Specific film stocks that hold up well to x-ray

Garb · Nov 14, 2024

I have an upcoming trip with a high probability that my film will get x-rayed. So wondering if anyone knows specific film stocks that hold up well to x-ray.

The trip is Tokyo -> Peking (transit) -> CDG Paris -> Eurostar train to London -> Gatwick to Peking (transit) -> Tokyo. Traveling for the holidays with a tight schedule each day of the trip, may not be able to find an open post office to mail my film back to me.

Here's what I know so far:

CT scanners are stronger than traditional x-ray machines
China, France, and UK are known to deny hand-checks but Japan always allows it
Low ISO holds up better
Carry-on x-ray machine strength varies case-by-case, but typically weaker than check-in luggage scanners
Lina Bessonova put up a blog post and video showing monochrome holding up better than color films, but only experimented with a few monochrome stocks, only one of which was 100 ISO or lower
A lot of people online say they've x-rayed multiple times and seen no degradation, yet some people say one x-ray destroyed their photos

Specifically, I'm wondering if orthographic films like Ferrania's Orto or Ilford Ortho 80 hold up well as the reduced spectral sensitivity might also translate to lower x-ray sensitivity?

Paul Howell · Nov 14, 2024

I think it depends on the type of "X ray machine" and if the operator or airport has a choice of settings. But the lower the ISO the better a film hold up to comic radiation, so go low. Do not put film in your camera, hand carry the film in a clear plastic bag, hopefully the security folks will hand check.

Doremus Scudder · Nov 14, 2024

The slower the film, the better. Otherwise, it's a matter of the strength and number of exposures. Older scanners are/were not so powerful. Some modern ones fog film in one pass.

Buy film at your destination and process it there if possible. At least try to buy it there; that will eliminate scans on the trip there.

Traveling with film is a problem these days. I remember when I used to take a rolling carry-on full of loaded 4x5 filmholders with me on trips. I don't think that's feasible anymore.

Best,

Doremus

GregY · Nov 14, 2024

Garb said:
I have an upcoming trip with a high probability that my film will get x-rayed. So wondering if anyone knows specific film stocks that hold up well to x-ray.

The trip is Tokyo -> Peking (transit) -> CDG Paris -> Eurostar train to London -> Gatwick to Peking (transit) -> Tokyo. Traveling for the holidays with a tight schedule each day of the trip, may not be able to find an open post office to mail my film back to me.

Here's what I know so far:

CT scanners are stronger than traditional x-ray machines

China, France, and UK are known to deny hand-checks but Japan always allows it

Low ISO holds up better

Carry-on x-ray machine strength varies case-by-case, but typically weaker than check-in luggage scanners

Lina Bessonova put up a blog post and video showing monochrome holding up better than color films, but only experimented with a few monochrome stocks, only one of which was 100 ISO or lower

A lot of people online say they've x-rayed multiple times and seen no degradation, yet some people say one x-ray destroyed their photos

Specifically, I'm wondering if orthographic films like Ferrania's Orto or Ilford Ortho 80 hold up well as the reduced spectral sensitivity might also translate to lower x-ray sensitivity?

Easy to buy film in Paris.....last trip there I had my film processed by the pro lab Atelier Publimod

koraks · Nov 14, 2024

Garb said:
Specifically, I'm wondering if orthographic films like Ferrania's Orto or Ilford Ortho 80 hold up well as the reduced spectral sensitivity might also translate to lower x-ray sensitivity?

I don't expect so; the exposure due to xrays is by definition not linked to spectral sensitization to visible light, since xrays are so much shorter in terms of wavelength (orders of magnitude) than visible light. There may be differences w.r.t. susceptibility to xray damage, but I expect those to be more related to things like physical cross-section of the silver halide grains. As a result, I would expect that high-aspect ratio grain films (a.k.a. 't-grain') might show a little less fogging than classic cubic grain emulsions. So maybe (and I'm going out on a very wobbly, long limb here) your best bet would be with films like Kodak TMAX 100, Delta 100 and perhaps Acros 100. And as said, slower emulsions will fog less easily.

GregY said:
Easy to buy film in Paris

Buying the film where it'll be used and then processing it there (or having it processed) would certainly be a good solution, although not always practical (esp. the processing). Maybe ordering ahead of time and then picking up on arrival would work.

Agulliver · Nov 14, 2024

All UK civil airports have been instructed to action hand inspection of photographic film. Some are still reluctant if they use traditional X-ray scanners.

Older x-ray scanners are of no practical concern unless you're pushing to 3200 and beyond, and your film passes through several x-ray scans. Anecdote....I pushed Delta 3200 to 12,800 after it had been through six airport X-ray scans and saw no visible defects

The new CT scanners *are* an issue. European airports are beginning to permit hand inspections. I am under the impression that Tokyo and Osaka already do but have not yet experienced this myself (I'll let y'all know in April).

