New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

[NB23]

Developing on site is certainly an option. If it’s a vacation, then it might be too much. But if it’s a mission or a project, then it should be a part of the job. Besides, developing 200 rolls here or there, comes down to the same.

Personally, I will never use a digital camera. Even if it means not shooting at all.

 

[BrianShaw]

Question: has anyone reported actual damage from this new carry-on luggage scanning technology?

I certainly understand the concern and history, but can’t recall anyone yet reporting that they actually subjected film to the new scanner and either saw damage or didn’t see damage. Casual review of manufacturers data packages available online are silent on the topic of potential film damage. Real data would be useful.

 

[Ai Print]

Slow films are only a portion of my allotment as the Faroe Islands are quite windy, I will mostly be using fresh Tmax 400. I am not keen on the logistics and added expense of developing the film my self when there and that still does not solve getting the film there. In regards to buying film when there, finding a lab, these are the Faroe Islands, not larger population density in Europe so not likely.

I reached out to Copenhagen Airport and got somewhat of an encouraging reply:
"Thank you for contacting Copenhagen Airport.

Security has specific instructions when it comes to 16mm image film, as they are aware, that these film my not be exposable to X-ray.
In these cases you will have to purchase a filmbag, so that Security can inspect the contents with their hands. If required, they may need to supply this with ETD-test.
The filmbag will basically function like a darkroom.
According to the regulations Security have to be able to inspect the film with their hands, hence they will need to be in a filmbag, so that the film won´t risk any damage."

So it sounds like they are well aware of the effects of CT scanning and at least entertain the notion of a hand inspection. Maybe it is possible to setup inspection appointments when flight schedules are known as they are in my case, even if there is a cost involved.

My reply with the photo is as follows:

"Thank you so much for your prompt reply. The information you have given is encouraging for those of us who still use film to produce our work.
To clarify, the 16mm films you refer to that need a Dark Film Loading Bag are motion picture films that are on reels and in cans and indeed, can not be at all exposed to light so they need to be inspected in this manner.
The film I am using is 120mm roll film that are much smaller and can be hand inspected in the light to a degree. As you can hopefully see in the attached photo, the 8mm / 16mm style film can is on the left, the 120mm film on the right. In detail I have shown the various packaging that you might encounter and the progression of how they are sealed in cellophane wrappers to protect from moisture, then unwrapped for loading in the camera and then once removed the camera, the backing paper is another color denoting the film has been used and is ready for development.
Basically in the past, the cellophane wrapped rolls are hand inspected / swabbed so I at least remove the rolls from the boxes and put them in a clear plastic bag to make it easier for security personnel to do this. If need be, the films can be removed from the yellow wrappers to be looked at further but the paper can not be unwound as it will expose the film.
Ideally I like to keep the film in the wrappers as to protect it from moisture in harsh environments but I am willing to work with you in any way you need to facilitate this inspection successfully.
Please let me know your thoughts on this as time permits and thank you again for your assistance,"

I'll let you know how this goes when I get a reply...

 

[BrianShaw]

I'll let you know how this goes when I get a reply...

Looking forward to it. With that big of an investment you certainly have reason to be concerned!

The initial reply you received is the same general security posture as with the legacy scanners. I see nothing new relative to CT.

I would hope that airport security would still offer a hand inspection upon request. As we know, that decision often depended on the individual personnel involved, workload, etc, etc.

I wonder if one went to an airport and asked to have a roll of film run through a CT scanner and handed back... then it could be processed for at least one data point.

 

[Don_ih]

Won't work. In freight handling, xray doses are used that will fog film even if it were packed in 3 lead bags. In carry on checks, contemporary CT scanners will also scan right through a lead bag. The whole "lead bags are the solution to xray problems" is outdated and mostly relies on misconceptions.

Foma shipped me film in a lead bag.
Ship it by fast courier. If you are willing to pay for it, you can specify the kind of handling it gets. You realize that pretty much every bit of film that gets to a store gets shipped there.

 

[Frank53]

Question: has anyone reported actual damage from this new carry-on luggage scanning technology?

I certainly understand the concern and history, but can’t recall anyone yet reporting that they actually subjected film to the new scanner and either saw damage or didn’t see damage. Casual review of manufacturers data packages available online are silent on the topic of potential film damage. Real data would be useful.

I did a non scientific test (see my post 227) and found no damage.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Ai Print]

It seems to me the best way to go about this would be to adopt some form of TSA pre-check for film users. You would be pre-vetted in some manner and then be able to setup appointments with documentation that has the specifics of what you are carrying, IE motion film, still film, roll film, sheet film, etc and how much of it. Then security entities can allocate staff as needed based on set appointment schedules. This of course would see those of us booking flights adding more layover time to help mitigate flight delays and still be able to have film inspections done.

Currently this is pretty complex logistics for me at this point and I still need to get ahold of the airport in the Faroe Islands to address the same concerns on departure. And it is especially troubling since I am now wanting to do do one of these extended trips per year for the next 5 years and have come up with the annual budget. I have and will be bringing my CFV50C II back and it's separate 907X camera for when film is just not the best choice but other than that, these need to be largely film based projects to be able to hand print it in the darkroom.

FIlm manufactures had better get on this or they could see a considerable loss of revenue as would be film users opt to avoid the hassle all together and just use digital for overseas trips. I also think that with the significant loss of travel related revenues due to Covid-19 globally, this is by far the best time for both film users and the companies who supply us to make the case for some form of support for our methods of making images.

Lets all lend a hand in this and try to solve it.

 

[BrianShaw]

I did a non scientific test (see my post 227) and found no damage.
Regards,
Frank

Thank you. I don’t know how I failed to recall that.

 

[reddesert]

I still think there is a distinction between these CT scanners for passenger flights and whatever scanning happens to commercial package shipping. I don't recall any credible reports of people buying film and seeing fog just from the shipping.

Clearly there are photo retailers who ship film, sometimes internationally, so you might ask some of them if they have preferred freight carriers for film or have to take any special precautions.

 

[Ai Print]

I still think there is a distinction between these CT scanners for passenger flights and whatever scanning happens to commercial package shipping. I don't recall any credible reports of people buying film and seeing fog just from the shipping.

Clearly there are photo retailers who ship film, sometimes internationally, so you might ask some of them if they have preferred freight carriers for film or have to take any special precautions.

Agreed, I sold a fair bit of color film off last year and shipped it all over the world. I have not heard anything from any buyer to indicate that the film was damaged or degraded due to potential X-ray. There is a seller on ebay who sells color IR transparency film worldwide and they would have been put out of business in short order if buyers started complaining of damaged film.

I still think using DHL to send my film ahead to my initial accommodation in the Faroe islands is somewhat of a safe bet so if I can get Copenhagen airport onboard with a scheduled hand inspection, I will go back to shipping 100 rolls and also carrying 100 in order to diversify my options.

There simply has to be a way to do this, we just have to work through it with good research and early planning.

 

[pentaxuser]

I did a non scientific test (see my post 227) and found no damage.
Regards,
Frank

Given this encouraging reply, you'd think that any or all of the film companies could simply have passed their range of film through the new scanners to ascertain for themselves how safe or not safe they are. If they are safe even for two passes then at least that would settle matters for that many passes.

It seems simple and obvious to me, possibly so obvious perhaps that the film makers have actually done it and it was unsuccessful? What think the rest of you?

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

Given this encouraging reply, you'd think that any or all of the film companies could simply have passed their range of film through the new scanners to ascertain for themselves how safe or not safe they are. If they are safe even for two passes then at least that would settle matters for that many passes.

It seems simple and obvious to me, possibly so obvious perhaps that the film makers have actually done it and it was unsuccessful? What think the rest of you?

pentaxuser

Back in the olden days, when a few more folks cared about film, there was an international consortium of film manufacturers who did exactly that. Their laboratory studies led to the guidance provided by their companies and governments. That consortium was dissolved when fewer folks cared about film and film safety. I could look up the date but will guess - more than 20 years ago.

 

[wiltw]

Given this encouraging reply, you'd think that any or all of the film companies could simply have passed their range of film through the new scanners to ascertain for themselves how safe or not safe they are. If they are safe even for two passes then at least that would settle matters for that many passes.

It seems simple and obvious to me, possibly so obvious perhaps that the film makers have actually done it and it was unsuccessful? What think the rest of you?

pentaxuser

I think everyone KNOWS the danger to film in passing thru the new CT scanners at Security for carry-on bags, and that there is insufficient volume of concern to bother with a declaration of a safe way of dealing with film...the priority is dealing with the volume of passenger traffic in the fastest possible way, and the increasing sophication of methods used by terrorists, period exclamation. There may be a way to deal with cinema film stock for professional cinema producers, perhaps via bonded carriers, but Joe Average is not informed about the extra cost mechanism to deal with consumer needs.

Proof of the awareness by film manufacturers (in this case, Kodak Alaris)...first mentioned in this thread in Jan 2020

https://petapixel.com/2020/01/27/kodak-warns-users-new-ct-scanners-at-airports-will-ruin-your-film/

 

[dourbalistar]

Question: has anyone reported actual damage from this new carry-on luggage scanning technology?

I certainly understand the concern and history, but can’t recall anyone yet reporting that they actually subjected film to the new scanner and either saw damage or didn’t see damage. Casual review of manufacturers data packages available online are silent on the topic of potential film damage. Real data would be useful.

Kodak and Ilford have both done their own testing, and found that the new CT scanners will damage film after just one pass. Ilford's own FAQ page states that the CT scanners are deemed unsafe for film irrespective of ISO speed. Here are a few links, including a post on Emulsive where the author did some of their own testing, with image samples of the results.
https://emulsive.org/articles/exper...ers-heres-how-badly-they-can-damage-your-film
https://www.dpreview.com/news/46310...rport-ct-scanners-can-damage-undeveloped-film
https://kosmofoto.com/2020/02/ilford-photo-working-with-heathrow-airport-on-ct-scanner-issue/

TSA used to have a list of airports in the US that had deployed the new CT scanners, but that list seems to be gone now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak and Ilford have both done their own testing, and found that the new CT scanners will damage film after just one pass. Ilford's own FAQ page states that the CT scanners are deemed unsafe for film irrespective of ISO speed. Here are a few links, including a post on Emulsive where the author did some of their own testing, with image samples of the results.
https://emulsive.org/articles/exper...ers-heres-how-badly-they-can-damage-your-film
https://www.dpreview.com/news/46310...rport-ct-scanners-can-damage-undeveloped-film
https://kosmofoto.com/2020/02/ilford-photo-working-with-heathrow-airport-on-ct-scanner-issue/

TSA used to have a list of airports in the US that had deployed the new CT scanners, but that list seems to be gone now.

