A few years ago it was weekly.
Has air travel hurt film photography?
-
A
- Thread starter DF
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500 and 2000 series ground glass with waist level finder.
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Jobo CPA 2 with Lift
- Started by Aidan Sciortino
-
Sold Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f2.5
- Started by gareth.ig
-
For Sale Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Nokton v1
- Started by gareth.ig
-
For Sale Pentax 6x7, non-MLU. Viewfinder light meter needs calibration
- Started by gareth.ig
Forum statistics
A few years ago it was weekly.
Must be worthwhile bringing up every month if people take the time to open the tread and comment on it!
Well we all seem to know that you can, based on the responses. Where did you hear you can't?
In your later post you mention and seem to link to lead-lined bags not being a solution which seem to be a "non sequitur" to your first post
I can't speak for others but I am totally confused as to your point. Is it that you accept that you can bring film onto planes but do not believe that the film will not be harmed despite APUGers experience to the contrary.
You are of course entitled to believe whatever you like but if this is your belief it might have helped had you said this at the start rather than an untrue statement that you can't bring film on planes.
pentaxuser
In general, and by personal experience (albeit long before 2011), this is very true. But there is enough variability in the screening process that there will always be the exception that someone can cite. Case in point, just recently TSA confiscated my double edge razor blades as banned contraband, yet they have many thousands of frequent flier miles in my carry on bag.
That is my experience, but at no extra charge they cause wear on the lead bag corners so that the lead bag can provide x-ray leaks.
Last week I did about 10 scans in the Shanghai subway, the MAGLEV and four times at the various airports coming and going. No ill effect on Delta 100.
Ok, well that answers that then. 10+ scans, no issue.
The anecdotal evidence is encouraging, but I think only a controlled scientific test with films of various speeds will put this issue (mostly) to rest.
Kilgllb's report is not anecdotal as much as it is a practical demonstration - that just happens to validate the controlled experiment thaT established the baseline data for Kodak, FAA et al. I believe 25 passes for low speed color neg had no observable effects.
For 400 speed I think it was 10, which is why I was encouraging mr ratty to use that number
QUOTE=bvy;1953721972]The anecdotal evidence is encouraging, but I think only a controlled scientific test with films of various speeds will put this issue (mostly) to rest.[/QUOTE]
For 400 speed I think it was 10, which is why I was encouraging mr ratty to use that number
QUOTE=bvy;1953721972]The anecdotal evidence is encouraging, but I think only a controlled scientific test with films of various speeds will put this issue (mostly) to rest.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if DF, the originator of the thread, is yet convinced that you can take film on to planes safely?
pentauxer
pentauxer
I wonder too.
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
The thing is, this has been done, many times, by many people. And reported on ad nauseam. But there are still lots of people out there who refuse to believe it. But it's been a statistical sampling, therefore necessarily limited in scope. The only "test" that could be done that would satisfy even the most skeptical would be to test every airport with every film speed, on different days with different operators under different security conditions. And who's going to pay for that? Certainly not Kodak, not anymore. Fuji doesn't really care about film- Fujifilm is a tiny dot in the giant conglomerate of Fuji Heavy Industries (think Subaru as one of their main products).
I have a picture in a show next week that was hit twice by security checkpoint x-rays (going and then returning). No problems at all with it-- went through Sky Harbor and Dulles, if it matters to anyone.
Thread title changed to reflect reality.
I have tested for fogging or other damage to carry-on sheet film, both exposed and unexposed, with controls, using a densitometer. I could detect no discernible change even with repeated scans. I did this because my living depended on traveling with film.
Film damage from normal carry-on Xray's in the airports of developed countries is a myth, pure and simple.
I have tested for fogging or other damage to carry-on sheet film, both exposed and unexposed, with controls, using a densitometer. I could detect no discernible change even with repeated scans. I did this because my living depended on traveling with film.
Film damage from normal carry-on Xray's in the airports of developed countries is a myth, pure and simple.
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
Even in some third world countries it's not a problem. I had film (including Kodak HIE in 35mm) go through carry-on x-rays at Siem Reap and Phnom Penh in Cambodia (CAMBODIA!!) with no visible impact. I'd be concerned if I were going to Guyana or flying domestically within say, Paraguay or Bolivia, or Kyrgyzstan. But not major international airports.
I think what goes through people's minds is a common sense notion similar to the use of filters on an expensive lens. How many times have you heard the question, delivered in an unbelieving tone of voice, "You want me to put a $15 filter over a $1,500 lens? Really?"
The notion, of course, being that there has to be some level of image degradation with a filter in place. Something is now directly in the light path in such a way that the image must pass through it. There can't not be any degradation without violating the laws of physics.
Penetrating radiation and film falls into the same common sense category. It's intuitive that no matter what the radiation levels may be, none has to be better than some.
And the TSA tacitly supports that common sense conclusion by posting signage declaring that passenger's films are safe through the machines until you hit ISO 800 (I think that's the threshold?). So again, no matter what, something is happening during the scanning exposure. Otherwise, why the warning signs? And if less is better, then none must be best.
The average person in the post-Trinity era understands radiation sufficiently to know that it's not just a simple OK/not OK binary effect. Everyone knows it's cumulative. The more you get, the worse off you are.
Armed with that (correct) knowledge, but lacking specific information as to degree for each of their individual rolls or sheets, people will almost always choose the perceived safest option. Or worry enough to start another APUG thread on the subject.
It's just human nature reacting to the unknown, and as such is perfectly understandable.
Ken
The notion, of course, being that there has to be some level of image degradation with a filter in place. Something is now directly in the light path in such a way that the image must pass through it. There can't not be any degradation without violating the laws of physics.
Penetrating radiation and film falls into the same common sense category. It's intuitive that no matter what the radiation levels may be, none has to be better than some.
And the TSA tacitly supports that common sense conclusion by posting signage declaring that passenger's films are safe through the machines until you hit ISO 800 (I think that's the threshold?). So again, no matter what, something is happening during the scanning exposure. Otherwise, why the warning signs? And if less is better, then none must be best.
The average person in the post-Trinity era understands radiation sufficiently to know that it's not just a simple OK/not OK binary effect. Everyone knows it's cumulative. The more you get, the worse off you are.
Armed with that (correct) knowledge, but lacking specific information as to degree for each of their individual rolls or sheets, people will almost always choose the perceived safest option. Or worry enough to start another APUG thread on the subject.
It's just human nature reacting to the unknown, and as such is perfectly understandable.
Ken
Last edited by a moderator:
Intending to clarify and not imply any disagreement: And the TSA tacitly supports that experimentally derived conclusion...
Understood.
My point being that the passengers waiting in line are unaware of the details of those deductively-derived experimental results. They have only the single data point of that posted warning to analyze. So they are left to inference-based conclusions only, drawing on as much common sense as they can muster.
Meaning, the ISO 800 signs tell them something bad is possible. They know radiation is cumulative. Their bag only has ISO 400 film in it. They're not sure how close 400 is to 800 in terms of danger. And the film has already been through one or more previous airport scans. And it may already have been exposed normally for photos as well. And there's only five more people ahead of them in line...
Hmm. What to do? They just spent $5,000 on this once-in-a-lifetime vacation, and the pictures that resulted from it. Maybe it might be best to ask for a hand inspection, and risk the wrath of angry TSA agents who don't want to do that because there are 500 more people waiting behind them?
Or maybe next time they might want to mail it home before returning home. Or mail it directly to the processing lab. You know. Just to be safe. (I've done this myself to Dwayne's Photo because, well, less really is better than more when one can't judge the absolute degree of danger.)
And then maybe when I do get home I'm going to post a thread on APUG asking what everyone else does. They're nice people. They won't chew me out for asking...
Ken
My point being that the passengers waiting in line are unaware of the details of those deductively-derived experimental results. They have only the single data point of that posted warning to analyze. So they are left to inference-based conclusions only, drawing on as much common sense as they can muster.
Meaning, the ISO 800 signs tell them something bad is possible. They know radiation is cumulative. Their bag only has ISO 400 film in it. They're not sure how close 400 is to 800 in terms of danger. And the film has already been through one or more previous airport scans. And it may already have been exposed normally for photos as well. And there's only five more people ahead of them in line...
Hmm. What to do? They just spent $5,000 on this once-in-a-lifetime vacation, and the pictures that resulted from it. Maybe it might be best to ask for a hand inspection, and risk the wrath of angry TSA agents who don't want to do that because there are 500 more people waiting behind them?
Or maybe next time they might want to mail it home before returning home. Or mail it directly to the processing lab. You know. Just to be safe. (I've done this myself to Dwayne's Photo because, well, less really is better than more when one can't judge the absolute degree of danger.)
And then maybe when I do get home I'm going to post a thread on APUG asking what everyone else does. They're nice people. They won't chew me out for asking...
Ken
In my mind that isn't a problem. Everyone is entitled to a neurosis or two, and if not that... a little self-doubt or a quest for knowledge. But starting a thread with a totally false/erroneous assertion like this thread started...
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
And not only that, refusing to do even the most minimal, cursory search of the forum to see if their hyperventilating panic attack has any basis in reality before having their hyperventilating panic attack in public. I'd have sympathy for ASKING is air travel safe for film. This wasn't- it was a blanket assertion of gross untruth that gets perpetuated as reality and contributes to more people thinking that film is dead.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 530
- Format
- Multi Format
60? No. 30? Yes, but in 2003.
Fortunately I arrived in plenty of time and the airport was almost empty. The agent did an explosive wipe test on every single cartridge, including my "decoy" cartridge of Fuji 1600. I still keep that roll around, just in case I want to travel with film again sometime.
Fortunately I arrived in plenty of time and the airport was almost empty. The agent did an explosive wipe test on every single cartridge, including my "decoy" cartridge of Fuji 1600. I still keep that roll around, just in case I want to travel with film again sometime.
Fujifilm and Fuji Heavy Industries are two distinct companies and are not related to each other in any way. Both companies trade under a different stock symbol and make no mention of each other in their quarterly and annual reports. Further, there is no corporate reporting structure of any kind between the two companies. The wiki pages for each company make no mention of the other.
Fujifilm's corporate history timeline makes no mention whatsoever of Fuji Heavy Industries.
Kodak has a good write up of it when they tested. Some of the main points are: films passed 5 times through carry on scanners will have xray damage, don't xray any motion picture film, lead lined bags work but depends on a few factors.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml
And in fairness to the TSA and the manufacturers of the scanning hardware, that page shows as last being updated 12 years ago ("Updated April 8, 2003"). Scanning technology has improved markedly since then, according to what I've read.
But it would still follow the same common sense logic...
No matter how bad it is, less (12 years later) is always going to be better than more (12 years earlier), when one can't judge the absolute degree of danger for any given sample of film.
Ken
But it would still follow the same common sense logic...
No matter how bad it is, less (12 years later) is always going to be better than more (12 years earlier), when one can't judge the absolute degree of danger for any given sample of film.
Ken
| 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:  |