Dunno if 1600ASA is enough

Y

ywenz

Veteran
Local time
4:06 PM
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
2,457
I'm taking a trip to NY and I'll be using my leica at a restaurant for a friends get together.. I'm wondering if I can get away with using 1600 Neopan, instead of getting 3200 TMAX... The lighting at the restaurant will just be your run of the mill dimly lit establisments and I'll be using a 50mm Summicron.. I don't want to get the 3200 TMAX because I can only get my hands on an X-ray film bag rated at 1600.
 
My guess would be that 1600ASA is enough for the restaurant, although personally I'd be prepared to push the film a step if needed. I wouldn't worry about bringing the T-Max in the film bag even though it's only rated for 1600ASA, I've carried film faster than that through airports without bags entirely and haven't seen any difference at all.


edit: I misread your post the first time, didn't see what lens you would use.
 
Don't bother with the Xray bag. If they actually worked, wouldn't terrorists use them?
 
ywenz said:
I'm taking a trip to NY and I'll be using my leica at a restaurant for a friends get together.. I'm wondering if I can get away with using 1600 Neopan, instead of getting 3200 TMAX... The lighting at the restaurant will just be your run of the mill dimly lit establisments and I'll be using a 50mm Summicron.. I don't want to get the 3200 TMAX because I can only get my hands on an X-ray film bag rated at 1600.
Click to expand...

Wait until you get here to NYC and purchase the 3200 TMAX. We do have a few camera stores around town. :)

Then, as elsewhere mentioned, have it processed here too or, alternatively if you have a favorite processor at home, mail the exposed film there.

I never understand why so many shooters want to carry film with them when flying to a large US city where you can buy it fresh at very competitive prices.
 
zeos 386sx said:
Don't some airports use x-ray that sees right through a person's clothes?

Heathrow uses it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1348172,00.html

I don't know what affect this kind of x-ray would have on film.
Click to expand...

Is the term "x-ray" being thrown around as a generic term for "see thru device"? Kinda scary to think we're being exposed to that kind of radiation without warning.

Wonder what the guy who's operating the machine thinks about it if it is an X-ray... hope he has a lead suit.
 
copake_ham said:
I never understand why so many shooters want to carry film with them when flying to a large US city where you can buy it fresh at very competitive prices.
Click to expand...

As an example, in terms of nominal value, a roll of your favorite film might cost $4 in both Canada and the U.S., but if you're paying that $4 in USD as a Canadian, it actually works out to about $4.70 CAD per roll (based on the current exchange rate). So as a Canadian, it makes more sense to pay 4 CAD vs. 4 USD.

The difference adds up if you're planning on doing a lot of shooting.
 
Having travelled quite a bit, and having had some film ruined from too many doses, I always ask to have the film hand checked. Take all your film out of its canisters, and put it in a big ziploc bag. They will check it, and give it back to you, all without putting your high speed film through the X-rays.

It's a lot cheaper than those X-ray bags, especially since their reliability is questionable.
 
You will not like NP1600 pushed. I rate it at 1250 and it does OK in bars. Attached is a pic that is in my gallery here taken at f4 and 1/30 or 1/15sec with NP1600 rated at 1250 and developed normally in XTOL. Its a good film.

 
copake_ham said:
Wait until you get here to NYC and purchase the 3200 TMAX. We do have a few camera stores around town. :)

I never understand why so many shooters want to carry film with them when flying to a large US city where you can buy it fresh at very competitive prices.
Click to expand...

And don't expect any of the bigger NYC camera stores to be open on Saturday since it's Sabbath.

Realistically, trying to run around town for 1/2 a day getting all the film you need is not very productive, especially since many of us already have what we need in our bags/fridges.
 
Kin Lau said:
Is the term "x-ray" being thrown around as a generic term for "see thru device"? Kinda scary to think we're being exposed to that kind of radiation without warning.

Wonder what the guy who's operating the machine thinks about it if it is an X-ray... hope he has a lead suit.
Click to expand...

It's an X-ray, but the ones they use to screen carry-on baggage are low power and enclosed in a big shielded box -- that's why you have to put your briefcase through on a belt. The operator is watching on a monitor at a safe distance.

According to an article I read in Pop a couple of years ago, some of the new X-ray machines used to screen checked baggage are very high-powered -- they scan at low power and if they "see" something the beam can't penetrate, they automatically turn up the power until they can see through it. (Again, the operator is watching from a distance on a monitor.) These machines are sure-fire film killers, and an X-ray bag actually makes them worse -- by the time the machine powers up the beam enough to penetrate the bag, your film hasn't got a prayer. So, taking the film through as hand luggage is safer.
 
Kin Lau said:
Is the term "x-ray" being thrown around as a generic term for "see thru device"? Kinda scary to think we're being exposed to that kind of radiation without warning.

Wonder what the guy who's operating the machine thinks about it if it is an X-ray... hope he has a lead suit.
Click to expand...

It is called "back-scan x-ray" and it is very safe. You would have to be subjected to 1000 scans to receive the same dose of radiation that the body is subjected to, naturally, in one long airplane flight.

"The FDA currently considers BodySearch to have such low levels of radiation as to not require any restriction in its use, and has issued a letter stating that the system may be entered into commerce."

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...m/articles/bodyscan.pdf+back-scan+x-ray&hl=en
 
zeos 386sx said:
It is called "back-scan x-ray" and it is very safe. You would have to be subjected to 1000 scans to receive the same dose of radiation that the body is subjected to, naturally, in one long airplane flight.

"The FDA currently considers BodySearch to have such low levels of radiation as to not require any restriction in its use, and has issued a letter stating that the system may be entered into commerce."

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...m/articles/bodyscan.pdf+back-scan+x-ray&hl=en
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. It's a good read. I just hope that there isn't a big disconnect btwn the "demo" and "final" product.
 
Try T-Max 3200, rated and processed at ASA 25000. Set your meter for its highest ASA, take some readings on site, do the math, and withhold as many stops as you need. Develop in T-Max developer. You'll get big round beach-sand grain, and not a whole lot of gradation, but the pictures will definitely be printable if you do your bit.

There's really nothing else I'd use in pubs and restaurants at night, unless I decided to try the same stunt with Delta 3200. Just haven't gotten around to it.
 
nksyoon said:
What about the xray for checked luggage? Is that stronger than that used for passengers?

Thanks,
Nick
Click to expand...

Much stronger. If you put unexposed film in your luggage, it will be ruined.
 
Try TX at 12,800 to 25,600. Looks better than TMZ, tastes great.

ywenz said:
I don't want to get the 3200 TMAX because I can only get my hands on an X-ray film bag rated at 1600.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom