Flying with exposed film - Question

[blue4130]

So I read on one the forums (Don't recall if it was here or APUG) that you should not x-ray exposed, undeveloped film but that unexposed was ok (up to 400ASA)

My question, what is the difference between the two? Surely exposed undeveloped film would not be any more sensitive to X-rays than unexposed, undeveloped film. What would being exposed to light do to cause x-rays to harm the latent image?

Was this just an uniformed post or is there truth and fact to this claim?

 

[bmattock]

So I read on one the forums (Don't recall if it was here or APUG) that you should not x-ray exposed, undeveloped film but that unexposed was ok (up to 400ASA)

My question, what is the difference between the two? Surely exposed undeveloped film would not be any more sensitive to X-rays than unexposed, undeveloped film. What would being exposed to light do to cause x-rays to harm the latent image?

Was this just an uniformed post or is there truth and fact to this claim?

To the best of my knowledge, that is incorrect. Processed film is safe. Unprocessed film is not - no matter if it has been exposed or not.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

http://www.i3a.org/advocacy/itip/

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1035.shtm

 

[Gumby]

I believe that you are mis-remembering what you have read. The risk, whatever there may be, is the same for exposed and unexposed film. Maybe you are remembering someone being a smart-aleck and saying that there is no risk to processed film?

There is some contraversy on this topic. Some folks claim to have had problems; others simply exhibit fear and over-thinking. There is airline and film-company industry research to show that, with one exception, there is no problem for film under 800 ASA. That exception is: NEVER put ANY FILM in your CHECKED BAGGAGE.

Look at any of the film company web sites, or airlines, or TSA and see what they say - they believe that research because they participated in it and paid for it.

Other than that, stop worrying and have a nice trip.

 

[bmattock]

There is airline and film-company industry research to show that, with one exception, there is no problem for film under 1600 ASA.

All x-ray radiation damages unprocessed film, without exception. However, it is correct to say that in most cases, such damage is either undetectable to the human eye, or negligible enough not to bother most people. Higher ISO films are more readily damaged because they are more sensitive to entire chunks of the electro-magnetic spectrum than slower films - they show damage sooner.

That is why the TSA and industry experts recommend a limit on how many times even low-ISO film is run through airport x-ray devices - the damage is cumulative.

It is also true that cosmic radiation (which goes right through the skin of the aircraft) does damage to your film (and you) while you are in transit, being relatively less protected by the Earth's atmosphere than usual. However, again, the damage is generally low enough not to be a concern.

 

[blue4130]

I am not trying to start a fight. This is an honest question. The post I read said that exposed vs unexposed film behaved differently. I was skeptical, thought I'd ask a simple question. Where is the holiday spirit or do you need coal to stay warm this year?

I know that unexposed film will suffer the effects of x-ray, but I just wanted clarification that there is no difference between exposed and unexposed film.

 

[Rey]

I'm glad that someone pointed out that there is a limit to the number of times a slow film can be exposed to radiation. I do not know what that number is, I'm not sure that anyone does, but connecting flights (if you leave the airport/passenger area, and ground connections (trains in some European countries do scan, some public buildings also scan) can increase the amount of scans significantly. If I forsee many connections I always ask for a hand/visual check. TSA allows this in their regs, and some foreign airport personnel will allow it (not in Paris though). I usually tell them that the film has been scanned x number of times already, and ask them check it visually.

 

[Gumby]

I do not know what that number is, I'm not sure that anyone does...

Five (5) is what is TSA, Kodak and airlines recommended. That value, however, is rather conservative if one actually reads the tables from the research from which that value was derived.

 

[brachal]

Never put unprocessed film in a checked bag, regardless of ISO. Film of 800 iso or lower can be run through the carry-on bag scanner without too many worries. Exposures are cumulative, but two or four passes through have never bothered any of mine, including 800. This may not always be the case in third-world coutries using less sophisticated scanners. When in doubt, carry all of your film in a ziploc bag and ask to have it hand inspected. That is always an option, although you may have to explain the situation and possibly speak with a supervisor.

Edit: Just saw Rey's mention that Paris will not hand inspect. I've had this done in the US, Mexico, and Prague without incident, but I'm sure there are exceptions.

 

[Rey]

Thanks Ed,

Coincidently, that is the number that I have tried to avoid when travelling with film, anything over five scans does get me worried. Another trick is to remove any partially exposed film in the camera (careful rewind and note exposure number) as film in the camera cannot be visually inspected.

 

[Pablito]

This is the 7,058th thread on this subject. The phrase "broken record" comes to mind.

 

[Gumby]

Yes, of course... but for someone who might be new, it is legitimate question, a real concern, and new information.








How's that for Holiday cheer? 😀

 

[furcafe]

Indeed, I recall reading that on a typical trip, the cosmic radiation can often exceed the cumulative amount from (carry-on) security X-rays if the flights are long enough, etc.

It is also true that cosmic radiation (which goes right through the skin of the aircraft) does damage to your film (and you) while you are in transit, being relatively less protected by the Earth's atmosphere than usual. However, again, the damage is generally low enough not to be a concern.

 

[Gumby]

Indeed, I recall reading that on a typical trip, the cosmic radiation can often exceed the cumulative amount from (carry-on) security X-rays if the flights are long enough, etc.

Probably... make sure you pack a tinfoil hat!

 

[uhligfd]

How about good old lead-lined bags for film to protect against x and cosmic rays, maybe?

And no, it is not worth the worry unless you have very high ISO film (> 800) and dozens of x-ray security posts on your trip.

And - of course - never put any film in checked luggage, where everything gets really zapped hard and badly.

 

[photogdave]

I am not trying to start a fight. This is an honest question. The post I read said that exposed vs unexposed film behaved differently. I was skeptical, thought I'd ask a simple question. Where is the holiday spirit or do you need coal to stay warm this year?

I know that unexposed film will suffer the effects of x-ray, but I just wanted clarification that there is no difference between exposed and unexposed film.

Who's fighting? 😕
Anyway, everybody is right. Processed film is no problem. Exposed film or unexposed film that has not been processed should be kept away from X-rays.
On my recent trip to South America I had my film hand-checked at every X-ray point. This would have amounted to more than 10 X-rays so I'm glad I took the time to ask! They were very accommodating and friendly at all airports in the U.S., Ecuador and Peru. The only resistance I got was right here in my home city of Vancouver.

 

[Gumby]

Who's fighting? 😕

Context is missing due to deleted posts. You're right, nobody is fighting!

 

[bmattock]

Probably... make sure you pack a tinfoil hat!

I don't fly any more. Had enough of the TSA to last me a lifetime. I take the train or drive.

And I wear a stylish tinfoil balaclava, if you please. I cut eyeholes in it and everything.

 

[bmattock]

How about good old lead-lined bags for film to protect against x and cosmic rays, maybe?

And no, it is not worth the worry unless you have very high ISO film (> 800) and dozens of x-ray security posts on your trip.

And - of course - never put any film in checked luggage, where everything gets really zapped hard and badly.

Lead-lined bags can protect your film from the x-rays in carry-on scans (no idea about if they protect from cosmic radiation). They will not stop the high-energy scanners used for checked baggage. If you read the TSA's advisories, they recommend against using them - since they can't 'see' through them, they will require you to remove them and take the film out anyway - why bother with the hassle? Some have suggested using them after going through security, as a protector against cosmic radiation. Does it help? No idea. If one worries about such things, then I suppose it is worth it.

 

[Gumby]

And I wear a stylish tinfoil balaclava, if you please. I cut eyeholes in it and everything.

I believe it! 🙄

 

[Gumby]

I don't fly any more. Had enough of the TSA to last me a lifetime. I take the train or drive.

If only all of us had that option... if only.

TSA is the least of our problems. More often the real problem is the other air travellers - carrying on HUGE amounts of luggage or simply being too big for the seat they bought. What's worse, some fellow air travellers just smell bad; I understand the biology of how some foods permate skin and emit odiferous odors, but geez... the guy I had to sit next to on my last flight nearly made me vomit. What's worse are the folks who incessantly want to strike up a conversation. If they want to chat they should have brought a friend! Well, that's enough of this bah-humbug. Good day to you! 😀