New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

[abruzzi]

This past summer I went through security at JFK, and the TSA was very friendly and happy to do a hand inspection of my film despite it being very busy.

that doesn’t help for anywhere else. My goal at the time was to limit the total number of X-ray scans since I know that in Russia I’d have no hope of getting a hand scan. In a month, I’m flying to Mexico, so I need to figure out how to say “no X-ray or ct scan please” in Spanish.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks wiltw. Sounds like a grim future outside of the U.S. unless we get legislation in Europe( possible) and presumably the rest of the world( unlikely) that requests for hand inspection must be granted.

It might be a test for film revival's influence we hear a lot about on Photrio

pentaxuser

 

[Prest_400]

The alternative would doing the gamble, by sending the unprocessed film by mail. As there are at least chances to get them through unharmed.
(see my post #130 on this)

Preliminarly given the widespread usage by film photographers of labs that operate mailorder, there shouldn't be any issue. These are sent film by all around the world, process and sent out scans. As long as Xray scanners of such strength aren't implemented on the postal and freight services, it should be as it has been so far.

I wonder about us EU users, given the experience of other users being often denied hand checks.

 

[AgX]

Preliminarly given the widespread usage by film photographers of labs that operate mailorder, there shouldn't be any issue. These are sent film by all around the world, process and sent out scans.

I know of a dealer who told me of the film he send out being destroyed en route by radiating

As long as Xray scanners of such strength aren't implemented on the postal and freight services, it should be as it has been so far.

There is no reason to assume at postal/custom offices other scanners being used than as for checked luggage, other than the few reports of radiation damage. But the number of report can also be due to few controls.
As said the authorities do not tell about the algorithms they apply.

 

[BrianShaw]

I know of a dealer who told me of the film he send out being destroyed en route by radiating

Where? All the time or just on occasion?

 

[AgX]

On occasion, of transcontinental shipping.

 

[howardpan]

Lauffrey, I can not find this on the Alaris web site. Are you suggesting "Kodak Professional" on Instagram is an official Kodak entity or perhaps an one individual's facebook page. - Not disbelieving but not really believing either,yet.

This was posted to Kodak Alaric’s twitter account and their Facebook.

https://twitter.com/kodakprofilmbiz/status/1221780012644302849?s=21

Kodak goes into more details in the FB post.
https://twitter.com/kodakprofilmbiz/status/1221780012644302849?s=21

 

[cowanw]

Thanks, now I'm a bleiber!

 

[wiltw]

This was posted to Kodak Alaric’s twitter account and their Facebook.

https://twitter.com/kodakprofilmbiz/status/1221780012644302849?s=21

Kodak goes into more details in the FB post.

That Facebook statement is the same statement that Kodak had used before it went downhill as a corporation, decades ago. ...'OK about Xray even multiple passes if <ISO1600, but don't put in checked luggage because of CT used on cargo'.:
The link in my post 170 is a recent statement about CT of carry-on testing

"(exposed to new CT of carry-on baggage...) 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."
​

Bad news!

 

[howardpan]

This is the FB post I read, quoted here for your reference. It talks about a recent test conducted using Portra 400 film with one of the new CT scanners, confirming damage after a single pass.


CT Scanning X-Ray Technology and Film

As many of you know, the United States Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has recently been installing Computed Tomography (CT) scanners for carry-on luggage in US airports. In the coming months these scanners will be operational at 145 airports in the US. CT scanning technology has been used for checked luggage for many years, and Kodak Alaris and Eastman Kodak have warned photographers not to check their film, but rather to carry it on and request it be hand-checked by TSA agents at Security.

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.

We reached out to the TSA to ask what options there might be to warn passengers. We originally asked if it would be possible to add signage at airports that utilize CT scanning technology. We are developing warning stickers that can be placed on your film. These will be available in a label format so they can be printed on your in-home or in-office printer. Just attach the label to the plastic bag as described in the TSA description below.

The TSA did tell us that all TSA screeners are trained to hand check roll and movie film as well as single-use cameras. Sheet film in boxes may require more diligence on the part of the photographer.

From the TSA:

Most x-ray machines used to screen carry-on bags should not damage undeveloped film under ASA\ISO 800. There are a limited number of screening checkpoints that use x-ray equipment that may damage undeveloped film. These airports will have signage in front of the x-ray stating that the x-ray may damage undeveloped film.

If you are traveling with the following types of film, please pack it in a clear plastic bag, remove it from your carry-on bag at the checkpoint, and ask for a hand inspection:

• Film with an ASA\ISO 800 or higher
• Highly sensitive x-ray or scientific films
• Film that is or will be underexposed
• Film that you intend to “push process”
• Sheet film
• Large format film
• Medical film
• Scientific film
• Motion picture film
• Professional grade film
• Film of any speed that is subjected to x-ray screening more than five times

In most cases, the x-ray equipment used for screening checked baggage will damage undeveloped film; therefore, please place undeveloped film in carry-on bags.

For more information please download the film Storage and Care Information sheet from our website: https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/pro/CIS_E30.pdf

For more information on TSA use of CT technology, please:
https://www.tsa.gov/computed-tomography

For more information on TSA screening procedures, please visit https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://...jKj7J1eN1H_VrLccohflzcJrblf4LaGd9CmUX8FGDRU2$ .

These US airports currently use CT scanning technology:

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL)
Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI)
Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD)
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG)
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW)
Houston Hobby Airport (HOU)
Indianapolis International Airport (IND)
John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK)
Logan International Airport (BOS)
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
Miami International Airport (MIA)
Oakland International Airport (OAK)
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX)
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA)
St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL)
Tampa International Airport (TPA)
Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD)

 

[AgX]

Well, Kodak/Kodak Alaris only refer to US authorities and their future cooperation in checking films.
But there is a world outside the USA...

 

[37th Exposure]

If you don’t have to go then don’t. Don’t support them with your tourist money. Save it for more gear, film, whatever. Discover the wonders in your own backyard. And take the train, bus, drive yourself, walk.... the airlines have enough money already.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Well, Kodak/Kodak Alaris only refer to US authorities and their future cooperation in checking films.
But there is a world outside the USA...

Exactly. I hope Fuji and Ilford will also conduct tests and make requests in their respective areas. I think Japan will still be friendly to film photographers - whenever I insist on a hand check they do do it. Haven't seen these scanners yet at any airport, but who knows if they'll be fast-tracked in for the Olympics coming up in less than 6 months.

What I really want to know is which European and Asian airports (major hubs anyway) are using these scanners. That would impact which ones I would choose to fly to, since there often isn't a big difference in fare when coming from Japan.

 

[BrianShaw]

Gotta start somewhere. Ever hear the expression, “crawl, walk, run?” I found it interesting that they only tested a 400 film but didn’t include a slower film, yet speculate about it. But I’m grateful that they did anything at all.

Also interesting is the description of the damage. Doesn’t sound like the well-known CT banding damage.

 

[AgX]

Also interesting is the description of the damage. Doesn’t sound like the well-known CT banding damage.

In this thread we got two posters with a series of examples. One series may have been homogeneously fogged. The other shows a banding pattern.

But, yes we still lack an experimental approach with samples, in a way I already hinted at.

 

[BrianShaw]

But, yes we still lack an experimental approach with samples, in a way I already hinted at.

... how about in the way Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Konica, and FAA did study of Rapiscan equipment under the International Imaging Industry Association (i3a) more than fifteen years ago? Or the 1997 i3a study of CTX equipment that included Agfa, Fuji, Imation, Kodak, Ilford, and Polaroids. That was the basis of Kodak and TSA recommendations. Or the 2006 i3a study of cargo scanner effect on film. Methodology is not a mystery.

 

[spijker]

My films got fogged in the scanner at Milan Malpensa airport. The Delta 100s are fogged but still usable. I managed to get some nice prints from the negatives. The Delta 400 is really dark and probably ruined. I scanned it but haven't attempted to make a print from it yet.

So far from personal travel, I've seen the new scanners in Milan and Amsterdam. Frankfurt a/d Main was still old style in November 2019. I requested a hand check in Amsterdam which was done without much discussion. I would encourage Ilford, Fuji, Ferrania, Adox and whoever produces film these days to do similar tests as Kodak did and report their findings. I think there needs to be some push back. Film is not a banned substance and there will likely be only a few people with film going through airports per day. In November, two scanner operators looked puzzled at my clear bag with rolls of 120 film and didn't know what it was. So allowing hand checks of film will not cause a delay at the security check.

The new scanners do not require you to take laptops and liquids out of your carry-on bag and here will be signs saying to keep these sings in your bag. If you still have to take laptops/liquids out of your bag, then you're dealing with the older type scanner which are in my experience safe for film.

 

[lauffray]

I think I'll investigate how feasible it is to travel with my tank and changing bag. I'll have to buy film and chemistry locally and develop before going home.
Or travel with my bulk loader and find a local lab with fast turnaround.

I think I almost got arrested in France insisting on hand inspection

Same experience in Sweden back in 2012, guy threatened to call the police over 6 rolls of film. Other times you'll get the exceedingly obliging Japanese official who hand checks 40 rolls of film. So I'm not putting my faith in airport staff, it's a lottery.

 

[AgX]

It would not be a big hassle for film manufacturers of making up a collaborative letter and sending it to the various national security agencies/airports.

 

[ITD]

Ilford has updated its FAQ: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/faqs/

 

[lauffray]

Ilford has updated its FAQ: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/faqs/

Wow that was fast, I just checked this page yesterday before sending them an email about it !
Hopefully with manufacturer backing, we may be able to insist on hand-checks in the future

 

[Wallendo]

Unfortunately, I doubt the film companies have much international clout these days.

It would be nice if someone could set up kiosks in the larger destination airports to sell film to new arrivals, and possibly collect film for development and later shipping. Unfortunately, most airport shops are within the security zone. I, for one, would use such a service. One possibility might be to set up vending machines selling film and development mailers (although international shipping might be prohibitive for some countries).

 

[ITD]

When someone posted on Facebook about the usual reluctance to hand check at Heathrow, the Ilford response was ‘They were helpful when we visited so hopefully we ill see a change in policy.’

 

[Luckless]

Unfortunately, I doubt the film companies have much international clout these days.

If policies that fail to respect the risk of damage to personal property are the norm, then that sounds like the beginnings of some 'nice' lawsuits...

I can't imagine that simply ignoring the issue would fly well in the face of multiple hefty suits for wilful destruction of intellectual property.

 

[AgX]

It likely depends on the respective legislation.
I cannot imagine being successful with such claim in Germany. And even then, at best here one would get the cost of the roll of film replaced.