Rob-F
Likes Leicas
This has been brought up before (more than once) but I wanted to get Tom's attention. Tom: I imagine you have traveled by air to photograph, more than just about any of us. So here's my question.
First, a little background. I have traveled within the US by air a number of times since they started using X-Rays. I've deliberately allowed films up to Delta 3200 to be exposed to the X-Rays, twice per film (going and coming). So far, so good. No visible effect on the film. That's within the U.S.
And, I've seen no problems with X-ray exposure to and from Canada with Tri-X and with Ektachrome P-1600 pushed to 1600. That's with one hand-inspection and one exposure with the film in a lead film bag.
But now we are going to France, and there are these stories about the Europeans using stronger X-rays. One fellow at the LHSA meeting said that anything stronger than ISO 200 will be affected, especially by the machines at DeGaulle (We are going through DeGaull three times). We are also flying up to Helsinki, so altogether I figure up to seven X-ray exposures. Kodak says five should be the limit.
But I'm not willing to leave the Tr-X home, nor the Delta 400. (I won't bother with anything faster than ISO 400, though.) I'm wondering: A.) If I should expose the Tri-X around 250 to make the in-camera exposure stronger relative to the X-ray exposure; and B.) If I should really be concerned about it in the first place.
Next point: I plan to bring along some Plus-X and maybe some FP-4 I have on hand, and of course some Delta 100. I've been experimenting with the Delta 100 and find it pushes perfectly to 200 in Microphen. No doubt the Plus-X will, too. That would give me a fairly fast EI in lieu of using ISO 400 film. But: I'm thinking that from an X-ray standpoint, it might be better to not push it--so that--again--the camera exposure is as dense as possible comparfed to the X-ray exposure.
It's a once-in-a-lifetime trip, so I want to get it right. So what do you think about all this, Tom?
First, a little background. I have traveled within the US by air a number of times since they started using X-Rays. I've deliberately allowed films up to Delta 3200 to be exposed to the X-Rays, twice per film (going and coming). So far, so good. No visible effect on the film. That's within the U.S.
And, I've seen no problems with X-ray exposure to and from Canada with Tri-X and with Ektachrome P-1600 pushed to 1600. That's with one hand-inspection and one exposure with the film in a lead film bag.
But now we are going to France, and there are these stories about the Europeans using stronger X-rays. One fellow at the LHSA meeting said that anything stronger than ISO 200 will be affected, especially by the machines at DeGaulle (We are going through DeGaull three times). We are also flying up to Helsinki, so altogether I figure up to seven X-ray exposures. Kodak says five should be the limit.
But I'm not willing to leave the Tr-X home, nor the Delta 400. (I won't bother with anything faster than ISO 400, though.) I'm wondering: A.) If I should expose the Tri-X around 250 to make the in-camera exposure stronger relative to the X-ray exposure; and B.) If I should really be concerned about it in the first place.
Next point: I plan to bring along some Plus-X and maybe some FP-4 I have on hand, and of course some Delta 100. I've been experimenting with the Delta 100 and find it pushes perfectly to 200 in Microphen. No doubt the Plus-X will, too. That would give me a fairly fast EI in lieu of using ISO 400 film. But: I'm thinking that from an X-ray standpoint, it might be better to not push it--so that--again--the camera exposure is as dense as possible comparfed to the X-ray exposure.
It's a once-in-a-lifetime trip, so I want to get it right. So what do you think about all this, Tom?
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Why not buy (and process) your film in Europe?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Well, I already have lots of film, and it probably costs a lot more in France. And I want to process it myself, in my darkrom, not in a hotel bathroom. And I don't want to waste time running around looking for camera stores.
Gumby
Veteran
I have never had a problem with xray damage to film in US or in Europe. Nor have I ever heard or seen any validated proof that European x-ray machines are more powerful or destructive than those in the US.
Oh... but since you are asking Tom exclusively, don't pay any attention to what I have just written.
Oh... but since you are asking Tom exclusively, don't pay any attention to what I have just written.
Pablito
coco frío
I have traveled all over the world hundreds of times with lots of film, sometimes 60-80 or more rolls, ISO 400 color & b&w. I almost always pass them thru the carry-on x-ray sometimes 20 or more times - in many parts of the world you have no choice. In all those hundreds of trips I have NEVER seen the slightest bit of visible fogging. However, the only story about possible x-ray damage I've heard from a source I consider reliable (another pro photographer who has his film developed by the same b&w specialist I use in NYC) has to do with, you guessed it, DE GAULLE airport.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Hmm, suspicions confirmed? Great (not). Maybe we could hear from some people who have taken film through the DeGaulle X-ray carryon?
Cron
Well-known
here in Europe we are told we have smart scanners, but the US-used should be really powerful and poison for film.
Travelling in EU I had no problems until now. In my bags normally I have slide-film 100 - 400 iso. But I never was in Paris, so I don't know about this one.
Travelling in EU I had no problems until now. In my bags normally I have slide-film 100 - 400 iso. But I never was in Paris, so I don't know about this one.
pau3
Well-known
I have travelled several times through both airports at Paris, with Tri-x, rated
between 320 and 1600 and had no problem whatsoever. Films where on carry on
luggage. But film went only twice through the x-ray machine. In other airports
in Europe it may have passed up to four times, without problems.
Pau
between 320 and 1600 and had no problem whatsoever. Films where on carry on
luggage. But film went only twice through the x-ray machine. In other airports
in Europe it may have passed up to four times, without problems.
Pau
snip
Established
Also the X-rays in the aircraft as you are cruising at high altitude, blah blah and so on.
If you think it's worth the bother, try to convince them to do hand inspections and keep the film in lead lined bags during the flight but really, as many people have already said, I have never had problems with neither sheet, 120 format or 135 format film, in either black/white colour print or colour slide, at any speed (Fastest I've ever used is iso3200)
I think the De Gaulle story is a bit of a wives tale but as I stated above, if you are concerned, ask for hand inspection, this may or may not prove to work.
//Jan
If you think it's worth the bother, try to convince them to do hand inspections and keep the film in lead lined bags during the flight but really, as many people have already said, I have never had problems with neither sheet, 120 format or 135 format film, in either black/white colour print or colour slide, at any speed (Fastest I've ever used is iso3200)
I think the De Gaulle story is a bit of a wives tale but as I stated above, if you are concerned, ask for hand inspection, this may or may not prove to work.
//Jan
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I have never had a problem with xray damage to film in US or in Europe. Nor have I ever heard or seen any validated proof that European x-ray machines are more powerful or destructive than those in the US.
Oh... but since you are asking Tom exclusively, don't pay any attention to what I have just written.
I'm not asking Tom exclusively--I want to hear from all who have info on this.
Thanks for all the responses so far. As I said, I have seen no damage in flights within the US, nor between the US and Canada (and Mexico, let me not forget Mexico). But I wanted to hear from those who have traveled the same locations as I am going
BTW, what is a "smart" X-ray machine?
Gumby
Veteran
OK... I just read your first paragraph literally. Silly me.
Unless you start doing some real homework rather than just asking for 'testimonials' you'll gather no more information than the aforesaid 'wives tales'.
There are a limited number of manufacturers of these kind of machines, and the specs are relatively consistent. They all have spec sheets available on the internet... there are few secrets by that industry. The total unknown is what exact machine will your film go through at the various airports, and how skilled is the operator.
One potential "problem" in second- and third-world countries is the continued use of older machines that don't have the advanced software enhancements that reduce the need for re-radiating the item to make a judgement on 'questionable items'. I don't think the industry uses the term "smart" for this, though; I believe that is a colloquial term provided by the media.
The airline security industry does use the term "smart" specifically regarding a training program. Perhaps this leads to a lower likelihood or re-radiation, I can only suspect that this is a possibility.
http://www.airport-int.com/categori...r-checkpoint-and-xray-screening-personnel.asp
The CT machines used for checked luggage have gotten 'smarter' as they have evolved but I don't think the manufacturer uses the 'smart' word... they tend to focus on throughput (more bags per unit time) in their sales pitches. The way they do that is by using regular x-ray to screen the bag and then use the CT technology (which takes longer) only if something suspicious is detected.
In summary, you need to be careful about the 'testimony' found on the internet. There is industry data on how film-safe x-ray machines are (real research by scientists) that is available on the internet but some deny the validity because they get caught up in the difference between theoretical and practical damage. Also, in the same vein that the research is a few years old, but so are many peoples experience and stories. So you'll hear horror-stories that is often based in old recollection while the truth is that the damaging equipment is long gone and newer film-safe equipment is currently in use.
"They" are NOT "out to get" photographers, nor mess up tourists one-of-a-kind vacation pictures! Heed the standard warnings and don't get too carried away with your (or other peoples) fears... you'll have a better time that way.
Svitantti
Well-known
I have never seen or heard of a confirmed X-ray damage on a photography film. Even 1600-3200 films are said to go through 10 checks or so (even on journeys to not so modern countries).
Even if there was some "damage" I assume the first thing is, that there is slight fogging. This is not usually too critical.
There are certain "safe bags" for the X-rays but some people say this just makes the operator or the machine run on higher intensity. This of course is just worse for the pictures. (This is hear-say so someone maybe could confirm it)
It is probably hard to get the guards to check your films manually just because you want to be "completely sure" your very very important "tourist photos" wont be ruined by the possible X-ray damage to film. Some have still done this I've heard, but I dont know if I would bother if I would not be going through too many scans.
Even if there was some "damage" I assume the first thing is, that there is slight fogging. This is not usually too critical.
There are certain "safe bags" for the X-rays but some people say this just makes the operator or the machine run on higher intensity. This of course is just worse for the pictures. (This is hear-say so someone maybe could confirm it)
It is probably hard to get the guards to check your films manually just because you want to be "completely sure" your very very important "tourist photos" wont be ruined by the possible X-ray damage to film. Some have still done this I've heard, but I dont know if I would bother if I would not be going through too many scans.
Last edited:
micromontenegro
Well-known
I've had my TriX bombarded many times in a row all over Europe, including CDG, without anything going wrong.
But there are many other reasons to avoid CDG. It is a bit like MIA and JFK: very unfriendly airports
But there are many other reasons to avoid CDG. It is a bit like MIA and JFK: very unfriendly airports
Gumby
Veteran
You don't need to rely on hear-say. The manufacturers all post their specification and equipment capability/performance data. That is not a capability they offer. Haven't you seen the screeners pick up bags they can't clearly see through and put them through the machine again?" That is what they can do: double dose, but not the result of "cranking up the power".
There are some who say that the lead bags pass unquestioned; there are others that say they have had theirs removed and had the contents x-rayed; there are others who have said their lead bag has been removed and hand-checked. There are many diffferent, and no doubt true, stories... some with happier endings than others but probably none with proven film damage.
c.poulton
Well-known
I've never had an issue with airport scanning machines (for carry-on items) before and I've travelled international a fair bit, although I must admit I tend to use slow films - usually 50 - sometimes 200, and occasionally 400. On many occasions I've scanned these films 2, 3 or 4 times without any noticable degradation.
On a trip to Thailand/Laos a few years ago, I went through airport scanners probably as many as 12 times and my Provia 400X and Provia 100F was fine BUT all my Superia 1600 was fogged. Since the film was shot using the same cameras/lenses and developed by the same shop I suspect it was X-ray damage, and most likely from the domestic terminal at Vientiane Airport, as the equipment there was pretty old (to put it nicely). I don't carry anything faster than ISO400 when flying now. Much less stressful that way.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
My experience has all been with 800 speed or lower print film and it has been a couple of years since going to the EU. I have had film scanned numerous times by carry on x-ray machines with no noticeable problems. The machines may even be better now. I would not worry too much.
Bob
Bob
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I can vouch for the accuracy of that statement myself, having seen it go both ways. Going from St. Louis to Toronto, I laid the lead bag flat in the suitcase. They pulled the lead bag out, took every roll out of its can, and checked each one. On the return trip, I set the lead bag vertically, so that it was edge-on to the X-rays. Also, it was all the way at the lower end of the bag, if that matters. The lead bag passed without incident that time.
I plan to pack the film next time without the cans. I always have them in a clear ziplock bag. Then I put the ziplock into the lead bag.
An important concern is that I will be going through DeGaulle 3 or 4 times: USA to Degaulle; Degaulle to Provence; Degaulle to Helsinki; Degaulle to USA. That's on top of the scans that will occur in St. Louis; in Georgia to board the transatlantic flight; departing from Helsinki; and from Georgia to St. Louis. That's up to 8 X-ray exposures. Kodak warns against more than five. They have pictures on their website of streaks left on the film from the cumulative effects of X-rays. That's the main thing I'm worried about.
Pablito
coco frío
Even thought I heard it from a source I consider reliable I STLL have a hard time believing it. I have had no luck asking for hand inspection in Europe EVER.
snip
Established
Yes I share that feeling of hard to believe.
I have never had problems with hand inspection anywhere, when I have bothered with it. maybe it is because I always have 120 roll film?
//Jan