Will a lead bag protect the film?

 

[BrianShaw]

Ilford's own FAQ page states that the CT scanners are deemed unsafe for film irrespective of ISO speed.

Well... almost. What Ilford said is a bit tentative. I have no doubt that there is a strong possibility, but would be thrilled to see the measurement methodology and data like we were provided many years ago. I have no reason to dispute any of those reports, but they simply don’t provide details that form the basis of their conclusions.

Here is the exact quote from Ilford FAQ:

“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.”

 

[koraks]

Will a lead bag protect the film?

No.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Will a lead bag protect the film?

No.

$#!+​

 

[dourbalistar]

Well... almost. What Ilford said is a bit tentative. I have no doubt that there is a strong possibility, but would be thrilled to see the measurement methodology and data like we were provided many years ago. I have no reason to dispute any of those reports, but they simply don’t provide details that form the basis of their conclusions.

Here is the exact quote from Ilford FAQ:

“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.”

Sure, I get what you're saying, but in the absence of those data and measurement methodology, even Ilford's warning would be enough for me not to risk any potential CT scan damage. I'm guessing most film manufacturers have not updated their technical data sheets since the new CT scanners have been implemented. From one of the links I posted, here's what Kodak did (though not necessarily providing more detail than Ilford):

To better assess the risk to film from the new carry on scanners we brought a small quantity of Portra 400/135 to John F Kennedy Airport in NYC. With the help of TSA representatives the film was put through the new carry on CT scanners from 1-10 times. The film was then evaluated at Eastman Kodak Research facilities. The initial results are not good. Just 1 scan shows significant film fogging, leading to smoky blacks and loss of shadow detail. This will be more significant for higher speed films. Although it’s possible that a roll of 100 speed film would show less degradation, we strongly recommend against putting any unexposed or exposed but unprocessed film through a CT Scanner.

If I were traveling somewhere by plane, my photos would certainly be valuable enough to me, and I'm just taking silly holiday snaps. Meanwhile, folks like @Ai Print are doing large scale projects with what sounds like hundreds of rolls of film.

 

[Helge]

No.

Why not?
It’s still X-ray based. Right?
A thick and dense enough bag or box should stop almost any kind of radiation.

 

[Ai Print]

Why not?
It’s still X-ray based. Right?
A thick and dense enough bag or box should stop almost any kind of radiation.

Security personal need to be able to clearly see what is inside when it comes to scanning now, it's a non-starter with lead lined bags.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sure, I get what you're saying, but in the absence of those data and measurement methodology, even Ilford's warning would be enough for me not to risk any potential CT scan damage. I'm guessing most film manufacturers have not updated their technical data sheets since the new CT scanners have been implemented. From one of the links I posted, here's what Kodak did (though not necessarily providing more detail than Ilford):


If I were traveling somewhere by plane, my photos would certainly be valuable enough to me, and I'm just taking silly holiday snaps. Meanwhile, folks like @Ai Print are doing large scale projects with what sounds like hundreds of rolls of film.

Me too... I’ll be very very cautious and begging TSA for a hand check.

The Kodak methodology is very much what they, as part of the consortium, did many years ago. Except back then I think they did 25 and 50 exposure trials also. Oh, and way back when they tested b&w film also. Thanks for quoting all of that information... I thought I looked at all of your very informative links but missed one.

One thing that bothers me, though, is the description of the damage. Fogging and increased density was the effect of regular x-ray scanners and banding was CT damage. But not now. What may have changed... the power level of the CT less in carry-on scanners than in checked baggage scanners????

 

[Sirius Glass]

Security personal need to be able to clearly see what is inside when it comes to scanning now, it's a non-starter with lead lined bags.

1. Hit pause
2. Remove lead lined bag
3. Inspect back
4. Proceed

 

[BrianShaw]

1. Hit pause
2. Remove lead lined bag
3. Inspect back
4. Proceed

1. Pull bag aside
2. Make you wait until they get someone to open it up.
3. Swab or re-scan your stuff.
4. Let you go about your business.

You know the drill as well as do I. I doubt it going to change.

 

[Helge]

Security personal need to be able to clearly see what is inside when it comes to scanning now, it's a non-starter with lead lined bags.

Metal boxes and metal objects go through all the time on regular scanners. Most of the time they will only pick you out at random.

At worst it will only prompt you to engage in a conversation about what it is, and why it has to be hand inspected, without the risky first engagement that might, because you are nervous or uncomfortable, set off the “something is fishy” detector.

At best they will just let it pass through.