Recent experience flying with film

Gumby said:
Oy vay. All of the sudden this quote is starting to make sense: "You’re only young once, but one can always be immature." Grow up.
Click to expand...

Is that the best you have?

Have you run out of personal insults now? .. or found some photos, or maybe you have found some evidence that doesn't require 50 or a 100 exposures to have an effect that allows you to get the better of the argument?

... no? I thought not ... it seems you have no real world evidence that doesn't involve conflating hand and baggage scanners, you do realise you were confusing the two don't you?

Having lost this argument I expect you'll pop up banging away about some other irrelevant issue, reticulation? .. or refraction ... or Depth of Field, that would suit you lots of irrelevant charts and statistics you would enjoy that one, eh?
 
Sparrow said:
Having lost this argument I expect you'll pop up banging away about some other irrelevant issue, reticulation? .. or refraction ... or Depth of Field, that would suit you lots of irrelevant charts and statistics you would enjoy that one, eh?
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps lost the argument with you, but I still contend that we agree with each other. Helping you understand is one thing, convincing you appears to be another. I only care about the former (which I clearly did not succeed) and don't care about the latter, because whether you want to admit it or not we agree. I put the information out there. Some people understood engineering measures of film damage and fogging. That's fine with me and that is my single, solitary goal.

The data is what the data is. (and that would be 10 to 25 passes, not 50 to 100) to achieve a measurable effect. The data tables clearly show that. And that would be "on the average" so YMMV.

And, no, you won't find me discussing reticulation, refraction, or anything along those lines -- I really don't have the background to speak intelligently on those topics (although I do have some experience and a few "beliefs"). To do so, especially with people who have no knowledge/rspect or interest in emgineering/scientific measurement would be nothing more than mental masturbation... which this has turned into.

My apologies to any others who may have been annoyed with this intercourse and the tit-for-tat that has occured. My hope is that some found it interesting and enlightening.

Now I'm done. Really, I am. There is no further value in discussing it. I can "agree to disagree" even if that isn't what's really happening.

As for our relationship... I'm fine with you as you are and with the beliefs that you believe. I work with people who are so profoundly comitted to their beliefs and not understanding of engineering measurements on a daily basis so I don't take this personally. But when data is put up against personal experience and beliefs alone there really isn't a vehicle for further discussion. Have a nice day... and I really mean that. 🙂
 
... so that's a no then? ... you don't have anything else to bring to the table? ... I thought not

The question now is are you really that done that you can resist posting one more time? ... or are you really so obsessed with having the last word that you cannot avoid one last try? ...
 
I was in Japan recently - Narita and Osaka, airports have signs that say if you have iso 400 or above, they can offer you a hand check, and they were very courteous and happy to do so when I asked.

I try to get a handcheck at every airport. I understand that my odds are low that the machine would be of the make or calibrated to a degree that could damage exposed film, but with a bag of exposed film that took weeks to shoot and will cost a few hundred dollars to develop, I'd rather make the effort to do so.

Also, I believe this image is relevant evidence to the previous discussion...
 
As I said earlier. 8 passes through a checkpoint. The effect was obvious and enough to call the images "useless". But, 2 passes had no apparent effect. That's my firsthand experience. And no, none of my film have ever gone in check-in luggage, ever. I actually had a kind of "controlled experiment" -- some of our film went through all the checkpoints, some went through none at all. Guess which negs and slides are still with me. And some pretty decent stuff too. Bulgaria was surprisingly wonderful.

Be an informed traveler and enjoy film. Personally, if I'm not going through more than 4 checkpoints, I'm not overly concerned. That means nearly all domestic travel is OK. Mexico and Canada are OK. My recent trip to UK had me concerned. I had some film checked by hand, but its harder these days because the security people get really irritated and treat me poorly when I ask. In the age of digital, some of those security people can't believe what they're hearing when I tell them I don't want my film to go through the scanner. "Film? Oh yeah. Just put it on the conveyor, it'll be fine." Not after 8 runs through those scanners!

Lately, I'm actually more concerned with the simple availability of film while travelling. My recent travels in Ireland, Wales, and Liverpool/Manchester saw no B+W film for sale. I don't recall finding any film of any kind in Ireland....and I looked. Oh, maybe a roll of C-41 in Dublin. If you shoot BW and slide, like I do, it seems you need to carry your entire supply with you from home. Even when travelling in the "western" world.

Perhaps there ought to be a discussion of the dangers of travelling all digital. Magnets can invisibly and unknowingly wipe out a lot of images.
 
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...

I could show you 12 sheets of 4x5 film, 6 rolls of 35mm and 3 rolls of 120 that were toasted from an x-ray at normal exposure (either 125 or 400). 95% of the time nothing happens, but the one time it does, you might be in for a huge disappointment like me. Since you want to put it to bed, happy travelling. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I thought it was all a myth too after 12 scans through the airport. Then from Vancouver to Ontario....
 
Guys... bring on the pictures. There's a troll in the house that would like to see an example. "Seeing is believing" he keeps saying repeatedly. As I keep saying, I've never had my film damaged so I have nothing to show. But if you can show something maybe you'd satisfy the repeated request for "proof". Data appears to be irrelevant in some very localised parts of the UK.
 
This thread has certainly gone in an interesting direction. Never a dull moment here at RFF 🙄

Sparrow said:
Sorry .. I stand corrected. I should have said damaged by a checked-in luggage scanner
Click to expand...

As I said in an earlier post, I assume it was an x-ray scanner for luggage to be checked in, but I cannot be sure either way. I've never seen an x-ray scanner located in the lobby area near the check-in counters at any other airport before or since. Whatever it was, a modern high tech piece of equipment it was not. If I ever make back to Vientiane domestic airport I'll be sure to check exactly what it was.

Gumby said:
The CT machines are quite distinctive looking. From your description it sounds like you did not experience a CT machine, but the more "mundane" kind of xray scanning equipment. I'd guess that based on the images of your film, it got zapped many mroe times than you think it did. Your images are quite similar to those published once-upon-a-time by Kodak to show what extreme exposure to carry-on baggage xray machines looks like.
Click to expand...

The x-ray machine was certainly old and outdated, but didn't look any different in size or form from the carry-on luggage x-ray machines I've seen elsewhere. My hand carried film was scanned at least 12 times during that trip. I'm starting to think you're right about this...
 
jonmanjiro said:
This thread has certainly gone in an interesting direction. Never a dull moment here at RFF 🙄



As I said in an earlier post, I assume it was an x-ray scanner for luggage to be checked in, but I cannot be sure either way. I've never seen an x-ray scanner located in the lobby area near the check-in counters at any other airport before or since. Whatever it was, a modern high tech piece of equipment it was not. If I ever make back to Vientiane domestic airport I'll be sure to check exactly what it was.



The x-ray machine was certainly old and outdated, but didn't look any different in size or form from the carry-on luggage x-ray machines I've seen elsewhere. My hand carried film was scanned at least 12 times during that trip. I'm starting to think you're right about this...
Click to expand...

This is a CT type scanner, it is this type of machine that causes those patterns on the film ... I think we all agree these machines will invariably damage film.

ctx5500ds.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom