X-RAY Paranoia - Fact or Fiction

[sevo]

As an exception I have had some airport in Eastern Europe zap a whole bag of slow film on me - but that seems to have been with a ancient machine that only created a base fog which mostly could be fixed in the (then, this being the late 80's, still expensive) digital scan and post. I never had patterned damage from any of the more modern scanning machines.

 

[oleg_hk]

... Kodak and Fuji tell us: if you check your film in and it gets scanned, it will be fogged irrespective of the speed. The hand-luggage scanners increase base fog, and after ~10 passes with 400 or slower film ... film you notice it

That is exactly my experience. Did a controlled, although unintentional, experiment once: two rolls of Arista Pro 400 from the same batch, taken from the freezer at the same time. One went through 2 scans in checked in luggage, the other in hand luggage. Developed in the same tank. I could see the difference in base density without any densitometer.

In other less controlled cases with hand luggage I would notice that 2 layovers (~4 scans) do not do noticeable damage to ISO400, with 3-5 you already start to see something

 

[Sparrow]

When travelling on business it's not unusual for my little P&S to suffer 12 or 14 runs through the hand scanners without effect.

Why do we never see any photos posted here showing those telltale x-ray diffraction patterns? Given that it's effected so many people you would think they would be providing proof positive in the form of a photo

 

[Chris C]

In 2008 I went to Nepal with a stack of HP5+ and Velvia 50. All the film went through hand luggage with me, including a scary looking old machine at Kathmandu airport. All up that film went through the scanners 12 times and none of it shows any signs of the typical xray damage.

Last year I flew to Myanmar, again with a stack of HP5+ and this time Portra 400NC. This time it went through a total of 9 scanners, and again not a single sign of damage.

For what it's worth…

 

[rxmd]

Since these discussions tend to pop up with a certain regularity and usually the gist of the comments is more or less the same, I think we can simplify them with the following generic answer template.

It should cover most of the points that people have been making in these discussions ever since the topic came up on the Internet. Just tick the boxes that correspond to what you want to say and put in any additional information (names of countries, Internet links etc.)

FILM PHOTOGRAPHERS' X-RAY THREAD COMMENT TEMPLATE

Section 1. Anecdotal evidence

[_] I had film in my checked-in luggage

[_] I don't know if it was scanned at all
[_] It was damaged​

[_] I had film in my hand luggage and it wasn't damaged in spite of being scanned ___ times

[_] That was in the following exotic countries: _____________
[_] I tried to get a hand inspection and [_] got it / [_] didn't get it
[_] I had this weird film: [_] ISO > 3200 [_] Infrared [_] X-ray film [_] Other: ____​

Section 2. General information

[_] Here's a link to the Kodak bulletin.
[_] Here's a link to a random blog post: ___________________
[_] I recommend using a lead bag

[_] Don't use a lead bag, they'll just crank up the intensity

[_] They can't do that for labour safety reasons​

Section 3. Other points

[_] Show pix
[_] The TSA sucks
[_] Other generic flight-related comment: _________________

 

[Ronald M]

The simple fact is film is damaged by X ray. Damage is cumulative . Because people say they did not see anything means only that the damage was minimal and that there was no film that was free of x ray damage for comparison.

TSA knows this and is why you can always request hand inspection and you are supposed to get it in the USA. Other places have different rules & you will never be given hand inspection.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Since these discussions tend to pop up with a certain regularity and usually the gist of the comments is more or less the same, I think we can simplify them with the following generic answer template.

It should cover most of the points that people have been making in these discussions ever since the topic came up on the Internet. Just tick the boxes that correspond to what you want to say and put in any additional information (names of countries, Internet links etc.)

FILM PHOTOGRAPHERS' X-RAY THREAD COMMENT TEMPLATE

Section 1. Anecdotal evidence

[_] I had film in my checked-in luggage

[_] I don't know if it was scanned at all
[_] It was damaged​

[_] I had film in my hand luggage and it wasn't damaged in spite of being scanned ___ times

[_] That was in the following exotic countries: _____________
[_] I tried to get a hand inspection and [_] got it / [_] didn't get it
[_] I had this weird film: [_] ISO > 3200 [_] Infrared [_] X-ray film [_] Other: ____​

Section 2. General information

[_] Here's a link to the Kodak bulletin.
[_] Here's a link to a random blog post: ___________________
[_] I recommend using a lead bag

[_] Don't use a lead bag, they'll just crank up the intensity

[_] They can't do that for labour safety reasons​

Section 3. Other points

[_] Show pix
[_] The TSA sucks
[_] Other generic flight-related comment: _________________

Section 4. Don't worry too much

Yeah, but you'll need a LOT of passes through hand scanners before it's a problem.

Section 5. Seeing what you want to see.

A lot of photographers are really good at spotting minute differences, even where they do not exist.

For an illustration of the above, in response to a comparison in a magazine of a 'Premium' paper from a company beloved of darkroom addicts, and the manufacturers' identical paper in the manufacturer's own box, a spokesman for the manufacturer said, "We were delighted to be narrowly beaten by our own paper."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Nikon Bob]

By now we can all admit that it can be scientifically proven that X-rays can damage film. In normal everyday circumstances it would take a huge number of passes through a scanner for carry on luggage to impact film. Not too terribly much to worry about. If you are still worried get film hand checked where possible or go digital.

Bob

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'd vote "I'm totally paranoid about it and get hand inspection when possible", but the option is not available, hence not voting.

 

[furcafe]

Also the TSA link:

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1035.shtm

Since these discussions tend to pop up with a certain regularity and usually the gist of the comments is more or less the same, I think we can simplify them with the following generic answer template.

It should cover most of the points that people have been making in these discussions ever since the topic came up on the Internet. Just tick the boxes that correspond to what you want to say and put in any additional information (names of countries, Internet links etc.)

FILM PHOTOGRAPHERS' X-RAY THREAD COMMENT TEMPLATE

Section 1. Anecdotal evidence

[_] I had film in my checked-in luggage

[_] I don't know if it was scanned at all
[_] It was damaged​

[_] I had film in my hand luggage and it wasn't damaged in spite of being scanned ___ times

[_] That was in the following exotic countries: _____________
[_] I tried to get a hand inspection and [_] got it / [_] didn't get it
[_] I had this weird film: [_] ISO > 3200 [_] Infrared [_] X-ray film [_] Other: ____​

Section 2. General information

[_] Here's a link to the Kodak bulletin.
[_] Here's a link to a random blog post: ___________________
[_] I recommend using a lead bag

[_] Don't use a lead bag, they'll just crank up the intensity

[_] They can't do that for labour safety reasons​

Section 3. Other points

[_] Show pix
[_] The TSA sucks
[_] Other generic flight-related comment: _________________

 

[Freakscene]

When travelling on business it's not unusual for my little P&S to suffer 12 or 14 runs through the hand scanners without effect.

Are you measuring FB+F and comparing it with film that has not been x-rayed?

Why do we never see any photos posted here showing those telltale x-ray diffraction patterns? Given that it's effected so many people you would think they would be providing proof positive in the form of a photo

I have dozens, maybe hundreds of these but have never scanned any. And, to reiterate: you only get those patterns (they are scan patterns, not diffraction patterns) from concentrated, directed scan x-ray machines like the CTX5000 that are used for check-in baggage, where you should not put your film anyway. Carry-on luggage x-ray scanners increase base fog without a pattern because they apply the x-rays evenly and diffusely.

Marty

 

[Sparrow]

Are you measuring FB+F and comparing it with film that has not been x-rayed?



I have dozens, maybe hundreds of these but have never scanned any. And, to reiterate: you only get those patterns (they are scan patterns, not diffraction patterns) from concentrated, directed scan x-ray machines like the CTX5000 that are used for check-in baggage, where you should not put your film anyway. Carry-on luggage x-ray scanners increase base fog without a pattern because they apply the x-rays evenly and diffusely.

Marty

Ah, so the sky really is falling, and I just failed to notice it? I ask again, if either is such an obvious, and frequent effect, why do we not see examples posted here?

 

[Freakscene]

Ah, so the sky really is falling, and I just failed to notice it? I ask again, if either is such an obvious, and frequent effect, why do we not see examples posted here?

Because most people are smart enough to follow Kodak, Fuji and other film manufacturer's recommendations to keep film in hand luggage and do not check it through and they do not make thorough enough comparisons to see or quantify the effects of the scanners used on hand baggage.

I will post some scan damage results sometime, if you like.

Marty

 

[Sparrow]

Because most people are smart enough to follow Kodak, Fuji and other film manufacturer's recommendations to keep film in hand luggage and do not check it through and they do not make thorough enough comparisons to see or quantify the effects of the scanners used on hand baggage.

I will post some scan damage results sometime, if you like.

Marty

I was assuming we were all bright enough to not to check in film, except by accident ... and therefor we are talking here about damage from hand baggage x-ray

 

[Matus]

I have yet to have a negative experience.

When I traveled to New Zealand my ISO 100 and ISO 400 films were scanned 9 times in total (every airport plus NZ security check) and I could not observe any ill effects.

I have one Delta 3200 roll to be developed which was scanned with as a carry-on luggage as I could not persuade our very own slovakian security guys that the film is too sensitive for that.

 

[Freakscene]

I was assuming we were all bright enough to not to check in film, except by accident ... and therefor we are talking here about damage from hand baggage x-ray

Then the answer is, as I mentioned above, you don't see the scanning patterns because you do not get them from hand luggage scanners: the x-ray source in those scanners is diffuse and relatively low energy, so all you get is increased cumulative base fog with exposure. Most film users don't notice the increased fog that goes along with a limited number of passes through a hand-luggage scanner because not many people measure fog density and other factors including small variations in temperature, heat and other factors complicate fog and its effects. If you run your film 10, 20 and 50 times through a scanner you'll see the difference, but very few people ever have their film scanned that many times.

Marty

 

[maddoc]

I travelled from Sapporo to Tokyo just before the G7 summit in Hokkaido (2009) and a couple of rolls Portra400 showed patterns of x-ray damage over a couple of frames. It never happened before and afterwards so my guess that security forces were on high alert at that time ...

 

[Sparrow]

Then the answer is, as I mentioned above, you don't see the scanning patterns because you do not get them from hand luggage scanners: the x-ray source in those scanners is diffuse and relatively low energy, so all you get is increased cumulative base fog with exposure. Most film users don't notice the increased fog that goes along with a limited number of passes through a hand-luggage scanner because not many people measure fog density and other factors including small variations in temperature, heat and other factors complicate fog and its effects. If you run your film 10, 20 and 50 times through a scanner you'll see the difference, but very few people ever have their film scanned that many times.

Marty

Well that would explain it, if the patterning is a delusion, and the actual effect is too small to notice, or differentiate between it and other causes.

I suppose unless it was exposed an improbable number of times we would find it simple a theoretical consequence of scanning
__________________

 

[Sparrow]

I travelled from Sapporo to Tokyo just before the G7 summit in Hokkaido (2009) and a couple of rolls Portra400 showed patterns of x-ray damage over a couple of frames. It never happened before and afterwards so my guess that security forces were on high alert at that time ...

Was it in your hand-baggage or checked-baggage?

 

[wdeskiew]

I actually had issues with films on american airports. The films were in the main luggage loaded in cameras. Films in handbags were ok. It seems that they use different beams for different type of bags. Films faster than 800 I used to pass for a hand check.