Airport CT scanners

Retro-Grouch

Retro-Grouch

Veteran
Local time
3:09 PM
Joined
Mar 28, 2021
Messages
3,209
View My Gallery
In the past, TSA scanned carry-on luggage in airports with x-ray machines, and stated that films below ISO were safe to be scanned. My experience confirmed this. However, a number of airports are converting to CT scanners, and Kodak/Alaris has stated that these scanners are unsafe for any film; their recommendation is for hand inspection for all films when CT scanners are in use, or when you don't know what's being used.
I'll be traveling soon, and tried to research what type of scanner is in use in the airports I'll be passing through. It seems that TSA is not eager to share that information, for whatever their inscrutable reasons. I did find out that one of the airports I'll be using, Greene Airport in Providence, does have CT scanners in use. I propose that RFF users post here whenever they can confirm that a given airport uses CT scanners. Of course, it seems that CT technology is the next wave and will become universal.
Remember, in the US, you always have the right to a hand inspection of your film. Bear in mind that you may be required to open 35mm canisters or 120 foil packs, a bummer if you like to keep film frozen until ready to use. Once exposed to atmospheric humidity, re-freezing is not a good idea. Have your film in a zip-lock bag, and, depending on the whim of the TSA agent, they may just wave you through. Always be cooperative. There are many good TSA agents, but also many Neanderthal bullies with chips on their shoulders, and you don't want to antagonize them.
 
From my limited recent experience:

Places where CT scanners are being used:
Memphis
Helsinki
JFK Terminal 8
Old machines:
JFK Terminal 1
Laguardia Terminal B
Lisbon
Paris CDG

I have had no problems getting hand inspections of my film at Memphis or Helsinki. The people that in both locations acted as though it was a routine request.

On film that I let go through a CT scanner I have seen evidence of fogging on unexposed frames, but, interestingly, not on the exposed frames.
 
pschauss said:
From my limited recent experience:

Places where CT scanners are being used:
Memphis
Helsinki
JFK Terminal 8
Old machines:
JFK Terminal 1
Laguardia Terminal B
Lisbon
Paris CDG

I have had no problems getting hand inspections of my film at Memphis or Helsinki. The people that in both locations acted as though it was a routine request.

On film that I let go through a CT scanner I have seen evidence of fogging on unexposed frames, but, interestingly, not on the exposed frames.
Click to expand...
A piece I saw online was from a photographer who decided to do a semi-formal controlled test. His results were strange, showing loss of detail and fogging only in shadow areas. He had gone through Greene Airport in RI. I will be flying out of ABQ (and back through Greene), and I'll try and find out what they're using in ABQ.
 
Ilford HP5, it went through the RDU CT scanner


RDU, San Francisco, St Louis, El Paso, Denver and Dallas were very nice about this in the last few trips.
However, that roll fell out of the ziplock
 


A demonstration of substantial damage from taking film through scanners at airports. Lina is married to Mirko Böddecker, CEO and founder of Fotoimpex. I don’t imagine that they have any motivation to discourage people from using film.
 
Last edited:
I normally travel with a film camera and have it hand checked after last summer's fiasco (see above)

This week I traveled with a Leica IIIf that was recently serviced by YYe and it set the hand check alarms as well. I'm talking about those round swabs TSA uses and then places in a machine to check for "bad stuff"
I had to open the camera and take the film out in both airports, with the camera being passed through the scanner.
This hasn't happened with any other camera.

Any Idea of what could set off the detectors?
Could this be any of the fresh lubricants?
 
After passing through the Albuquerque Sunport last summer, I would recommend requesting a hand inspection. Although they appeared to have the same scanners they have had for years, the TSA agent I spoke with (very helpful and considerate) strongly recommended that I not send my film through them.
 
titrisol said:
I normally travel with a film camera and have it hand checked after last summer's fiasco (see above)

This week I traveled with a Leica IIIf that was recently serviced by YYe and it set the hand check alarms as well. I'm talking about those round swabs TSA uses and then places in a machine to check for "bad stuff"
I had to open the camera and take the film out in both airports, with the camera being passed through the scanner.
This hasn't happened with any other camera.

Any Idea of what could set off the detectors?
Could this be any of the fresh lubricants?
Click to expand...

Glycerine can give false positives to the explosives swab test. If anything used on the camera contains glycerine it can set the swab test to report a positive. It is a likely component of products used to refresh the vulcanite.

The other common causes of false positives are nitrates from fertilisers or medications, ammunition or gunshot residue, fireworks and accelerants. An acquaintance who was a mine site explosives technician in the 2000s used to set off the swab test twice weekly on the way to her job.

Marty
 
More good advice:



I can also add that Perth Airport (IATA: PER, ICAO: YPPH), Western Australia, has changed their infrastructure to 100% CT scanners.

Adelaide (IATA: ADL, ICAO: YPAD), which has only one terminal, has 1 CT scanner and 3 x-rays in the general entry area, but the international area is CT only.

Marty
 
Last edited:
Just back from Lisbon, at terminal 2 (the cattle one) only traditional x-rays. Had one roll of FP4+ going through as a test, came out perfectly fine.
Terminal 1, the proper airport, may be different though.
 
AntonioC said:
Just back from Lisbon, at terminal 2 (the cattle one) only traditional x-rays. Had one roll of FP4+ going through as a test, came out perfectly fine.
Terminal 1, the proper airport, may be different though.
Click to expand...
I have no concerns about traditional x-ray machines. I went to Poland in summer with three rolls of hp5, they were x-rayed in Birmingham, used two, x-rayed in Poland on the way back.

I took this extra roll of hp5 (which was x-rayed twice) to Poland in Easter. Again x-rayed in Birmingham and in arrival to Poznan due to increased security measures after the attack in Russia. X-rayed also on the way back.

That roll of hp5, despite being x-rayed 5 times, all pictures came out fine. I never had to deal with the CT scan machines thought.
 
I think ct scanners homogenously reduce contrast quite significantly.

I’ve had a roll of HP5 120 go through 4 passes and that’s how it came out.
 
Yes, 4 passes.

I Asked for hand inspection on all 4 checkpoiints, to which the airports accepted. But I totally forgot two rolls of film in my jacket pocket… i still haven’t developed the color film, and the HP5 120 roll is definitely lower contrast, veiled. I’ve hever seen HP5 this way before.

I haven’t posted a photo. I developed the negative and noticed the look right away
 
This summer’s trip to Europe will require me to go through London, an airport that notoriously zaps everything. I once asked hand inspection and They probably intentionally triple-double dosed the zap, a few films got ruined by xrays, a decade ago.

This summer I’m taking no chances: I will not shoot color films, and I will only shoot PAN-F rated at iso 25. I believe this will mitigate the Three anticipated ct scans.
 
Aww, flippin' flip! I've just ordered 10 cartridges of 126 film that expired in the late 80's and early 90's from Vinton in Virginia and I'm in the UK. I bet these films have to go through a couple of dozen CT scanners. I only ordered it because a few minutes earlier I'd read that film speeds below 800asa were safe to go theough airport scanners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom