baggage with could be interprete as "suspecious".
It it never my intention to let others avoid there films in case of travelling.
Look at the advices I have given before.

In addition it depends on the circumstance of the look in your films personally.

How important are your films to yourself? This question may be answered
differrent from each other to each other.

Could you life with 2 of 100 films with
smal flog on it? If some circumstance comes bad - multiple scans cause of no hand inspection, different technical items
with lots of different types of scanners.

Personal stress to TSA operators with
some stuff wich is indeed dangerous - but they overlooked it last month.
So they identfies some normal thinks suddenly as suspecious.
A.s.o. - have you ever heard about murphis law?
In this case it is this one of your films with an most importance ever out of 100
others with will get a x-ray damage.
And exact this is the reason on Kodaks
recomendation with Motion Picture Films
- the importance of this film material.
Absolute now risk therefore !
So I meant "simplehearted" - when you feel sure that check in scanners have no
technical capabilities to damage films
under each circumstance.
As Kodak now this ( indeed with low probability ) the statement is clear:

NO X-RAY IN ANY CASE

So what give us this recomandation ?

Justified doubts to ISO800-ISO1600
guaranties from shields on airportscanners.

Sorry - sorry - sorry

with regards

removed account4 · May 1, 2017

no need to be sorry.
do as you need to do
and i will do what i do
and not worry
have fun!

trendland · May 1, 2017

As you stated before you have your films
with you - and therefore you have had no
problems to hand inspection requests.

I am absolute not worrying - because I indeed avoided any scanner to my films.

Because the safer side on the safe side
is the best side.

with regards

removed account4 · May 1, 2017

trendland said:
As you stated before you have your films
with you - and therefore you have had no
problems to hand inspection requests

kind of but not really.
in the usa i have done hand inspect requests
they usually oblige.
canada, england, france, switzerland, germany
well, they don't hand inspect and they scan.
and none of the films they have scanned since 1999
have had any problems whatsoever
( 8mm kodachrome+8mmtri x, iso 25-3200 still film, color+b/w )

Agulliver · May 2, 2017

[sarcasm]

I realise I have only been practising photography since about 1978. I realise I only have a degree in Applied Physics, and I admit that only two modules of this degree dealt with x-rays and only one specifically with x-rays as used in medical physics and baggage scanners...and I admit I've only actually been flying frequently with film since 1997.

But...my advice, as unqualified and inexperienced as I am, stands. [/sarcasm]

Those who say it's not as simple as you think are correct. The advice from film and scanner manufacturers will always err on the side of caution and yet they agree with those of us who advise you to travel with your films without worrying. I would be utterly flabbergasted if an airport hand baggage scanner damaged CineStill 800 after less than 8 trips through a scanner. Indeed I'd be surprised if it made any measurable difference after 12 trips.

I figure if a few rolls of Delta 3200 which went through 7 airport scanners come out perfect, with one being pushed two stops, then there's very little to worry about. From memory, those films went through scanners at the following airports. London Gatwick, Minneapolis, Aberdeen (SD) x2, London Luton, Alicante x2. 7 scans, five airports in three different countries.

CineStill Xpro C-41 800 in Danger ?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency