Gumby
Veteran
I can't believe that you, of all people, are stooping that low.
The data was established years ago by an industry consortium, which led to the TSA and Kodak and Fuji recommendations on 'filmsafeness". If you need I can google that for you. I could also google the Kodak data that shows the effects of both carryon and CT damage. Do you really need someone to do that for you? Or do you think that they present faked images and fawlty imformation?
I3A and IEEE, if you are not familiar with them, are premier national standards producing bodies. They aren't just some chumps chatting on the internet, or some jackass photographer who doesn't really know how much xray expsure they've let their film have. Their research is scientific, repeatable, and subjected to review by the international community of experts. Unfortunately they don't publish in the open internet and that which once was available online appears to now be available only by purchase from the IEEE and TechStreet standards libraries. These are professional sources of standards and cost money to buy from... which is unfortunate for many people even within the engineering communities.
Likewise, the studies conducted by Rapiscan, one of the major manufacturers of screening equipment, is not made available to the general public. Most of it is very heavy in engineering and science speak anyway and few would likely understand it.
They all speak to some amount of damage from carryon scanners but clearly acknowledge that most of it is insignificant and inconsequential. That data also establishes the thresholds where the exposure is possible/likely to become significant or consequential.
Those are the sources for TSA claims of "filmsafeness" whether you want to accept that or not.
Yes, indeed, of course, the damage from CT is different from that of carry-on scanners... as you said most correctly. CT = banded damage, and carry-on = overall changes to the dMax and fogging of the whole roll.
Who is contradicting your correct statements... that is what I'd like to know. You seem to be in a plucky mood today; I don't understand who you are trying to pick a fight with. I think most people here are agreeing with you.
Or are you trying to say that damage to film from carryon scanners NEVER EVER happens... in which case science is against you.
For all practical purposes I have never had any noticable damage to my film so I have nothing to show... seemingly just like you. I've been saying that consistently for the past 30 or 40 years, amigo.
I hope your day/evening improves!
The data was established years ago by an industry consortium, which led to the TSA and Kodak and Fuji recommendations on 'filmsafeness". If you need I can google that for you. I could also google the Kodak data that shows the effects of both carryon and CT damage. Do you really need someone to do that for you? Or do you think that they present faked images and fawlty imformation?
I3A and IEEE, if you are not familiar with them, are premier national standards producing bodies. They aren't just some chumps chatting on the internet, or some jackass photographer who doesn't really know how much xray expsure they've let their film have. Their research is scientific, repeatable, and subjected to review by the international community of experts. Unfortunately they don't publish in the open internet and that which once was available online appears to now be available only by purchase from the IEEE and TechStreet standards libraries. These are professional sources of standards and cost money to buy from... which is unfortunate for many people even within the engineering communities.
Likewise, the studies conducted by Rapiscan, one of the major manufacturers of screening equipment, is not made available to the general public. Most of it is very heavy in engineering and science speak anyway and few would likely understand it.
They all speak to some amount of damage from carryon scanners but clearly acknowledge that most of it is insignificant and inconsequential. That data also establishes the thresholds where the exposure is possible/likely to become significant or consequential.
Those are the sources for TSA claims of "filmsafeness" whether you want to accept that or not.
Yes, indeed, of course, the damage from CT is different from that of carry-on scanners... as you said most correctly. CT = banded damage, and carry-on = overall changes to the dMax and fogging of the whole roll.
Who is contradicting your correct statements... that is what I'd like to know. You seem to be in a plucky mood today; I don't understand who you are trying to pick a fight with. I think most people here are agreeing with you.
Or are you trying to say that damage to film from carryon scanners NEVER EVER happens... in which case science is against you.
For all practical purposes I have never had any noticable damage to my film so I have nothing to show... seemingly just like you. I've been saying that consistently for the past 30 or 40 years, amigo.
I hope your day/evening improves!
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
p.s. Godfrey will have to speak for himself. I read his words to indicate that his film had been exposed multiple times. The threshold for perceptible damage to 400 ASA film might fall within that level of exposure. If his film had been zapped 5 times, probably not; if it had been zapped 10 times, maybe. He speaks of several short hops; IDK exactly what that may have entailed. For me, several short hops is not a worry since that would only be 2 or 3 zaps plus some high-altitude exposure. I wouldn't take film from a trip like that and then then take that same film on another similar trip. That's how I avoid damage... by being keenly aware of approx how much exposure to xray my film may have received.
Everyone has their own limits on quality and 'consequential" when it comes to imagemaking.
Everyone has their own limits on quality and 'consequential" when it comes to imagemaking.
Sparrow
Veteran
"I can't believe that you, of all people, are stooping that low."
I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm not disputing that x-rays damage film, just that that damage is completely inconsequential ... I'm saying if it doesn't look like a duck and repeatedly fails to quack one has to question it's duckishness.
The idea that some bright young executive at Kodak, or Fuji choose to put disclaimers on their website I would suggest says more about their attitude to potential litigation than the propensity of film to fog in carry on scanners, wouldn't you think?
My day has gone well so far, thanks, this is not in anger, or petulance, I simply don't want anyone new to photography to believe there is even the slightest chance of seeing anything induced by x-rays on their negatives, because they will not.
I'm sorry you feel that way, I'm not disputing that x-rays damage film, just that that damage is completely inconsequential ... I'm saying if it doesn't look like a duck and repeatedly fails to quack one has to question it's duckishness.
The idea that some bright young executive at Kodak, or Fuji choose to put disclaimers on their website I would suggest says more about their attitude to potential litigation than the propensity of film to fog in carry on scanners, wouldn't you think?
My day has gone well so far, thanks, this is not in anger, or petulance, I simply don't want anyone new to photography to believe there is even the slightest chance of seeing anything induced by x-rays on their negatives, because they will not.
Gumby
Veteran
From the I3A study:
Test Summary
Color negative film
The results of this test showed that banding (uneven density areas) was noticed after 25
passes with ISO 400 color negative film, and after 10 passes with ISO 800 color negative
film. Prints were made from the ISO 400 film, and it was noticed that there was only a
minimal color shift through the scan sequences. Also there was loss of contrast, and an
increase in granularity starting at pass 10 and increased as the number of scans increased.
This was especially noticeable in the under exposed frames. In each case the base fog
(density of the unexposed areas) increased with the number of passes. The density of the
exposed areas increased as well, but in smaller amounts.
Black and White film
An uneven fog pattern was noticed, especially with ISO 3200 film between 1 and 5
passes. At 25 passes this effect was extreme.
(snip)
Recommendations
Based on the testing completed at the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City, I3A
recommends a limit of five passes through the carry-on baggage security check point
systems for all color negative and reversal film, including single-use cameras, up to and
including ISO 800 speed film. While in some cases it may take a greater number of
passes to cause damage to film, we believe that a five pass limit allows for an appropriate
margin for safety. If lower speed film, ISO 100 through 800, is being carried on
extended trips, and it is necessary to submit the film through security screeners more than
five times, travelers should request hand inspection of their film. I3A further recommends
that all film with an ISO rating greater than 800, black and white films, motion picture
films, and films used for medical imaging ALWAYS be hand inspected. FAA
regulations support the request by passengers for hand inspection of film.
(end of quote)
They have quite obviously included safety factors in their recommendation... but there is the official summary of the scientific study. It supports your assertion that film damage is unlikely... but it acknowledges that it is possible under specific conditions that were measured.
To get the most from any of these studies, one really has to like reading graphs and data tables because the summaries aren't as robust as the actual data.
There is other data specific to 400ASA B&W film. Their summary really doesn's speak to the data entirely since they seem to imply that B&W is a has-been niche that nobody really still cared about. And that was in 2008... How wrong could they have been!
Test Summary
Color negative film
The results of this test showed that banding (uneven density areas) was noticed after 25
passes with ISO 400 color negative film, and after 10 passes with ISO 800 color negative
film. Prints were made from the ISO 400 film, and it was noticed that there was only a
minimal color shift through the scan sequences. Also there was loss of contrast, and an
increase in granularity starting at pass 10 and increased as the number of scans increased.
This was especially noticeable in the under exposed frames. In each case the base fog
(density of the unexposed areas) increased with the number of passes. The density of the
exposed areas increased as well, but in smaller amounts.
Black and White film
An uneven fog pattern was noticed, especially with ISO 3200 film between 1 and 5
passes. At 25 passes this effect was extreme.
(snip)
Recommendations
Based on the testing completed at the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City, I3A
recommends a limit of five passes through the carry-on baggage security check point
systems for all color negative and reversal film, including single-use cameras, up to and
including ISO 800 speed film. While in some cases it may take a greater number of
passes to cause damage to film, we believe that a five pass limit allows for an appropriate
margin for safety. If lower speed film, ISO 100 through 800, is being carried on
extended trips, and it is necessary to submit the film through security screeners more than
five times, travelers should request hand inspection of their film. I3A further recommends
that all film with an ISO rating greater than 800, black and white films, motion picture
films, and films used for medical imaging ALWAYS be hand inspected. FAA
regulations support the request by passengers for hand inspection of film.
(end of quote)
They have quite obviously included safety factors in their recommendation... but there is the official summary of the scientific study. It supports your assertion that film damage is unlikely... but it acknowledges that it is possible under specific conditions that were measured.
To get the most from any of these studies, one really has to like reading graphs and data tables because the summaries aren't as robust as the actual data.
There is other data specific to 400ASA B&W film. Their summary really doesn's speak to the data entirely since they seem to imply that B&W is a has-been niche that nobody really still cared about. And that was in 2008... How wrong could they have been!
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Interesting discussion. I need to relate an experience to help put things in perspective.
I traveled to eastern Europe from western US about 6 years ago. My wife and I both carried film cameras and...film. I was fanatic about hand inspection of my films at each security checkpoint. My wife let it go through the xray machines. All film in carry-on luggage at all times. When we got back and examined our photos, many of hers had fog, mine did not. Now, here's some more... We traveled to Mexico the next year. Again, I hand-checked (the security people *hate* that) and my wife let her film go through the xray (she was just too frazzled to hassle the security people for hand-check). On our return, all photos were great, well at least there wasn't any fog.
Here's the difference. We went through *no fewer than 8* xray checkpoints on our trip to eastern Europe. For Mexico, we went through 2. The damage happens, and its a function of how many xray exposures the film experiences. I can say that 8 times will result in perceptible effects.
Having said that. I now let most of my film go through the xray machine. Mostly because I don't go through lots of checkpoints and I feel the machines have reduced their oomph over the last 5-6 years. I carry ISO 50 to 400 B+W and C41. Last year's trip to Ireland didn't result in any perceptible effects. We went through 4 checkpoints on that trip.
I traveled to eastern Europe from western US about 6 years ago. My wife and I both carried film cameras and...film. I was fanatic about hand inspection of my films at each security checkpoint. My wife let it go through the xray machines. All film in carry-on luggage at all times. When we got back and examined our photos, many of hers had fog, mine did not. Now, here's some more... We traveled to Mexico the next year. Again, I hand-checked (the security people *hate* that) and my wife let her film go through the xray (she was just too frazzled to hassle the security people for hand-check). On our return, all photos were great, well at least there wasn't any fog.
Here's the difference. We went through *no fewer than 8* xray checkpoints on our trip to eastern Europe. For Mexico, we went through 2. The damage happens, and its a function of how many xray exposures the film experiences. I can say that 8 times will result in perceptible effects.
Having said that. I now let most of my film go through the xray machine. Mostly because I don't go through lots of checkpoints and I feel the machines have reduced their oomph over the last 5-6 years. I carry ISO 50 to 400 B+W and C41. Last year's trip to Ireland didn't result in any perceptible effects. We went through 4 checkpoints on that trip.
Gumby
Veteran
Right... up to a point and for most people. If someone wants to totally disregard the known conditions then they may experience consequential damage. It's more of a matter of personal responsibility than anything else. I think we would both agree on that.
Unfortunately you are completely wrong on this one. It has nothing to do with litigation. Kodak or Fuji would not be a fault for damage caused by Rapiscan's equipment. Nor would Rapiscan, except in the most bizarre of conditions or before the most kooky judge. The recommendations are based entirely on the photo industry trying to protect you, me, and every other film photographer by establishing standards that ensures that the xray exposure our film gets while traveling results in ionconsequential damage/effects.
Glad to hear your day is going well. Mine is going FANTASTIC!
Gumby
Veteran
That is my reason for being drawn into these (often assinine) discussions too. Except it is more correct to phrase it as such: I simply don't want anyone new to photography to believe there is even the slightest chance of seeing anything induced by x-rays on their negatives, because they will not likely.
Sparrow
Veteran
... I really sorry there is such a lack of actual evidence, in actual photography to support your assertions and the FAA's testing + safety margin ... but there is not, is there?
At least you're having a fantastic day eh?
At least you're having a fantastic day eh?
Gumby
Veteran
Here y'go... from the report itself. In the section on B&W film:
“ISO 400 and ISO 3200 films exposed to varying doses of X-ray, i.e. passes through an
X-ray hand baggage check, have been processed and evaluated. I have tabulated the
results below and given a brief description of the effects seen on them.
The films were processed using a Refrema dip & dunk processor. Developer ILFOTEC
DD 1+4 at 24(superscript: o)C . N(subscript: 2) gas burst agitation 2 seconds in every 10.
The films were given slightly less than the standard development time because the
developer was very fresh.
ISO 400 = 6 minutes
ISO 3200 = 9 minutes
Between 5 and 10 passes through the X-ray hand baggage scanner caused fog on the ISO 400 and ISO3200 35mm film"
I now conclude that you don't trust or believe science or engineering.
Gumby
Veteran
I'd copy/paste the tables documenting the Dmin increases for you but they just don't seem to want to cut and paste.
Gumby
Veteran
Are you minimizing the images provided by jonmanjiro earlier? Do you think he is a liar? :bang:
Gumby
Veteran
p.s. The reason there is such lack of evidence is EXACTLY because of what you and I say: it is unlikely to occur. Saying that it never occurs is like saying the Roman or British empires never fell, they are only in a slight remission.
Sparrow
Veteran
Here y'go... from the report itself. In the section on B&W film:
“ISO 400 and ISO 3200 films exposed to varying doses of X-ray, i.e. passes through an
X-ray hand baggage check, have been processed and evaluated. I have tabulated the
results below and given a brief description of the effects seen on them.
The films were processed using a Refrema dip & dunk processor. Developer ILFOTEC
DD 1+4 at 24(superscript: o)C . N(subscript: 2) gas burst agitation 2 seconds in every 10.
The films were given slightly less than the standard development time because the
developer was very fresh.
ISO 400 = 6 minutes
ISO 3200 = 9 minutes
Between 5 and 10 passes through the X-ray hand baggage scanner caused fog on the ISO 400 and ISO3200 35mm film"
I now conclude that you don't trust or believe science or engineering.
... so from that you conclude what?
a) ... that every photographer read the report? ... stopped flying with film, therefore no more film has been damaged
b) ... everyone carried on as normal and no one noticed
Sparrow
Veteran
... did you read his later post? in which he clarified the fact that he had actually checked the film in with his baggage
Have you tried searching the internet? you would think there would be something on there that would support you contentions, I mean except the Kodak and FAA stuff you've already found
Gumby
Veteran
I stand corrected.
Re: the differences between your contention and mine that you seem to think thewre is: whatever. I don't know why you are b eing so hardheaded and ignorant of available information. We agree more than we disagree yet you continue to be disagreeable. In the famous "RFF words": I'm done.
Re: the differences between your contention and mine that you seem to think thewre is: whatever. I don't know why you are b eing so hardheaded and ignorant of available information. We agree more than we disagree yet you continue to be disagreeable. In the famous "RFF words": I'm done.
Sparrow
Veteran
... sorry you feel I'm being hard-headed and ignorant, but actually I really don't agree with you at all.
I'm simple asking you, or anyone who peddles this stuff, please show me some evidence.
I'm simple asking you, or anyone who peddles this stuff, please show me some evidence.
Gumby
Veteran
So, for clafification since I seem to be too stupid to understand your position... are you are contending that there is no possible chance of damage to film from carry-on baggage scanners EVER? Or under what conditions are you asserting that?
(and how can you prove that since all I read from you are words written and no "proof" either?)
p.s. I totally understand that you have lots of travelling experience and have never had film damaged by xray. Same with me. So what? I've also never been kicked in the crotch by a kangaroo... but I can admit that under some conditions it may happen... and it certainly has happened to other people.
Sparrow
Veteran
Ah ... so that was an "I'm almost done" then
1) I believe the effect of hand baggage scanners is so slight that it passes unnoticed. I support that belief by the fact that no one, you included, can provide any evidence of such damage.
2) I believe that for whatever reason that Kodak and the FAA have overstated the effect in their tests, and their advice to photographers.
3) I believe the issue is condemned to roam the internet like some long un-dead zombi thread trotted out by people who should know better than to worry folk with it every few months.
1) I believe the effect of hand baggage scanners is so slight that it passes unnoticed. I support that belief by the fact that no one, you included, can provide any evidence of such damage.
2) I believe that for whatever reason that Kodak and the FAA have overstated the effect in their tests, and their advice to photographers.
3) I believe the issue is condemned to roam the internet like some long un-dead zombi thread trotted out by people who should know better than to worry folk with it every few months.
Gumby
Veteran
Fair enough. Everybody is entitled to their beliefs. But you are denying the research of two established engineering standards organizations, several international equipment manufacturers, and several film companies, all of whon employ many talented engineers. But you ignore them simply because you've never seen it? That kind of denial is amazing... Or your undrstaning of the issues are amazingly minimal.
What I'm finding even more amazing is your denial of the fact that we agree more than we disagree. Curmudgeon doesn't even start to describe that attitude!
Now I'm done. Your a talented photographer but interestingly living in your own little world. But if it works for you then its OK with me.
Actually, no I didn't write that. I didn't check my bags in. I travel light so never do.
What I actually wrote was "Note that this is x-ray damage caused by a check-in luggage x-ray check."
Full disclosure: I assume it was an x-ray check for luggage to be checked in, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not actually 100% sure to this day. Let me explain.
Third world domestic airports are not always up to first world standards, and Vientiane's domestic airport is no exception. After arriving from Bangkok and walking 200 metres or so from the international terminal building to the domestic terminal building, the first thing I wanted to do was check in for my domestic flight from Vientiane to Luang Prabang. At the entrance to the domestic terminal's check-in counter area there was an x-ray check. I assumed it was a compulsory check for all baggage including carry-on. There were no signs in English to confirm that. There was a minimal number of staff operating it though, so I could have easily walked around the x-ray check and gone directly to the check-in counter. But not wanting to cause any problems, I put my bags through. Size-wise the x-ray machine itself looked no different from the carry on luggage x-ray machines you see at major first world airports, such as at Narita for example. I then checked in but kept my bags as carry-on luggage. I then went through one more x-ray check on the way to the flight waiting area, and yet another x-ray check before boarding the flight. There was no way to avoid the second and third x-ray checks, but in retrospect I could have avoided that first x-ray check. At the time, the impression I got speaking to the girl working at the check-in counter was that the first x-ray check was for bags to be checked in. Her English wasn't great so I couldn't be 100% sure.