New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

[mooseontheloose]

OK, so the verdict is in on shipping film abroad.

In short, it worked. For the past 10 days I developed 270 rolls of 120 film, 240 of it shot in the Faroe Islands and it all looks good, densitometer readings are all really close. So now I can plan my next adventure, I am thinking 4-6 weeks in Greenland next year.

I'll be going to Greenland next year as well, but not nearly for that length of time. However, I'm hoping that since I'll be flying direct to and from Canada that I won't have to go the shipping route, as in theory I should be able to get my film hand checked in Canada (not sure about Greenland though).

 

[Helge]

OK, so the verdict is in on shipping film abroad.

In short, it worked. For the past 10 days I developed 270 rolls of 120 film, 240 of it shot in the Faroe Islands and it all looks good, densitometer readings are all really close. So now I can plan my next adventure, I am thinking 4-6 weeks in Greenland next year.

How did you like the place?

 

[Ai Print]

How did you like the place?

It was the most challenging climate and weather I had ever shot in and I loved it!

 

[Agulliver]

I've returned from Lanzarote....not a lot to report in regard CT scanners. Neither LTN nor ACE airports have them yet.

At LTN I was able to identify that the hand baggage scanners were the older type and did not ask for hand inspection. I was there at a very busy time and didn't want to cause any possible delays. Additionally we were still asked to take laptops out of bags - a big hint that they're not using CT scanners. Indeed I was asked to take all electronic "gadgets" out of my bag, and when I opened it to reveal five cameras of varying age they just put it through the x-ray without removing anything.

At ACE the hand baggage scanners actually say "film safe" on them. I've processed the B&W films that I took, no problems at all though i didn't take any high speed film...all FP4+ and Fomapan 100
I have two C41 films in the lab as I type, but I've no reason to expect any issues.

The proposed trip to the USA in April is uncertain at the moment.

 

[wiltw]

At ACE the hand baggage scanners actually say "film safe" on them. I've processed the B&W films that I took, no problems at all though i didn't take any high speed film...all FP4+ and Fomapan 100
I have two C41 films in the lab as I type, but I've no reason to expect any issues.

The proposed trip to the USA in April is uncertain at the moment.

My wife and I flying to one of the Hawaian Is. in about a month from San Jose CA. Planning to pack one roll of rollfilm into my carryon simply as a test, in the event that we encounter a CT scanner at Security, as this is a pure relaxation trip with no photography planned other than snapshooting with cellphone or my Canon S110 P&S digital.
In the past I have flown enough with film thru multiple passes thru Security X-ray to not worry about exposure of film, but with COVID impairing travel I have not yet even seen a CT Scanner at Security in person.

 

[BAC1967]

I just ran some Ilford Pan-F 50+ through a CT scanner in Phoenix, AZ before I realized that’s what it was. It didn’t seem to have any effect on the film. Shot with a Kodak Retina I and developed in beer.

Saguaro Silhouette by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Saguaro Cactus by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[AgX]

881 posts, and yours is one of the most important.

BUT what practical effect does it have, knowning that one scanner (model) has harmed a film and another has not ?

 

[Agulliver]

@BAC1967 thank you for sharing those images.

Could be luck? I am sure many of us put film in checked luggage before realising that was generally a bad idea and "got away with it". As air travel becomes easier again, hopefully more members will have results to report and we'll build a picture of what is likely to happen. Glad your images came out well, we know that all may not be lost if films get CT scanned.

 

[BAC1967]

@BAC1967 thank you for sharing those images.

Could be luck? I am sure many of us put film in checked luggage before realising that was generally a bad idea and "got away with it". As air travel becomes easier again, hopefully more members will have results to report and we'll build a picture of what is likely to happen. Glad your images came out well, we know that all may not be lost if films get CT scanned.

It wasn’t in checked baggage, it was a Cary-on. When I grabbed my bag after going through security I noticed it was the notorious Smiths Detection CT scanner. I regularly put slow film through the older X-Ray scanners without any problems. From what I have read, the new CT scanners are more damaging to faster films, similar to the older X-Ray scanners. I rarely travel with anything over 100 ISO.

 

[Agulliver]

It wasn’t in checked baggage, it was a Cary-on. When I grabbed my bag after going through security I noticed it was the notorious Smiths Detection CT scanner. I regularly put slow film through the older X-Ray scanners without any problems. From what I have read, the new CT scanners are more damaging to faster films, similar to the older X-Ray scanners. I rarely travel with anything over 100 ISO.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear

The new CT scanners for hand baggage are said to be as dangerous as the CT scanners used for checked baggage for many years. And I am sure many of us have packed film in checked baggage accidentally or unaware of the risks and got away with it. So it may also be possible to get away with it with the hand baggage CT scanners.

Yes, any radiation damage is cumulative and will affect higher speed films more. WIth the older scanners I've regularly travelled with Delta 3200 in the past, never had an issue. Though they're only guaranteed to be safe up to 800ISO.

The more data we get from people such as yourself using the new scanners, the better idea we'll get as to whether the dangers are real this time or if there's a good chance of getting away with it.

 

[wiltw]

This test showed only slight apparent change due to CT scan, published in Petapixel. It may explain why folks have declared 'no damage'

https://petapixel.com/2021/07/06/what-happens-if-your-film-goes-through-the-tsas-ct-scanners/

Another data point.

 

[dourbalistar]

My wife and I flying to one of the Hawaian Is. in about a month from San Jose CA. Planning to pack one roll of rollfilm into my carryon simply as a test, in the event that we encounter a CT scanner at Security, as this is a pure relaxation trip with no photography planned other than snapshooting with cellphone or my Canon S110 P&S digital.
In the past I have flown enough with film thru multiple passes thru Security X-ray to not worry about exposure of film, but with COVID impairing travel I have not yet even seen a CT Scanner at Security in person.

@wiltw , our family just took our first flights since the pandemic started two years ago, flying from San Jose to Ontario, CA. As far as I could tell, the TSA PreCheck line at SJC and ONT both still had the older x-ray scanners. I didn't have time to scope out whether there were CT scanners in the other security lines. I was too busy asking the TSA agents to hand check my film, which they happily obliged with no questions asked on both the outbound flight from SJC and return flight from ONT.

This test showed only slight apparent change due to CT scan, published in Petapixel. It may explain why folks have declared 'no damage'

https://petapixel.com/2021/07/06/what-happens-if-your-film-goes-through-the-tsas-ct-scanners/

Another data point.

Here's another data point that I originally shared way upthread in Post #414 (on page 17). The author tested and found obvious fogging and degradation:
https://emulsive.org/articles/exper...ers-heres-how-badly-they-can-damage-your-film

 

[Agulliver]

This test showed only slight apparent change due to CT scan, published in Petapixel. It may explain why folks have declared 'no damage'

https://petapixel.com/2021/07/06/what-happens-if-your-film-goes-through-the-tsas-ct-scanners/

Another data point.

Except that doesn't look like X-ray effects at all. CT X-rays do not cause uniform damage to lengths of film. You get patterns, lines, squiggles. A small but detectable, uniform "fog" would not be from CT scanning.

 

[wiltw]

Except that doesn't look like X-ray effects at all. CT X-rays do not cause uniform damage to lengths of film. You get patterns, lines, squiggles. A small but detectable, uniform "fog" would not be from CT scanning.

Clearly the photo in that article shows a Security version CT scanner, and the writer of the article says his film did go thru.

“On that roll, I had already taken pictures but hadn’t developed it yet,” he tells PetaPixel. “[After developing it], I noticed that the shadows seemed a little grainier than I would have expected. Combine that with articles that claim ‘just one scan from the CT Scanner could destroy your unprocessed film,’ and I was too scared to ever make the same mistake again.”

"However, he later became curious about how much of an effect the CT scanners would have on film, and later returned to the airport specifically to further experiment.

“This time around, I wanted to control the experiment more. I sent one roll of Kodak Portra 400 that I had not yet taken pictures on through a TSA CT scanner at BWI airport,” Nuri says. “The roll only went through security one time and was not sent through the TSA CT scanner again after I shot the photos. I then loaded that roll into a 35mm camera with a 50mm lens and loaded a separate 35mm camera with a 50mm lens with a fresh, unharmed roll. I shot the exact same pictures using the same settings on both cameras for each shot so that I could compare them side-by-side as accurately as possible.”
​

Yes, CT causes patterned exposure artifacts. Just maybe the CT scanner does one single exposure (like an X-ray) or maybe 2 planar views, and if it detects something suspicious it then does the 3-D imaging pattern for its image and for explosives detection, in an effort to save time and do full CT only when necessarily, Speculative, on my part. But that may explain why there are a number of 'went thru CT...no damage seen' reports. CT is basically a higher dose form of X-ray

 

[jpa]

Anybody know if the scanners at Munich and Torino (Italy) are the new ones, or if they are still the older models? Going to be traveling through both airports soon.

 

[lantau]

Anybody know if the scanners at Munich and Torino (Italy) are the new ones, or if they are still the older models? Going to be traveling through both airports soon.

Munich is supposed to have new ones. But I don't know if all of them have been replaced (yet).

 

[Agulliver]

CT scan , by definition, is not simply a higher dose of X-rays.

I am very sceptical that the described issue is damage from a CT scanner. Nevertheless that doesn't mean we shouldn't take sensible precautions to avoid our films being scanned by such machines.

 

[dutchsteammachine]

I took Fuji Instax Wide Colour & B/W, as well as a super 8 cartridge of 50D and 200T in my carry-on luggage and checked baggage from Oregon PDX to Amsterdam AMS.

None got damaged or affected.

 

[jpa]

Thanks, people. I'm still on the fence as to whether or not bring my film camera. It feels so much like rolling the dice. I'll have to make up my mind soon, though, as I'll be leaving this weekend.

 

[jpa]

Oh - the film that I plan on bringing (if I do decide to bring film) will be all Tri-X, (with maybe a couple of rolls of slower film thorwn in).

 

[pentaxuser]

I took Fuji Instax Wide Colour & B/W, as well as a super 8 cartridge of 50D and 200T in my carry-on luggage and checked baggage from Oregon PDX to Amsterdam AMS.

None got damaged or affected.

You haven't said as much but I take it that at both airports it went through the new CT scanners there|?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[dutchsteammachine]

You haven't said as much but I take it that at both airports it went through the new CT scanners there|?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Admittedly I was busy focusing on other things... but I think so?

I should have taken film from AMS to PDX as well but didn't. AMS had a huge circular scanner, a CT for sure, not sure on the PDX scanner.
I don't think PDX had the CT scanners (yet) but I could be wrong.

 

[ntenny]

Admittedly I was busy focusing on other things... but I think so?

I should have taken film from AMS to PDX as well but didn't. AMS had a huge circular scanner, a CT for sure, not sure on the PDX scanner.
I don't think PDX had the CT scanners (yet) but I could be wrong.

PDX has both at the moment; my impression is that they’re gradually shifting to using the CT scanners more. You could have gone through either one, depending on which queue you ended up in. Glad your film ended up OK, in any case.

I haven’t had occasion to ask them to hand check (I expect to in June), but I wouldn’t expect any problems. I’ve been flying regularly out of PDX for a number of years now, and the security folks have generally been civil and responsive.

-NT

 

[pentaxuser]

Admittedly I was busy focusing on other things... but I think so?

I should have taken film from AMS to PDX as well but didn't. AMS had a huge circular scanner, a CT for sure, not sure on the PDX scanner.
I don't think PDX had the CT scanners (yet) but I could be wrong.

Thanks so definitely a CT scanner used on the film on return at Amsterdam

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Thanks so definitely a CT scanner used on the film on return at Amsterdam

That's not what he said, if you read carefully. Generally carry-on baggage isn't scanned on arrival.

AMS has indeed transitioned to CT scanners; at least partly and by now probably completely, given the massive logistical issues at that airport lately and the advantages the CT scanners have in this respect.