Recent experience flying with film

On one occasion I accidently placed film in a check in bag. Nothing happened to it. Years ago lead lined cases were sold to carry film thru xray scanners. The operator of the scanner advised me that he could scan thru the bag. I travel all the time with film, ISO: 100, 200 & 400 without incident.
 
I use bulk X-ray film so I always have them hand check. Maybe I don't need too, but I have no way of knowing. The AH layer, well there isn't one. The film isn't nearly as naturally resilient, and doesn't have a specific ASA.

The small airports are the ones that suck, because if they don't have the lump scanner then you get a pat down; "sir we have to pat you down since you request to have items not x-rayed". Other high traffic airports just swab for chemical detection, and leave cameras alone unless they think it has been tampered with. It doesn't make any sense though, why I'd need a pat down if my offensive items where not being x-rayed? Total non-sense excuse to pat my crotch with the back of their hand.
 
Between April 2011 and June 2012 I travelled around the world. I don't know how many x-rays i went through but as you can imagine, it was a lot. I had a variety of film, predominantly ISO 100 and 400, but also about 8 rolls of Neopan 1600. I shot about 150 rolls of film in total. I haven't finished developing it all yet, but I am about half way through. So far, I have not had any x-ray damage. I don't believe the x-rays used for normal carry-on luggage to be an issue at all.

On previous trips I have had film damaged when put in check-in luggage, as happened to someone else above. This is pretty well documented elsewhere too. These x-rays are large, industrial scale things that are much more powerful than the sort of thing you get in airport lounges, or certain museums, Consulates etc. I would never check in film again. However, for carry-on it is not a problem.

It is certainly not an excuse for not shooting film either! 🙂
 
Field said:
It doesn't make any sense though, why I'd need a pat down if my offensive items where not being x-rayed? Total non-sense excuse to pat my crotch with the back of their hand.
Click to expand...

It, perhaps, had nothing to do with the agent's interest in your camera gear, it may have been your other "offensive items" (AKA "junk") that were more of interest. Who knows? 😱
 
Sparrow said:
In what way fried? I fly with Superia 1600 every summer and have for years now and would be very interested to see some examples
Click to expand...

Here you go. These four shots are all from the same roll of Fuji Superia 1600. Except for resizing them for this thread, the scans are exactly as they came out of my Coolscan V. The first shot is almost usable, the other three... not so much. Note that this is x-ray damage caused by a check-in luggage x-ray check, not a carry-on luggage x-ray check, and the film was x-ray'd before I shot it.

8572837543_16d3550e1b_b.jpg


8573929692_346a0213fa_b.jpg


8572837403_806efe6dd2_b.jpg


8572837331_05eb60d47f_b.jpg
 
jonmanjiro said:
Here you go. These four shots are all from the same roll of Fuji Superia 1600. Except for resizing them for this thread, the scans are exactly as they came out of my Coolscan V. The first shot is almost usable, the other three... not so much. Note that this is x-ray damage caused by a check-in luggage x-ray check, not a carry-on luggage x-ray check, and the film was x-ray'd before I shot it.

EDIT
Click to expand...

I think there has been a misunderstanding ... I fully expect the CT type scanners used on checked-in baggage to damage film, and would not question that fact.

It was my understanding that Austerby, the originator of this topic, was intending to debunk this internet myth that film, even fast film, can be damaged in hand luggage x-ray machines ... while it is difficult to prove a negative, both he and I have never experienced it, and I have never seen a convincing example despite asking each time it crops up ... personally I think it's just internet noise, with a tad of trolling thrown in.

I try to challenge the x-ray myth each time it comes up, if someone doesn't anyone new to the medium will be mislead, confused and possibly discouraged from travelling with film.
 
jonmanjiro said:
Here you go. These four shots are all from the same roll of Fuji Superia 1600. Except for resizing them for this thread, the scans are exactly as they came out of my Coolscan V. The first shot is almost usable, the other three... not so much. Note that this is x-ray damage caused by a check-in luggage x-ray check, not a carry-on luggage x-ray check, and the film was x-ray'd before I shot it.

8572837543_16d3550e1b_b.jpg


8573929692_346a0213fa_b.jpg


8572837403_806efe6dd2_b.jpg


8572837331_05eb60d47f_b.jpg
Click to expand...


I had a lens like that once ... :angel:

😀 😀 😀
 
Sparrow said:
I think there has been a misunderstanding ... I fully expect the CT type scanners used on checked-in baggage to damage film, and would not question that fact.

It was my understanding that Austerby, the originator of this topic, was intending to debunk this internet myth that film, even fast film, can be damaged in hand luggage x-ray machines ... while it is difficult to prove a negative, both he and I have never experienced it, and I have never seen a convincing example despite asking each time it crops up ... personally I think it's just internet noise, with a tad of trolling thrown in.

I try to challenge the x-ray myth each time it comes up, if someone doesn't anyone new to the medium will be mislead, confused and possibly discouraged from travelling with film.
Click to expand...

My bad for not being clear. I agree with:

Check-in luggage x-ray check = bad for film
Carry-on luggage x-ray check = no problem for film
 
Sparrow said:
...It was my understanding that Austerby, the originator of this topic, was intending to debunk this internet myth that film, even fast film, can be damaged in hand luggage x-ray machines...
Click to expand...

Well, that's probably overstating my intent but I'm always happy getting in a spot of debunking when I can. 😎
 
has anyone had experience with instant films? I’m traveling to london in a few weeks and i will be carrying only instant film for the first time. both fuji pack film and fuji instax. is instant film more susceptible to X-ray damage? ive flown with 35mm film many times, including 1600 and 3200 speed with no ill effects, but never with instant film. any information would be helpful. for the record, instax is 800 ISO and i will have both 100 ISO and 3200 ISO fuji FP.
 
jonmanjiro said:
Carry-on luggage x-ray check = no problem for film
Click to expand...

... generally speaking and for the most part... for all practical purposes.

But if the xray exposure is excessive (different criteria for different film speeds) the images you posted is what the damage would look like FROM CARRY-ON XRAY SCANNERS... as you said.

The banding damage is another story... the checked baggage CT scanner story.
 
buzzardkid said:
Thanks for posting, I'll bookmark the thread and post a link to it if this 'issue' ever shows up in a future thread!

Let's hope we can finally put this internet myth to bed once and for all!
Click to expand...

Well, it's not a myth—it just doesn't happen all the time. Some airports and some particular scanners at some airports are more prone to damaging film than others. (At one time, London-Heathrow was amongst the worst.)

I've seen x-ray damage on some Tri-X and Plus-X films as long ago as 1996. When I was traveling a lot (1993 to 2004, particularly 1997 to 2003 I was traveling internationally with several short hops at each destination, about every two-three weeks), I saw this happen on about ten flights, damaging about 1 roll in 30. Sometimes with very minor damage, sometimes with more visible problems.

I haven't traveled with film cameras since about 2004 so I'll be curious to see what happens on my upcoming trip, where I plan to carry a 6x6 folder and a few rolls of 120 film in addition to the M9.

G
 
Godfrey said:
Well, it's not a myth—it just doesn't happen all the time. Some airports and some particular scanners at some airports are more prone to damaging film than others. (At one time, London-Heathrow was amongst the worst.)

I've seen x-ray damage on some Tri-X and Plus-X films as long ago as 1996. When I was traveling a lot (1993 to 2004, particularly 1997 to 2003 I was traveling internationally with several short hops at each destination, about every two-three weeks), I saw this happen on about ten flights, damaging about 1 roll in 30. Sometimes with very minor damage, sometimes with more visible problems.

I haven't traveled with film cameras since about 2004 so I'll be curious to see what happens on my upcoming trip, where I plan to carry a 6x6 folder and a few rolls of 120 film in addition to the M9.

G
Click to expand...

... you are aware are discussing scanning hand baggage here? I think most people agree that the CT type scanners used for checked bags will damage film, and anyone who has had experience of Heathrow will accept it is one of the worlds worst airports I'm sure.

I expect with so many damaged films over such a long period you will have some examples to share with us?
 
Godfrey said:
Well, it's not a myth—it just doesn't happen all the time.
Click to expand...

(Stewart, I won't speak for GODfrey but I think he knows that we are talking about carryon baggage scanning.)


You are absolutely correct. The fact that xray, including that from the most modern and well-maintained carry-on baggage scanning equipment, can affect film is a well-established fact... proven by scientific experimentation as well as many people's experience. The fact that it takes a lot of exposure to DAMAGE most film given the dosage of the carry-on baggage scanning equipment is also a well-established fact... proven by scientific experimentation as well as many people's experience. It can happen. And there are many different definitions of "damage" - ranging from the theoretical possiblility of atomic change that nobody can see, to the practical where the affect is either measurable or destructive to the image.

What I find most interesting in these discussions is the unbridled fear of some in the absence of any understanding of the associated science, technology, or DATA surrounding this issue.

What I find interesting is that in some discussions people who have experienced real xray damage blame the equipment, swear that they only had it scanned once or twice then sometimes backpedal and remember that they inadvertantly let it go through with checked baggage, or it has been in the bottom of their bag for the past 99 airplane trips... both of which have the potential for causing real damage.

"it's not a myth—it just doesn't happen all the time." to which I often add, "and it doesn't even happen most of the time."
 
Last edited:
p.s. I have had many rolls of film scanned at Heathrow, generally only once on leaving, and have never had xray damage resulting from that. I do find them to be rather stringent and seemingly arbitrary. (Once they wanted to open packages of sealed candy instead of xray scanning them. Go figure. Only later did I find out that toffee is particularly difficult to "properly" xray scan)
 
... so where are all the examples of your well-established fact or Godfrey's one film in thirty?

It should be easy, the carry on scanners are simple 2D systems, they illuminate the subject uniformly, so it will be easy to tell when we see it. Anyway we find ourselves in the embers of yet another of these threads with no examples, a few random assertions that it really does happen and that Kodak image of an irrelevant CT scanner, again, where are all these damaged films? after all it's going to be the whole roll not just an odd frame so where are they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom