retinax
Well-known
Nonetheless the reply you got doesn't specify that your film will be hand checked, just that you should ask for it. They evaded the question.
Come on, do you really trust that response 100%... so much so that you can’t imagine a scenario where something can go wrong when dealing with a front line worker instead of someone who answers emails?
OlivierAOP
medium format
CT uses x-rays. It takes multiple 2D images at different angles and uses those images to reconstruct a 3D one. In medicine CT uses similar wavelength as 2D. It generally requires more x-ray dose than 2D imaging. CT = computed tomography.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
The someone who answered my query is a CATSA employee, not some temp work for hire employee. So, yeah, I do place trust in this reply from a Canadian source. As an American, you may have dealt with lower standards of service -including low-wage help-for-hire staff in airports. I hope this helps. Cheers, OtL
KM-25
Well-known
With boilerplate letters like the one you received back, it’s about assessing the risk and then assessing one’s tolerance level of that perceived risk. You seem fine with it and depending on how much film you travel with, may or may not be well placed in that perception.
Many on here who are looking to use a lot of film on an extended trip would not be 100% satisfied with that answer so they are well placed in their concerns. In my case, I would not be comfortable unless I built in several hours of padding into my trip at each major potential hand check. And even with that and in the case of my very long stay abroad, I would still not be flying with the majority of of the film I would likely use.
So it’s really not best to frame your use case in a way as to weaponize it against the online photo community who is perhaps more concerned with this than you are.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Your original post was clickbait, at best. Many contributors to this post have demonstrated that things are not as bad as you presented them. Cheers, Otl
Highway 61
Revisited
I know what CT means and I have been CT-scanned myself for medical purpose already. I stand corrected about the wavelength, thanks. Yet we still have to learn about those airport CT scan machines : in medicine one CT scan session can equal up to several hundreds of basic X-rays sessions, yet it is considered to be safe because the amount of radiations used in medicine must still be noticeably lower than what those airport machines will produce - and human body internal tissues aren't silver coated yet
. If you think that a lone CT scan pass will totally ruin a low ISO film while, until now, it used to take up to twenty passes through an old fashioned X-rays airport machine for a high ISO film to begin to show some banding, you get the idea. I hope that those new machines are radiations-tight enough for the security staff people, by the way.The answers to all our questions about air travelling with film in a world of CT scan machines all-equipped airports will probably come out within the next months and years, based upon user's experience. Time will tell. Now this thread may be closed before it gets off-track with some RFFers wanting some others to be locked down in CT scan machines till the end of the pandemic...
RichL
Well-known
Guess it's a good thing my normal film is iso 50 and my high speed is 100.
Clickbait or a real concern when traveling through multiple airports, who may, or may not, speak a language you know or may, or may not, know all of the rules that are in place for film. KM-25 asked a legitimate question... it is not clickbait. Please relax. If you are serious about photography, this could ultimately ruin a whole body of work. Why be dismissive of that?
PKR
Veteran
KM-25,
I've been following this thread. I understand your concerns and, mine would be similar in planning a project.
In many years of air travel with film, I never had any film damage from X-ray machines. I did have some "incidents" with TSA people. Some friends had issues with film damage when traveling. CT is a game changer.
I decided years back if traveling out of the country or, for any in-country travel where I thought my Exposed film might be compromised that, I would process it on site before traveling to another site. This of course means a developing kit with a water filter, etc.
My thinking was driven by, the personal value I placed on my time and work, vs the risk of loosing it all through one mistake by a luggage inspector with his hands on the intensity control of an airport scanner. Shielded Film Bags are a joke. The inspector just cranks up the X-Ray level allowing a view of the bag's contents.
Anyway, I bought one of these a while back. Not the home darkroom but, better than a changing bag.
https://www.abelcine.com/buy/expend...ols/harrison-1001-film-changing-tent-standard
I hope you find a workable solution to the problems we film people now have.
Also, I'll add, in working with one of the big three camera makers, and this was back in the CCD Sensor days, there were reports of sensor damage by airport X-Ray machines. I don't know that these stories made the photo press but, they were well known within the company's design group and the pro user program.
Good luck to you, pkr
I've been following this thread. I understand your concerns and, mine would be similar in planning a project.
In many years of air travel with film, I never had any film damage from X-ray machines. I did have some "incidents" with TSA people. Some friends had issues with film damage when traveling. CT is a game changer.
I decided years back if traveling out of the country or, for any in-country travel where I thought my Exposed film might be compromised that, I would process it on site before traveling to another site. This of course means a developing kit with a water filter, etc.
My thinking was driven by, the personal value I placed on my time and work, vs the risk of loosing it all through one mistake by a luggage inspector with his hands on the intensity control of an airport scanner. Shielded Film Bags are a joke. The inspector just cranks up the X-Ray level allowing a view of the bag's contents.
Anyway, I bought one of these a while back. Not the home darkroom but, better than a changing bag.
https://www.abelcine.com/buy/expend...ols/harrison-1001-film-changing-tent-standard
I hope you find a workable solution to the problems we film people now have.
Also, I'll add, in working with one of the big three camera makers, and this was back in the CCD Sensor days, there were reports of sensor damage by airport X-Ray machines. I don't know that these stories made the photo press but, they were well known within the company's design group and the pro user program.
Good luck to you, pkr
KenR
Well-known
It seems most of the readers are concerned about this issue. Obviously, it remains to be seen how widespread these machines become, how they are maintained, how much damage they actually cause and how likely the security people are to hand check film. I stopped flying due to Covid, but have some work trips coming up - as I usually bring a camera loaded with ISO 400 film, it will be interesting to see what happens. But those films are disposable- if they come out fine that is great, but if they are ruined, I won’t lose any sleep over it. However, my vacation film is different, those rolls are the ones that I count on for weeks and months of pleasant darkroom memories. If they’re ruined I would be very upset. So I am taking this warning quite seriously, but am still taking a wait and see attitude towards it. That said, there are lots of retailers around the world who will be quite happy to get a big order for film from me to ship to my destination hotel. And FedEx, UPS and DHL will be quite happy to ship the stuff home to me (for a price). Capitalism at it’s best.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
In the short term, freight shipping is probably the best answer for the handling of hundreds of rolls of film for a months-long project.
I’ve been CT scanned about 8 times and PET scanned twice (for Lymphoma treatment, 10 years ago). The amount of radiation in one CT scan is significantly higher than that for an X-ray. Actually, just flying exposes you to more radiation than being on the ground.
Excellent chart here:
https://xkcd.com/radiation/
It is not going to matter which airport, country, or security personnel you come into contact with because all it takes is one human being who wants, for whatever reason, to scan your film. US, Canada, UK, EU, Asia - doesn’t matter. It just takes one person. Showing them an email or printed document from their agency will mean nothing (“you could’ve faked it”). If they want to scan your stuff, they will, because they have the authority and power to do it and maybe they don’t like what you’re wearing that day.
Over time, we will discover what level of seriousness this scanning may be. Until then, if it were me, I’d try shipping my film either by air or ocean freight.
I’ve been CT scanned about 8 times and PET scanned twice (for Lymphoma treatment, 10 years ago). The amount of radiation in one CT scan is significantly higher than that for an X-ray. Actually, just flying exposes you to more radiation than being on the ground.
Excellent chart here:
https://xkcd.com/radiation/
It is not going to matter which airport, country, or security personnel you come into contact with because all it takes is one human being who wants, for whatever reason, to scan your film. US, Canada, UK, EU, Asia - doesn’t matter. It just takes one person. Showing them an email or printed document from their agency will mean nothing (“you could’ve faked it”). If they want to scan your stuff, they will, because they have the authority and power to do it and maybe they don’t like what you’re wearing that day.
Over time, we will discover what level of seriousness this scanning may be. Until then, if it were me, I’d try shipping my film either by air or ocean freight.
Highway 61
Revisited
Exactly. Excellent post, thanks.
This picture has been posted elsewhere before but looking at it once and again won't harm. Those are the new airports CT scan screening machines which should immediatly raise the red flag for anybody travelling with unexposed films :
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Thanks for posting. I recall some of them since they were already installed in USA at the time I was traveling (December 2018/ August 2019). 400 bw film unexposed and exposed went through without problems.
But something is fishy. Some are saying they are OK for film up to 800 (and this is what I have seen by my self at Logan), some are saying those are not safe.
First round was here. Or one of the earlier ones:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161646
But something is fishy. Some are saying they are OK for film up to 800 (and this is what I have seen by my self at Logan), some are saying those are not safe.
First round was here. Or one of the earlier ones:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161646
HHPhoto
Well-known
Thanks for the detailed reply.
So the decisive points are Copenhagen airport and the airport on the Farör islands.
If they offer hand-checks for your film, you will be fine. Have you already contacted them and asked?
Cheers, Jan
sanmich
Veteran
Another question about the risk assessment:
If you fail to convince a security team not to scan your unexposed films in one of their film-destroyers on you trip TO your destination, it's a question of money (maybe lots of) and of having a plan B to have new films shipped to you quickly (more money)
If you are requested to scan your exposed but unprocessed films on your way back, that's an entirely other story...
the stakes on both parts of your trip are very different and may justify different solutions.
If you fail to convince a security team not to scan your unexposed films in one of their film-destroyers on you trip TO your destination, it's a question of money (maybe lots of) and of having a plan B to have new films shipped to you quickly (more money)
If you are requested to scan your exposed but unprocessed films on your way back, that's an entirely other story...
the stakes on both parts of your trip are very different and may justify different solutions.
retinax
Well-known
Indeed! And to the second, higher stakes issue there is a solution which should be worth it and doable for a long stay like the OP is planning: process on site.
Dralowid
Michael
I will admit to not having read all of this thread but hope we are all aware that, as I understand it, the effect that scanners can have on film is said to be cumulative.
Apologies if this has been covered before.
Apologies if this has been covered before.
sanmich
Veteran
For the "old" X-ray scanners, you are right.
The new CT-scan types are said to be one-shot killers for all film types.
Highway 61
Revisited
Good point. Yet, this means, for B&W film, travelling with a tank, some reels (or what replaces the reels for LF sheets), a changing bag, pouches of powder developer and fixer, small boxes to safely store the processed negatives for the return trip (you will cut them and put them flat in crystal paper sheets once back home) ; you can probably find some white vinegar (for making stop bath) and soft dishwashing soap (for making wetting agent) on site. Then you have to hope that tap water there won't be harsh where you go if you can't get demineralized water on site ; and - mere problem - you will have to spend much of your vacation time developing your films instead of enjoying the site and relaxing yourself with your better half.
Your cell phone will be a good timer. You also have to take a robust and compact electronic thermometer as well as a measuring cylinder. You will use beer bottles on site to stock the working solutions (after you have drank the beer).
If you use to travel light with a carry-on bag only and no checked-in luggage, this doesn't help. Plus : are the developer and fixer powder pouches allowed onboard ? Not too sure. Taking liquid ones would be complicated given the max. amount of liquids you are allowed to.
Sounds quite iffy for a short to medium vacation stay and a small carry-on luggage.
For a long to very long documentary stay with a large checked-in luggage, this should be the solution indeed.