There are options if you're worried about the CT scanners. As others have said, buy your film in your destination country and if possible have it developed there.

Otherwise minimise exposure to CT scanners. Radiation damage is cumulative. So the fewer passes through the scanners, the less damage will be done. Slower film is also less susceptible so 100 or 200 ISO film is less likely to be visibly damaged than faster speed film.

Paul Howell · Nov 14, 2024

Last time was in London I bought film, Kodak Tmax 400 and had it shipped home by fedex, one of the reason when I travel I now shoot digital.

GregY · Nov 14, 2024

koraks said:
I don't expect so; the exposure due to xrays is by definition not linked to spectral sensitization to visible light, since xrays are so much shorter in terms of wavelength (orders of magnitude) than visible light. There may be differences w.r.t. susceptibility to xray damage, but I expect those to be more related to things like physical cross-section of the silver halide grains. As a result, I would expect that high-aspect ratio grain films (a.k.a. 't-grain') might show a little less fogging than classic cubic grain emulsions. So maybe (and I'm going out on a very wobbly, long limb here) your best bet would be with films like Kodak TMAX 100, Delta 100 and perhaps Acros 100. And as said, slower emulsions will fog less easily.

Buying the film where it'll be used and then processing it there (or having it processed) would certainly be a good solution, although not always practical (esp. the processing). Maybe ordering ahead of time and then picking up on arrival would work.

"Ordering" may not work so well either....are you going to have it shipped to a hotel or Airbnb?.... does it get there or get misplaced. I found 2 or 3 places walking distance from the Louvre & bought all the Tri-X i wanted (also had some with me)...

ic-racer · Nov 14, 2024

For sure slower films are less sensitive to x-rays. In fact, the use of visible light sensitometry to test x-ray film speed has been verified in a number of studies.

GregY · Nov 14, 2024

Garb there are more CT scanners being installed in airports. Check out Lina Bessanov's website.....Lina did a big test with film & scanners.....it's a must read.

wiltw · Nov 14, 2024

Garb said:
I have an upcoming trip with a high probability that my film will get x-rayed. So wondering if anyone knows specific film stocks that hold up well to x-ray.

Specifically, I'm wondering if orthographic films like Ferrania's Orto or Ilford Ortho 80 hold up well as the reduced spectral sensitivity might also translate to lower x-ray sensitivity?

Medical x-ray films can either be panchromatic or orthochromatic, so the choice of one vs. the other for conventional photography does not really matter as much as the ISO sensitivity.

Orthochromatic films can simplify the processing for the med tech, since they can see in red light darkroom, but automated equipment which extracts x-ray film from the cassette for processing helps eliminate the need for red light darkroom.

As for film's ability to pass thru CT scanners that are populating the Security pre-gate, some folks have seen 'no (perceived) damage' and others have gotten damage. This article portrays the kinds of visible patterned artifacts that can be seen, not merely overal reduction of contrast and increased base fog seen by Lina in her video on testing.

Flying with film, X-rays, TSA and other fun stuff. — The Codex

Written by Zeb Andrews

bluemooncameracodex.com

GregY · Nov 14, 2024

Videos — Lina Bessonova

www.linabessonova.photography

koraks · Nov 15, 2024

wiltw said:
Medical x-ray films can either be panchromatic or orthochromatic

That's because medical xrays (insofar as they're still done on film) are not direct exposure of xrays onto the film. Xrays excite phosphors on a screen and then that screen image (which is plain visible light) is recorded by the film. X-ray film is also never panchromatic; it's either blue-sensitive, or orthochromatic (blue + green sensitive). The spectral sensitivity of xray film has no bearing on its actual xray sensitivity since that's not how the product is intended to work in the first place.

wiltw said:
This article portrays the kinds of visible patterned artifacts that can be seen

The damage shown on that link (which is copied from a Kodak article) is not representative of the overall fog and color shifts that result from CT exposure. That's why Bessanova's results look different. The article you link to is relevant for exposure to high-intensity regular/old-fashioned luggage screening machines such as used for hold luggage.

GregY said:
"Ordering" may not work so well either

I was thinking about ordering with a local shop and asking them to hold the film until he comes and gets it. No shipping involved.

Agulliver · Nov 15, 2024

Lina Bessanova's video really is the best real life test that we have thus far.

the other piece of advice I have is to put all your film in one ziploc style bag so that you don't need to rummage around for it. Get that bag out when you are at the security scan and say you have photo film, and ask for a hand inspection. All UK civil airports have been instructed to action these inspections. All American civil airports have done so for decades. There's a report on the airport X-ray thread about Japanese airports now actioning such requests.

When I fly to Japan in April I'm going to ask for hand inspection but I am also going to take nothing faster than 200ISO just in case. I figure that worst case scenario my film is CT scanned once or twice and 200ISO and slower will stand a good chance of my photos still being OK even if there's some damage.

GregY · Nov 15, 2024

koraks said:
That's because medical xrays (insofar as they're still done on film) are not direct exposure of xrays onto the film. Xrays excite phosphors on a screen and then that screen image (which is plain visible light) is recorded by the film. X-ray film is also never panchromatic; it's either blue-sensitive, or orthochromatic (blue + green sensitive). The spectral sensitivity of xray film has no bearing on its actual xray sensitivity since that's not how the product is intended to work in the first place.

The damage shown on that link (which is copied from a Kodak article) is not representative of the overall fog and color shifts that result from CT exposure. That's why Bessanova's results look different. The article you link to is relevant for exposure to high-intensity regular/old-fashioned luggage screening machines such as used for hold luggage.

I was thinking about ordering with a local shop and asking them to hold the film until he comes and gets it. No shipping involved.

That would work too....

Garb · Nov 17, 2024

Thanks all for the responses but this post was not about how to travel with film; there is already plenty of information about that online that doesn't need to be reiterated; this was specifically about which films are minimally damaged by xray (beyond just the ISO).

Do not put film in your camera, hand carry the film in a clear plastic bag, hopefully the security folks will hand check.

the other piece of advice I have is to put all your film in one ziploc style bag so that you don't need to rummage around for it. Get that bag out when you are at the security scan and say you have photo film, and ask for a hand inspection. All UK civil airports have been instructed to action these inspections. All American civil airports have done so for decades. There's a report on the airport X-ray thread about Japanese airports now actioning such requests.

I have been doing this for years, it increases the chances that you'll get a hand check, it doesn't guarantee it in many countries.

I can also second that Japan airports consistently honor these requests and have been doing so for years; Japan is my favorite place to fly with film. Sometimes I won't even have to say anything, they'll notice the film and immediately provide a small tray for hand-check. I have never been denied at US airports either but they take longer to hand-check.

Easy to buy film in Paris.....last trip there I had my film processed by the pro lab Atelier Publimod

Thanks for that info. Their website didn't as far as I can tell list their turnaround time for development. I think this will only be feasible for me if they develop in an hour.

I don't expect so; the exposure due to xrays is by definition not linked to spectral sensitization to visible light, since xrays are so much shorter in terms of wavelength (orders of magnitude) than visible light.

That's because medical xrays (insofar as they're still done on film) are not direct exposure of xrays onto the film. Xrays excite phosphors on a screen and then that screen image (which is plain visible light) is recorded by the film. X-ray film is also never panchromatic; it's either blue-sensitive, or orthochromatic (blue + green sensitive). The spectral sensitivity of xray film has no bearing on its actual xray sensitivity since that's not how the product is intended to work in the first place.

Thanks for this. I don't know if this is true (both visible light and xrays are EM waves so I don't see why even magnitudes difference in wavelength necessarily means the mechanism by which they fog film is different but I'll take your word for it).

As a result, I would expect that high-aspect ratio grain films (a.k.a. 't-grain') might show a little less fogging than classic cubic grain emulsions. So maybe (and I'm going out on a very wobbly, long limb here) your best bet would be with films like Kodak TMAX 100, Delta 100 and perhaps Acros 100.

I know you're going out on a wobbly limb here but I feel like a lot of people on forums indicated their TMax was minimally affected by xray scanners. Not scientific by any means, but I think this is good enough for me to lean towards TMax 100 and Acros 100 (classic). I have tons of them in my freezer.

All UK civil airports have been instructed to action hand inspection of photographic film. Some are still reluctant if they use traditional X-ray scanners.

First I heard of that, but that's good news.

Garb there are more CT scanners being installed in airports. Check out Lina Bessanov's website.....Lina did a big test with film & scanners.....it's a must read.

As indicated by the original post, I'm aware of this blog post and video.

Anecdote....I pushed Delta 3200 to 12,800 after it had been through six airport X-ray scans and saw no visible defects

This seems to differ from Lina Bessonova's blog and video, so despite your experience, I'll probably steer clear of this.

mshchem · Nov 17, 2024

Checked baggage gets nuked.

Agulliver · Nov 17, 2024

Garb said:
This seems to differ from Lina Bessonova's blog and video, so despite your experience, I'll probably steer clear of this.

Lina is talking about the new CT scanners. My roll of Delta 3200 which I pushed to 12,800 went through several old style X-ray scanners.

mshchem said:
Checked baggage gets nuked.

And yet I bet millions of people have got away with it. Because Joe Average back in the day, who shot two rolls of Kodak Gold a year on holiday. probably didn't know to pack his film in his hand baggage. And I bet a lot of us have done it by accident. European airports have typically performed CT scanning on hold bags since the late 80s.

CT scans are more likely to damage film, much more indeed, but it's not guaranteed to "nuke" it.

As for specific films that are less affected.....the only rule is that the lower the ISO the less likely the film is to suffer any damage from X-rays or CT scans. One could also look at pulling B&W film. FP4 pulled to 64ISO would mean less noticeable damage than exposing at box speed. I would advise to travel with the slowest ISO you think you need, ask for hand inspections at every scan.

I've attached the letter that I received from the UK Department for Transport regarding UK airports. You should be able to get a hand check but it's still possible that the security people might be less accommodating if they have regular X-ray equipment and not CT scanners.

mshchem · Nov 17, 2024

Years back I requested hand inspection, they didn't freak out about my film, however they rubbed the camera bag inside and out with a cloth patch that looked for chemicals associated with explosives. Pretty cool, I think it might have been FT-IR or similar. I don't think I have been on a plane more than once since I retired. I send my wife off and I stay home and play

Garb · Mar 20, 2025

Sorry for late reply, but following up on the airports:

Tokyo: As always, no problem getting a hand-check.

Peking: I have gone through Peking twice, both times they pretended to not understand when I asked to hand-check the film, motioning for me to put it through the machine. I asked again / insisted, and they caved in both times and bypassed the x-ray so it gets hand-checked.

Eurostar Paris to London: I asked for hand-check, and the guy refused. He wasn't having it. I had to pass it through the x-ray machine. Looked like very old machine, much taller than the ones at airports. You could probably walk through it standing upright. This is despite Eurostar website saying they do hand-checks upon request. Didn't speak French so couldn't really argue. First time in my life my film got x-rayed. And as a side note, x-ray aside, just a terrible experience overall. This train and station is run worse than a lot of third world countries.

Gatwick: Only had to ask once, and the lady hand-checked it, no question or hesitation whatsoever.

The films I ended up bringing was TMax and Fujicolor 100, developed film strips look okay but haven't scanned them yet.

Agulliver · Mar 20, 2025

I've got a trip coming up starting from Heathrow (which I abhor but needs must) flying into Helsinki and onto Osaka....returning from Tokyo via Helsinki. I'm not expecting any troubles with hand inspection after reading of recent experiences but I'm going to take nothing faster than 200ISO with me.

I'll be travelling with someone who speaks two Japanese dialects near fluently which will help.

I think the advice I would give, in addition to requesting hand inspections, is to take the slowest ISO film you think you'll need and only as much film as you think you'll need.

Saganich · Mar 20, 2025

I'm not an expert about the structure of film but I believe any dyes in the emulsion are associated with increased radiosensitivity, so avoid films with dyes. Next i would say that silver density and surface area are main factors, so greater silver mass per unit volume and larger grains would be associated with greater radiosensitivity.

pentaxuser · Mar 20, 2025

Agulliver said:
Lina is talking about the new CT scanners. My roll of Delta 3200 which I pushed to 12,800 went through several old style X-ray scanners.

One could also look at pulling B&W film. FP4 pulled to 64ISO would mean less noticeable damage than exposing at box speed. I would advise to travel with the slowest ISO you think you need, ask for hand inspections at every scan.

So it's not just the box speed of film that counts, it is the EI you use when exposing it? Can you say how this works?

Thanks

pentaxuser

koraks · Mar 20, 2025

Saganich said:
I'm not an expert about the structure of film but I believe any dyes in the emulsion are associated with increased radiosensitivity, so avoid films with dyes.

I don't follow that argument to be honest. I don't believe that dyes effectively increase the x-ray cross-section of silver halides.
The main predictors would be absolute silver halide grain cross-section combined with sensitivity. I'd expect tmax/delta films to have a very slight advantage but only in one orientation, which practically eliminates this advantage.

For all intents and purposes, film speed really is the main thing to look out for, with the caveat that color film is inherently more sensitive than B&W since there's just more image-wise failure modes in color than in B&W.

loccdor · Mar 20, 2025

There was a moderate shielding effect in Lina's tests from the metal 35mm film cassettes. I repurposed a small thin metal toolbox meant for sprocket wrenches that I'm going to bring on the next trip, for airports that I know don't do hand-checks. Not a lead bag that would be completely opaque to the x-rays to where they'd do an inspection, but should help a little.

Specific film stocks that hold up well to x-ray

Garb

Paul Howell

Doremus Scudder

GregY

koraks

Moderator

Agulliver

Paul Howell

GregY

ic-racer

GregY

wiltw

Flying with film, X-rays, TSA and other fun stuff. — The Codex

GregY

Videos — Lina Bessonova

koraks

Moderator

Agulliver

GregY

Garb

mshchem

Agulliver

Attachments

mshchem

Garb

Agulliver

Saganich

pentaxuser

koraks

Moderator

loccdor

Specific film stocks that hold up well to x-ray

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency