New (as of 2019) airport CT scanners

[GregY]

Mail it home? I assume the X-ray machine is even stronger for unattended mail and package, no?

No... not all packages are x-rayed... & certainly not CT scanned. Remember film is produced in various countries and shipped all over the world to reach retail outlets.

 

[MFstooges]

No... not all packages are x-rayed... & certainly not CT scanned. Remember film is produced in various countries and shipped all over the world to reach retail outlets.

Yeah and so do some narcos and drugs. Maybe the commercial film shipment has safe senders list to exclude from x ray?

 

[GregY]

Yeah and so do some narcos and drugs. Maybe the commercial film shipment has safe senders list to exclude from x ray?

Xrays in general haven't caused problems....it is the relatively new CT scanners. That's been the issue at airports. I have ordered film online (as have many others) from Adox, Bergger, and B&H.....all shipped to me in Canada with no harm. Why the snarky comment...?

 

[Prest_400]

Take into account people that mail film to labs, and not much of an effect seems to be seen.

From the labs side, some do (anecdotally, and I can just paraphrase) notice that some of the film they process and scan exhibits such effects. But they point mostly at airport CT scans as a possible source of the damage.

OT, I managed to win an auction of a barely used Domke lead bag. Might be good to have after all...

 

[koraks]

Maybe the commercial film shipment has safe senders list to exclude from x ray?

I don't think that's the reason. So many people and businesses (also smaller ones) have been shipping film by mail for so long, with so few incidents, that there must be a systemic reason why their film doesn't get damaged. I.e. an overall low density of checks of involving xrays, and/or low dosage scans whenever checks are performed.

Take into account people that mail film to labs, and not much of an effect seems to be seen.

Precisely!

Xrays in general haven't caused problems

The scanners used for hold luggage in airplanes have long known to cause severe fogging problems with film. The carry-on scanners have only started causing problems since the transition towards CT has begun.

Keep in mind that CT and xray both rely on gamma radiation. The difference is in the dosage and probably the energy (i.e. wavelength) employed. Xray fogs film, by definition, but a little of it doesn't hurt. As the saying goes, the poison is in the dosage.

 

[GregY]

I haven't followed this thread continuously, but recently Lina Bessanova did a big test on CT scanning film...likely someone mentioned it...

Koraks, this thread as you remember, at its start was about the new scanners.... info for knowledgeable photographers travelling with film, not about the uninformed casual amateur, putting film in checked luggage.
Four years later it surprises me that the conversation keeps going around in circles.

 

[koraks]

info for knowledgeable photographers travelling with film, not about the uninformed casual amateur

We have people on this forum fitting in either category - or both, depending on the subject matter.

Four years later it surprises me that the conversation keeps going around in circles.

These things happen. The video you posted, for instance, is also posted on the previous page. Some circles are bigger than others. So it goes.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Is there a definitive document I can carry with me, to show to Airport Security, that says that CT scanners damage film (so I can request hand scanning)? Surely such a thing exists? I apologise if a link to this has already been published in this Thread ... but at 39 pages I can't find it!

 

[koraks]

Is there a definitive document

No, because there's no definitive authority recognized by the parties involved that is in a position to release such a document.
In the US and the UK, you're entitled to manual inspections by law. Elsewhere in the world, no such luck.

I'm sure you're aware of the little Kodak leaflet you can print yourself and bring along with your film. It sometimes helps a bit if you show people, I find.

 

[ChrisGalway]

No, because there's no definitive authority recognized by the parties involved that is in a position to release such a document.
In the US and the UK, you're entitled to manual inspections by law. Elsewhere in the world, no such luck.

I'm sure you're aware of the little Kodak leaflet you can print yourself and bring along with your film. It sometimes helps a bit if you show people, I find.

Thanks Koraks ... although that's not good news is it? I suppose by the time the EU gets around to this, CT Scanners will have been replaced by something else!

 

[koraks]

It's not good news for us, but I think both airports and the EU have other priorities than the very small percentage of travelers shooting film and worrying about getting it fogged.

 

[BrianShaw]

No, because there's no definitive authority recognized by the parties involved that is in a position to release such a document.
In the US and the UK, you're entitled to manual inspections by law. Elsewhere in the world, no such luck.

I'm sure you're aware of the little Kodak leaflet you can print yourself and bring along with your film. It sometimes helps a bit if you show people, I find.

I don’t believe that the US has any law that entitles hand inspections of film. The security practices are at a much lower level… policies and practices of TSA and FAA mostly. Those policies and practices allow hand inspection at the discretion of the screening staff based on security posture, among other considerations. It’s a courtesy not an entitlement or right.

 

[koraks]

@BrianShaw thanks for pointing this out; yes, it makes sense.

 

[BrianShaw]

Recall how the past screening guidelines and practices happened: a consortium of film manufacturers doing testing in a government facility jointly with a government agency. That’s how the legacy “somewhat but not quite definitive “ film damage data was procured and policies developed/enacted.

Those days are long gone, probably never to happen again.

 

[Prest_400]

Is there a definitive document I can carry with me, to show to Airport Security, that says that CT scanners damage film (so I can request hand scanning)? Surely such a thing exists? I apologise if a link to this has already been published in this Thread ... but at 39 pages I can't find it!

There isn't such but Ilford pointed me to this: https://www.ip-europe.com/media/ip_...film_x-ray_ct_scanners_-_september_2023_1.pdf

Then you have Kodak's labels and Fujifilm's 2020 statement/release, the latter of which took me some googling around for the PDF that I don't have in this very device I am replying from.

 

[GregY]

It's not good news for us, but I think both airports and the EU have other priorities than the very small percentage of travelers shooting film and worrying about getting it fogged.

Absolutely. In the 5 years since this thread started, savvy professionals have been using the known workarounds; buying film in the countries they're working in, and having the film processed in country or shipped rather than trying often unsuccessfully to bypass mechanical screening & then having ruined film/lost work.

 

[Agulliver]

I have received a letter from the UK Department for Transport stating that all UK civil airport security have been instructed to action requests for hand inspection of photographic materials if they are using CT scanners.

I'm not currently at a computer with that letter on it.....but I've posted it to these forums several times as an attachment, probably earlier in this thread or another X-ray thread.

That "right" is quite new in the UK so some security staff might not be familiar. In the USA it has long been understood that air passengers have the right to have any cabin items hand inspected rather than x-rayed. TSA staff are accustomed to such requests.


One positive aspect of the video above is that 100ISO and slower film can probably have a CT scan or two and you'll get away with it. So if in doubt, try and travel with slower film.

 

[markjwyatt]

My experiences over the last 5-6 years travelling have been that in the US, when I ask for a hand inspection I get it. I have not been refused, even when TSA is busy. Once my Contax iia set off a signal during a hand check and they insisted on x-raying it, but they allowed me to rewind the film first. Two TSA agents who handled it had comments. The first noted how dense it was (I said something like, "no plastic in the camera"), and the second said that her dad gave her a camera that looks just like it. I gave her the 15 second run down on the camera. Airports I can recall doing this in the US include Ontario/LAX/John Wayne/San Jose/SFO/Dallas/Ft. Lauderdale/Detroit/Washington DC/Charlottesville VA/Seattle/Oklahoma City/Wichita, maybe a couple/few others, not sure.

In Montreal they refused to hand check my camera, but did hand check my film (2019).

In Vienna (Oct 2023), they refused to do a film hand check even though they were basically empty (e.g., not busy). They insisted that if ISO < 1600, it is not a problem and they would not hand check, and I asked multiple times. This is the worst (film photographer? F-you!).

I have put cameras w/film and/or film through a normal passenger check x-ray (old style) by accident a couple/few times (ISO 100/400), and did not note any issues. In Queretaro, Mexico, I put all my unexposed film through a customs check x-ray (customs check caught me off guard; just did not think about the film until it was just a bit too late), and I shot the film, and did not note any obvious issues (HP5+ and Fujilm Superia 400 XTRA). I did have it hand checked at the initial screening during the return flight, and I kind of recall they just looked at the film, turned the knob a little to feel it was film, and that was it.

 

[GregY]

Take into account people that mail film to labs, and not much of an effect seems to be seen.

From the labs side, some do (anecdotally, and I can just paraphrase) notice that some of the film they process and scan exhibits such effects. But they point mostly at airport CT scans as a possible source of the damage.

OT, I managed to win an auction of a barely used Domke lead bag. Might be good to have after all...

Prest, the lead bags were rarely an advantage when they were introduced. Seeing, they blocked the xray, the agents either turned up the dose or looked in the bag and then put the film through the machine. Today at airports they're an annoyance, like showing up at security with a full water bottle or containers of cosmetics larger than 100grams.

 

[Prest_400]

Prest, the lead bags were rarely an advantage when they were introduced. Seeing, they blocked the xray, the agents either turned up the dose or looked in the bag and then put the film through the machine. Today at airports they're an annoyance, like showing up at security with a full water bottle or containers of cosmetics larger than 100grams.

But as Lina and Carmencita point, CT scanners can see through it. I know it is debated, but if it protects a bit from an onslaught of radiation then that is something. See it as a fallback in case a CT scanner point denies a handcheck.
Even the metal canister of 35mm film seems to have an effect in protecting the film.

I know a "local" pro that does destination weddings on film and the Domke bag approach is a just in case fallback.

 

[GregY]

But as Lina and Carmencita point, CT scanners can see through it. I know it is debated, but if it protects a bit from an onslaught of radiation then that is something. See it as a fallback in case a CT scanner point denies a handcheck.
Even the metal canister of 35mm film seems to have an effect in protecting the film.

I know a "local" pro that does destination weddings on film and the Domke bag approach is a just in case fallback.

That's really wishful thinking in a way... how little damage is too much? My pro associates still shoot film and they travel, buy their film locally and either ship it home or have it processed where they are. When I pay 1000 € for a flight from N America to Europe (+ time and expenses) i'm just not willing to gamble.....& my travel since the onset of CT scanners has become worry free.

 

[ntenny]

That's really wishful thinking in a way... how little damage is too much? My pro associates still shoot film and they travel, buy their film locally and either ship it home or have it processed where they are. When I pay 1000 € for a flight from N America to Europe (+ time and expenses) i'm just not willing to gamble.....& my travel since the onset of CT scanners has become worry free.

I think many of us don’t really have this option, though. I’m usually travelling for work and just barely squeezing in the time to get out and shoot a roll or two, and the idea of finding a source of film and a lab, then giving the lab enough time to turn the developing job around before I have to fly out, is just hopelessly impractical.

Shipping film to oneself, both directions, might be more practical, but it still depends on getting the hotel to receive and hold a package (at an unpredictable time), then finding a post office or someone who can ship, and hoping everyone actually understands what I’m asking for and doesn’t just give me a polite “yes” for something that won’t work in practice. I’ve had too many misadventures abroad to rely on a process with this many moving parts and no margin for error.

It would be different if I were travelling *for* photography and could organize the trip around shop/lab availability, but I’m pretty sure there are many of us whom that doesn’t describe. So I think it’s well worth while to figure out what can be done in practice to manage the problem of CT scanners.

-NT

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

As far as I know, you cannot dial the dose or intensity of the XRay machine at security. They are fixed. Same for hospital systems. What they do is, rescan with different settings or modes to be able to see something.

 

[GregY]

I think many of us don’t really have this option, though. I’m usually travelling for work and just barely squeezing in the time to get out and shoot a roll or two, and the idea of finding a source of film and a lab, then giving the lab enough time to turn the developing job around before I have to fly out, is just hopelessly impractical.

Shipping film to oneself, both directions, might be more practical, but it still depends on getting the hotel to receive and hold a package (at an unpredictable time), then finding a post office or someone who can ship, and hoping everyone actually understands what I’m asking for and doesn’t just give me a polite “yes” for something that won’t work in practice. I’ve had too many misadventures abroad to rely on a process with this many moving parts and no margin for error.

It would be different if I were travelling *for* photography and could organize the trip around shop/lab availability, but I’m pretty sure there are many of us whom that doesn’t describe. So I think it’s well worth while to figure out what can be done in practice to manage the problem of CT scanners.

-NT

NT, it hasn't been a problem for me in N America. For example, the last time i returned through Seattle, they had both CT and XRay scanners and directed people with film away from the CT machine. I haven't had trouble getting out of Canada with film either. Calgary then you go through international only has x-ray machines and have been very amenable to handchecks for 35 & 120 film in a plastic bag. I would not try to ask for a hand check for a film-loaded camera....

 

[BrianShaw]

As far as I know, you cannot dial the dose or intensity of the XRay machine at security. They are fixed. Same for hospital systems. What they do is, rescan with different settings or modes to be able to see something.

It’s true that the dosage is fixed. Vendor data, online, confirms that. There are various display options that an operator can select to view. That’s what we see when the screen changes. These display options do not imply or require additional scans or dosage, though. In some vendor specs for the legacy equipment these product features were published.