Was this film affected by airport x-ray

[deanf]

I present two images. The color is Ektar 100. The B&W is Ultrafine 100.

Both shot with the same camera, near the same time, using the same metering. The defects in the B&W are obvious - I won't point them out.

3 rolls of Ultrafine all turned out like this. These films went through x-ray twice. Clearly the Kodak wasn't affected. Do you think the Ultrafine was, or is there another explanation? These were processed by a professional lab.

Thanks.

 

[Scrambler]

It seems to me that what you have is light leaking through the paper backing. And if you DONT have paper backing then I don't know WHAT is happening. I'd be surprised if the numbers on the backing would be significant to an xray. But I don't know for sure. The other thing I have had happen is direct transfer of dye from the paper, but that was with Shanghai film. Did look similar, though.

 

[Pablito]

no. x-ray fogging does not look anything like that.

 

[blue4130]

You were shooting Chinese Lucky film in 120 format, I presume? If so, it is well known that quality control in lax and there are many examples of this exact problem happening.

 

[bonatto]

there's some good info published by Kodak here. Cheers,

Fred

 

[Sparrow]

there's some good info published by Kodak here. Cheers,

Fred

... that article is about the CT type checked baggage scanners ... and alone it is responsible for most of the internets misconceptions about x-ray damage.

All the evidence points to the fact that film is not damaged in hand luggage scanners.

 

[blue4130]

http://www.flickr.com/groups/lucky_film/discuss/72157628396467491/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/lucky_film/discuss/72157618643448437/

Here are two links to support my hypothesis.

 

[Rayt]

I have negs from various Chinese and cheap European 120 films (Foma typically) that look like that with every frame ruined by markings from the backing paper. Recently I made the mistake of trying out Lucky during a trip to Vietnam and quite unluckily my best roll was from the Lucky and ruined. Now I stick with Kodak and Ilford.

Those airport scanners for carry ons are very low emission. Imagine those screeners standing next to those machines for their shifts without lead aprons! I smell lawsuits if these machines emitted anything worth worrying over.

 

[sevo]

The black and white film shows backing print-through. This is a physical-chemical problem rather than optical, bare parts of the backing paper will almost inevitably interact slightly different with the film than areas covered with the number print, as the transparency to steam and atmospheric pollution of print and bare areas will be slightly different. Every 120 film will eventually show that phenomenon long after expiration.

In some cases, usually among low price or low volume makers, or with special (super-fast or IR) films whose sensitizers react unusually to the regular paper, backing papers have had chemical pollution issues and did cause print-through before expiration.

 

[Dralowid]

For airport scanners to have an effect the film is usually high speed and has suffered multiple passes. This isn't the effect.

 

[35mmdelux]

NOT airport x-ray.

 

[JohnTF]

Years back I had the backing paper markings transfer in, I believe, Agfa APX, -- just lovely spending a month shooting in Europe and coming home to spoiled film-- it showed mostly in the skies-- I thought the same thing, as the film was X Rayed about six times, including by security in Paris at La Sainte-Chapelle as you have to pass through Jacques Clouseau's office at La Surete to get there. Foreign X Ray machines at that time may have been higher energy. The operators sometimes put their lunch through to heat it up. ;-)

It was a year of arguments with airport security, the French at Rossy decided they had to tear open every sealed 120 film, and declaired the film was not high speed, it was ISO 120, mixing up the size with the film speed. I had some film with red paper and at JFK they had never seen 120 film, so the red papered film was mistaken for Nobel's invention.

I found that normal 120 film in cargo pants pockets did not set off the metal detectors, so stuffed my exposed 120 film in my pockets after that.

I believe I was only using Agfa, Ilford, and a bit of Konica IR-- I had a problem with the Konica as well-- they tried hard to resolve it, sending negatives back to Japan, and never came up with the sausage like clouds.

The conclusion on the "pool ball numbers in the sky" was some kind of transfer from the paper backing-- no one ever really explained it, nor took responsibility, or even replaced my film as if that is ever a satisifactory solution.

Regards, John

 

[sevo]

Years back I had the backing paper markings transfer in, I believe, Agfa APX, -- just lovely spending a month shooting in Europe and coming home to spoiled film-- it showed mostly in the skies-- I thought the same thing, as the film was X Rayed about six times,

There is no relation between backing paper transfer and x-rays, other than that both are travel related - x-rays because they are mostly used on airports, backing transfer because it is accelerated by heat.

There is no pigment that could be used for imprints on X-ray film - not even at the level of somebody playing a prank on you. If the backing paper had solid lead foil lettering or there were objects the size and texture of a bone between paper and film, you would doubtlessly have noticed.

 

[Highway 61]

Poor backing paper of course. What's this "Ultrafine" BW film ? Never heard of it.

Other than heavy X-ray dumping when you by mistake leave your films in the checked-in luggage, which is something you must NEVER do*, nowadays there is no risk to see your films spoiled when you have them in your cabin luggage.

*typical result on some Tri-X having been spoiled in a checked-in luggage :

 

[JohnTF]

There is no relation between backing paper transfer and x-rays, other than that both are travel related - x-rays because they are mostly used on airports, backing transfer because it is accelerated by heat.

There is no pigment that could be used for imprints on X-ray film - not even at the level of somebody playing a prank on you. If the backing paper had solid lead foil lettering or there were objects the size and texture of a bone between paper and film, you would doubtlessly have noticed.

I believe I said that I "thought"-- Past Tense, perhaps you misunderstand me. I had heard from others about a batch of European films which somehow transferred the numbers and other markings to the film.

I made no mention of X Ray film, never had any in 120 rolls. ;-)

I believe I have only had one roll of film in which the processor told me they felt it was X Ray damage, some higher speed C41 and colors were shifted, etc.

Being conservative, and sometimes having unused film make the trip abroad more than once, I preferred to not expose it to X Rays, especially in parts of Europe which did not have the same standards as the US. In the past, some airports used the same equipment to X Ray carry on and checked luggage as you entered the airport.

At no time while I carried my film was it subjected to excessive heat.

Regards, John

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

ultrafine 100 is problematic. scratches, dots, and other issues plague it.
i find it to be similar to a bad batch of shanghai gp3 film. On the plus side,
the ultrafine 400 is a much better film.

 

[sevo]

I made no mention of X Ray film, never had any in 120 rolls. ;-)

X-ray film is the most X-ray sensitive film around, by several orders of magnitude - so that is the benchmark for whether any X-Ray leakage will show up on film.

 

[deanf]

Thanks for all the replies. I'm just learning about film . . .

 

[alienmeatsack]

ultrafine 100 is problematic. scratches, dots, and other issues plague it.
i find it to be similar to a bad batch of shanghai gp3 film. On the plus side,
the ultrafine 400 is a much better film.

I avoid the UF Plus 100 like the plague. It's awful stuff. All the above mentioned issues from blotchy grainy photos, scratches easily, the paper backing ALWAYS shows through EVEN with a camera with NO backlight coming through the film and paper, etc.

It's cheap but I'd much rather spend a few bits more for some proper film.

Their Xtreme 400 however is a different story and it's much nicer, doesn't have the issues above.

To the OP, I agree with everyone else, it's not X-Ray issues.. the B/W one is cheap film with cheap backing issues. :/

I made the mistake of buying a large batch of the UF 100 film myself at one point last summer and had such bad luck with it that I have chosen to use it purely to test new MF cameras for shutter, aperture and lens functionality.

Pretty much every shot looks like these for me.

 

[BLKRCAT]

I had similar issue with Lomography Lady Grey (whatever the 400 speed film was) Backing paper fail leaking the markings on to the film.