Results of film thru airport security test

Leonard Peterson

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
10
Format
Large Format
I had the opportunity to travel quite a bit this fall and early winter. I decided to answer for myself once and forever the question of film being at risk during travel. I carried on the following, two EXPOSED sheets of each: Ilford FP4, Fuji Astia 100F and Fuji pro160S. I went from Milwaukee to Denver, Milwaukee to Albuquerque, Milwaukee to Orlando and Chicago to Paris, France, all round trip. The film holders were just put in my camera bag with no further protection. I let them go through the machines, no hand inspections. In a couple of cases the examiner left it in the machine a while looking at all the metal of the 4x5 and lenses. I processed the Ilford myself using my normal times and developer. The color went to the lab. I should also add that this film was fresh from B&H in September but was not kept any cooler then my basement at 70 degrees. I had the film with me while traveling in all the locations for 1 to 2 weeks in each place. In other words I didn't worry about keeping it cool. ALL film showed absolutely NO adverse effects in any way shape or form. I am no longer going to worry about these issues. If I have to carry film on the plane that's ok. As a side note I always find it funny when people make a big issue out of keeping film cool. I worked in a camera store back in the 80's. Film woulld arrive from Kodak, Fuji, Ilford etc. in a UPS truck in the middle of summer. It was in a hot truck for 2 to 10 days. We put it in a cooler because that's what the "pros" expected to see. There was never any complaints of film being bad.
 

Monophoto

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,689
Location
Saratoga Spr
Format
Multi Format
Leonard -

I'm sure that someone will argue that your test wasn't 'scientific', but for my money it's a damn good anedcote.

Actually, my concern is not for the x-ray machine, and for some time I've just thrown the film into a plastic bag. Instead, I am more concerned about the TSA operator with an IQ around room temperature and an attitude who decides to look inside the bag just out of curiosity.
 

gr82bart

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
5,591
Location
Los Angeles and Toronto
Format
Multi Format
Something I've known for many years already. You could have saved yourself the trouble by not listening to the doomsayers on APUG, but they're a pretty raucous bunch and hard to ignore.

Anyway, when I was in Photo LA 2007, a couple of the presenters there told the crowd they had no issues what so ever traveling with film and cameras between the US and other countries. Must be all the 4-leaf clovers were handed out to everyone else but certain APUGers.

Regards, Art.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,531
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Although your test might not have had perfect scientific rigor, it is good enough for me. You have validated the scientific findings of the I3A studies of a few years ago. I, too, have traveled with moderate- to slow-film and had no problems whatsoever. I've even had the same experience as you have with non-refrigerated film. That being said, I keep mine in the refrig when not travelling.

The situation with film fogging is quite different with high-speed film from what I've read.
 

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,793
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
Corroborates my experience with Tri-X in hand luggage: no fog whatsoever. Of course we all know that no film should ever go in checked luggage because of the stronger x-rays.
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,429
Location
PNdub
Format
Medium Format
All of the x-ray fogging I have experienced (3 occasions, typical xray damage) happened shipping film to labs via FedEx. FedEx acknowledged at the time of the third fry up that they randomly xrayed packages, but would not elaborate further. Two of the instances were pre 9/11. I now use USPS and have had no further problems.
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
Jason- you should tell FedEx that you are shipping film, and to mark it do not X-ray. It is my understanding from talking to numerous pro shooters that they have had zero issues with shipping film this way. Given your experience, I could understand however if you were disinclined to use them again, at least domestically.
 

gr82bart

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
5,591
Location
Los Angeles and Toronto
Format
Multi Format
JBrunner said:
All of the x-ray fogging I have experienced (3 occasions, typical xray damage) happened shipping film to labs via FedEx.
Click to expand...
Well that's a whole different issue. I agree - don't use Fedex for sending film. I've heard several stories from close friends who are pros. Even when marked and labeled properly, there have been boo-boos made.

Also, on a related story, never send film to me a work. Everything goes through an X-ray machine. One of scientists had her film ruined 'cause she forgot to have the sender send the film in the 'secret' way.

Regards, Art.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
fuji press 800

boston-heathrow-basel ( and back )

carry on -
xrayed more than 6 times probably more like 10times

no problems ..
 

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm
Well c'mon now; haven't you all figured out that the purported dastardly effects on film from airport x-ray machines is just another nasty falsehood being spread by the digi industry!?
 

bjorke

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
2,260
Location
SF sometimes
Format
Multi Format
FWiW, I've had film fogged by x-rays as recently as November (at LHR).

It's not the digi industry, it's Kodak professional, who have warned about this since long before there were digital cameras around.

As my math teacher used to say: "a blind man can walk across the street without getting hit by a car but that doesn't mean you should encourage him to do it all the time"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eddym

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,924
Location
Puerto Rico
Format
Multi Format
Two comments, and no offense intended by either one:
1) These were all films of less than 200 ASA, which one would not expect to fog, at least if you can believe the TSA. I would have been more impressed had they been 400 or faster.
2) If your livelihood had depended on these films arriving unfogged, would you have still tried this test?
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
copake_ham said:
Well c'mon now; haven't you all figured out that the purported dastardly effects on film from airport x-ray machines is just another nasty falsehood being spread by the digi industry!?
Click to expand...

george

after the 8th or 9th xray i told my wife my film was ruined,
and shot it anyway. (i didn't even know i had 800 speed film in my bag until i was overseas and i thought for sure i was a gonner. )

after we processed all the film, i had a sigh of relief, not sure how
or why it all wasn't ruined, but somehow the fate sisters were nice to me.
 
OP
OP

Leonard Peterson

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
10
Format
Large Format

I used the film that I use. I would have before, and now certainly, carry film I used at my daughter's wedding. My test was not anything new but this subject continually raises it's head. I'm a big believer in Fred Picker's TRY IT, and never have to worry about it again. My traveling simply made this test easy to do. My usual method is to order the film and have it shipped to my destination if possible.
 

JBrunner

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,429
Location
PNdub
Format
Medium Format

In the most recent instance the package bore large orange stickers that said
"Exposed Motion Picture Film- DO NOT XRAY- If Xray is mandatory, stop shipment, contact sender."

Hey Bill- watcha doin fer lunch?
ZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!
Wull, mu brothers gettin outta jail sos I was gonna runom over ta the trailer..
ZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!
Oh, wull if ya gets back were gonna go over tu the hogs waller fer some beers.. say that a purty color on that box...
ZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!
Yeah, wull be over, he's just gotta change outta that jumpsuit..
ZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!

I have never had a problem with carry-on Xray damage. I still get a hand check when I can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Henderson

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
345
Location
Datchet, Ber
Format
Medium Format
Probably 20 flights a year for the last ten years, including several trips where film was X rayed at least a half dozen times. Scarcely any hand-checks. No visible damage at all to film to 400 ISO and very occasionally faster.

I must say I don't worry about this at all. I do worry about whether they'll let my camera bag in the cabin.

Someone ran a search on Photo.net the other day and found 59 threads on this subject. I've probably seen all of these and I can't recall a persuasive case being made for damage from normal carry-on scanners.
 

Tom Stanworth

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
2,021
Format
Multi Format
Agreed. I have made two return trips to the USA from Kabul and some film used on the second trip when to and from the USA the first time but only got used the second time. Due to hassles with re-routing bags from Kabul, ticket issues I have had to walk back and forth (as well as Xrays moving between terminals) so reckon each return trip resulted in about 8-10 doses. So I guess some film had that TWICE. Even TriX pushed to 800....FINE.
 

HerrBremerhaven

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
858
Format
Multi Format
I think lower ISO films are not a problem. However, I shot lots of Kodak Ektachrome P1600 in the past, and that is a good example of a potential problem. This film can be pushed to ISO 6400. Just as a test, when coming back with a leftover roll of this, I left it in my camera bag. Shot some inconsequential images with that roll, then had it processed. It showed the same results as Kodak indicated on their website was Xray damage.

I have since replaced using this film with using Kodak E200, which I can then push as far as 4 2/3 stops. In a similar manner, when pushing film it can be possible to get indications of Xray damage. Perhaps it is tougher to see this with B/W films, though I always had my Ilford Delta 3200 hand inspected . . . better safe than sorry.

So probably many film users don't need to worry. I might not have worried either, except my P1600 test of this indicated Xray damage. Since I make a living off my images, I don't feel like taking chances with this. Anything ISO 100 can stay in the bag . . . no worries.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed
 

eddym

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,924
Location
Puerto Rico
Format
Multi Format
I wouldn't worry too much about asa100 film, but my wife's trip to Yellowstone last summer taught me that 400 film can be affected by carry on xray machines. It was only one roll, and it only affected the first few frames on the roll, but they were definitely fogged by the machine. I normally carry 400 film with me when I travel, so I always try to get a hand check. If I'm travelling expressly to shoot a job, I either have the film sent ahead, or if I have to carry it, I insist on a hand check. I've never been turned down in the US.
 

copake_ham

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
4,091
Location
NYC or Copak
Format
35mm
What is interesting is that, based both on the OP and the subsequent comments, folks seem to agree that at (or certainly under) 400 ISO there is no problem - even with multiple x-ray scans.

I think that's very useful knowledge. And, coupled with the fact you can request hand inspection, means that the x-ray bag is not really necessary for carry-on luggage. Like Eddy, I've never been refused hand inspection if I asked for it (be polite - drop the 'tude).

This makes me feel better since I now use said bag to send film ahead of time to destinations via the mail. While it probably doesn't get scanned all the time - it may. So that's a good use for the bag.

I then have the bag at my destination to use to carry any exposed film back and if, as is likely, I forget to ask for hand inspection, I'm more than likely "safe".

Great thread!
 

Tom Stanworth

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
2,021
Format
Multi Format
I suspect that their are other factors going on in some of the fogging examples. For example I cannot see how Xrays would only fog the first few frames. This makes no sense to me. Xrays are not going to have enough energy to fog the first few frames and be stopped dead by the next layer of film deeper in the coil. They are surely going to keep going.....and fog the rest too!

Bjorke, What speed was your film and what machines did it go thru. I have had my films zapped so much (some of my TriX about 15 times) with no ill effect, in all cases going thru LHR....even thru machines in Kabul aiport which lets face it are not going to be serviced. Fast film or hold baggage for sure. I wonder whether in come cases the film has been fogged before by some other process?
 

eddym

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,924
Location
Puerto Rico
Format
Multi Format
It puzzled me, too. Here's my theory.
It was the last roll my wife had shot on her vacation, and she had inadvertently left it in the camera, which was carried on and went through the xray machine in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. The roll was almost finished, but she had not rewound it. When she got home, she finished the roll and had it processed.
The first three frames on the roll were fogged, and the fog pattern was the same kind you would see if you had opened the back of the camera with the film not rewound, and the film on the takeup spool had been fogged (note voice of experience!). The first frame was heavily fogged, the second less so, the third less, etc., and the fog was in a pattern that indicated that it had occurred on overlapping areas of the film on the takeup spool. But of course, these were not the outer frames on the spool, as one would expect from light fogging, but the inner. So the film had not been exposed to light, but to something else. And I can imagine no way that this could have occurred in the minilab processing.
So my theory is that the camera was xrayed with the film inside (a fact), and the beam had been focused on the inside of the camera to reveal its contents. The focused beam was hence stronger in the center of the camera (where the center of the spool is) than on the outer edges. Whether this is a normal phemonenon, or the operator specifically did this that time, I have no idea. And I am also not an expert on xray scanners, so I may be totally wrong. But I really cannot come up with any other plausible explanation for the particular fogging pattern.
 

isaacc7

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
250
Location
Yemen Baby!
Format
Multi Format
I will say beware if you are carrying APS film. I had more than a few customers report fogging on their ISO 400 rolls. I suspect the plastic canister is to blame. Does anyone still shoot that stuff anyway?

Isaac
 

User Removed

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2004
Messages
1,296
Format
Plastic Cameras
I have had 100asa 8x10 sheet film completely ruined a few times from the airport Xrays. The last time was when I passed through the LAX airport only 2 times. The film had visible scanning bars (about 5) acrost the whole length of the film in the dirrection that the film when into the scanner.

After this happened and ruined my whole trips film, I've never had them scan it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…