film in checked in luggage

[Mady/Sophiemom]

I usually get my film developed at Snapfish. com. They give you envelopes, to send your film in. Last trip, I pre-mailed my film, and disposables in my snackbox, to the resort. I did have couple of rolls, with me on the plane, along with the cameras.

I just took the envelopes, and as I finshed a roll, or a disposable camera, I mailed it from the resort. I had less to keep track of. By the time we returned home, many of my pictures, were already available on the website, and my hardcopies arrived fairly soon.

Worked pretty well. I am horrible about remembering to take film in for processing, so this keeps it simple.

 

[seashoreCM]

Generally grainy pictures have to do with the film itself, the faster the film is, the more grainy it is. Were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be so many slow films still on the market.

Or maybe a faster roll of film was mislabeled.

I believe Kodak still makes Kodachrome II (color) and Panatomic X (black and white), which each have a speed of about ISO 30. The only reasons for making them is that they are the finest grain films in existence and have excellent longevity. You wouldn't want to use them in an inexpensive camera because the camera lens isn't sharp enough to take advantage of the fine grain, the flash range of the camera may be no more than three feet, and only pictures taken in sunlight might come out well.

Disney hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/disney.htm

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by gfolchick
Gail,
Neat link. The examples shown are how some of my pics turned out, in the one pass scan and they have the greenish tint on the dark areas that they refer to. Thanks for the info.

You are welcome. I thought, when you said you take good pictures, that this was the issue and not grainy. Sorry it happened, but, happy you got some of the image.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by seashoreCM
Generally grainy pictures have to do with the film itself, the faster the film is, the more grainy it is. Were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be so many slow films still on the market.

Or maybe a faster roll of film was mislabeled.

I believe Kodak still makes Kodachrome II (color) and Panatomic X (black and white), which each have a speed of about ISO 30. The only reasons for making them is that they are the finest grain films in existence and have excellent longevity. You wouldn't want to use them in an inexpensive camera because the camera lens isn't sharp enough to take advantage of the fine grain, the flash range of the camera may be no more than three feet, and only pictures taken in sunlight might come out well.

Disney hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/disney.htm

Kodak makes Kodachrome 25, but I believe all Kodachrome is slide film. In fact, I feel secure in saying anything with "chrome" at the end is slide film.

 

[Geoff_M]

That's correct.... Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome, etc.

"I got a Nikon camera... I love to take photographs... Momma don't take my Kodachome away!"

 

[buzz2400]

My pictures came out fine!!! I could not believe it. I guess I was just very lucky this time. All those sweating bullets for nothing.

gfolchick - I live in the Daniels Farm area also on Coral Drive (where the two towers are). Small world.

 

[Timon]

If you use that bag and they cannot see through it, they will boost the power on the scanner. That could potentially ruin your film

This is NOT true. I am a pre-board screener and can tell you that there are no "power boost" settings on the x-ray machines that are used for airport security. The settings are all fixed and CANNOT be tampered with. All items that go through the x-ray machine receive the same level of radiation, no exceptions. There are so many myths about x-rays and travelling, but a little research will show most of these myths to be false. You will receive MORE radiation on your flight than your bag received going through the x-ray machine! On your average flight, you receive about 2-6 millirems of radiation, your bag/film/camera receives approximately only .1 millirems of radiation each time it goes through the airport carry-on x-ray machine.

http://www.smiths-heimann-pid.com/safety.html

Your lead bag CAN be seen through in the x-ray machine, it only darkens the picture a little. If there is just film in there, it won't be stopped as all the contents are clearly visible. The only time it may be inspected or "ran through" again is if it's above or below something else, making it difficult to identify the contents.

All hand inspections will take up more time so be prepared for that, whethere you are asking for the inspection of if the person in front of you is asking. I am always more suspicious of the person who wants a hand inspection for no reason (less than 800 ISO film) than someone who puts their film through the x-ray machine, so your bags may be treated with a little more caution, so be prepared for that as well.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
That's correct.... Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome, etc.

"I got a Nikon camera... I love to take photographs... Momma don't take my Kodachome away!"

LOL, I LOVE that song.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by buzz2400
My pictures came out fine!!! I could not believe it. I guess I was just very lucky this time. All those sweating bullets for nothing.

gfolchick - I live in the Daniels Farm area also on Coral Drive (where the two towers are). Small world.

Thanks for the update!!! I am very pleased for you.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

All hand inspections will take up more time so be prepared for that, whethere you are asking for the inspection of if the person in front of you is asking. I am always more suspicious of the person who wants a hand inspection for no reason (less than 800 ISO film) than someone who puts their film through the x-ray machine, so your bags may be treated with a little more caution, so be prepared for that as well.

People are funny about their film, and it is their right to request a hand inspection of that film. Why be suspicious when all they want is their pictures to come out correctly. I would be more suspicious about the lead lined bags.

This is from a website I frequent:

http://www.f-stop.org/rec_guide.htm

I don't assume anything, and I cannot be guaranteed that the US uses the same equipment Canada does.

And... this site: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/transportation.shtml

I feel a bit more secure about Kodak's stand on this and their knowledge, since they do employ people to research this.

 

[Timon]

I was just suggesting that before you give false advice on these boards about something, you should do some research of your own.

Perhaps you should read your own sites once again, because the first site you listed a link for says:

"Do not pack unprotected film into checked baggage. For hand luggage, leave film and loaded cameras in carry-on bags for screening by a low-dosage carry-on scanner. "

.....which just verifies what I said in my first post.



Your second site is a link by Kodak, which I agree is a trustworthy company. But your link is all about MOTION PICTURE FILM, NOT consumer film! Perhaps, you should direct people to the proper link with the correct information...like this one:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml


which states:

"Suggestions for Avoiding Fogged Film
X-ray equipment used to inspect carry-on baggage uses a very low level of x-radiation that will not cause noticeable damage to most films. However, baggage that is checked (loaded on the planes as cargo) often goes through equipment with higher energy X rays"

And lastly, the link I provided which states the amounts of radiation the average person gets over the course of a year is taken from U. S. stats , not from Canadian stats. "average dose equivalent to U.S. population "

Furthermore, the machines we use in Canada are manufactured in the U.S.

P.S. Why would I be more suspicious of the passenger who is willing to put all their belongings through the x-ray machine so that ALL of the contents are visible and NOT be suspicious of someone who wants some of their belongings not to be examined throughly?

 

[seashoreCM]

(copied from another post)

I have seen X-ray machines at the passenger security checkpoint where although the machine might not have tremendous x-ray power, the operator seemed to have more than one X-ray strength, since he was pushing a button and the image changed to enhance other items.

One problem that film might encounter is that the bag may sit stopped under the X-rays for a long time while the operator(s) look at their screen, point fingers, and scratch their heads. The more film friendly machines do a quick snapshot with the X-rays and hold the image in a computer memory as opposed to leave the X-rays on continuously.

If the film is in a smaller bag with fewer items altother in it, then it is less likely to sit still under the X-rays.

 

[Geoff_M]

Timon,

In essence, both you and Gail are correct. I believe you when you say the scanners you use utilize a fixed power level. But the behavior of the CTX-5000 scanners are also a fact. Before 9/11, the FAA rolled out the newest breed of "smart scanners" that could scan luggage with a low power beam and then increase the power to closer examine items that its software found of interest.

Here's a link from the scanner's maker, InVision: http://www.invision-tech.com/products/film.htm

However, this scanner is designed for checked luggage. But, in the past the FAA hasn't been willing to say that they would never be used for carry-ons. Pre-9/11, the FAA only had a modest fleet of these scanners and they were moved around at random and as intelligence reports warranted.

Many photo publications and professional groups looked at the scanners, did a lot of testing with them, and didn't like what they saw and heard from the FAA. Most of them alerted their members and readers to be safe and ask for hand checks. From InVision's site, I see they also offer a carry-on version of their scanner that seems to employ the same technology, but I don't know if film reacts to it like its bigger brothers.

The point about the lead pouches is that they used to be safe when used in checked luggage, but the use of the CTX scanners changed all that. This fact, and the fact that (as you mentioned) carry on scanners use pretty low doses, the lead bags are pretty much useless when travelling within the US (and Canada).

As for "But your link is all about MOTION PICTURE FILM, NOT consumer film!", it makes no difference. The chemistry used to process motion picture film vs. 35 mm film is different, but the science both films use to make images is the same. Any ISO speed 100 motion picture film would behave the same in a scanner as 100 speed "consumer" film.

In fact, 35mm "consumer" film started out as motion picture film. The sizes are the same. Someone (Kodak?) realized that they were already making oodles of motion picture film and it would be easy to use very short spools of it in "still" cameras. The difference (back then) was that motion pictures are placed on the film perpendicular to the sprockets, whereas 35mm still camera place the images in parallel to the sprockets.

It's true that the chances of your film being ruined by carry-on scanners is very low, but since hand checking is available by law and can be easily down by un-boxing the film and placing it all in a Ziplock bag for inspection, I say it's the best way to go.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by Timon
I was just suggesting that before you give false advice on these boards about something, you should do some research of your own.

Perhaps you should read your own sites once again, because the first site you listed a link for says:

"Do not pack unprotected film into checked baggage. For hand luggage, leave film and loaded cameras in carry-on bags for screening by a low-dosage carry-on scanner. "

.....which just verifies what I said in my first post.



Your second site is a link by Kodak, which I agree is a trustworthy company. But your link is all about MOTION PICTURE FILM, NOT consumer film! Perhaps, you should direct people to the proper link with the correct information...like this one:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml


which states:

"Suggestions for Avoiding Fogged Film
X-ray equipment used to inspect carry-on baggage uses a very low level of x-radiation that will not cause noticeable damage to most films. However, baggage that is checked (loaded on the planes as cargo) often goes through equipment with higher energy X rays"

And lastly, the link I provided which states the amounts of radiation the average person gets over the course of a year is taken from U. S. stats , not from Canadian stats. "average dose equivalent to U.S. population "

Furthermore, the machines we use in Canada are manufactured in the U.S.

P.S. Why would I be more suspicious of the passenger who is willing to put all their belongings through the x-ray machine so that ALL of the contents are visible and NOT be suspicious of someone who wants some of their belongings not to be examined throughly?

The reason I directed you to the link was for this paragraph:

The once popular lead-lined carry bags aren't practical today because if an inspector can't see through the bag, he will increase the intensity of the x-ray until he can. Therefore, film may receive more harmful radiation than it would otherwise if it were normally inspected.

You said that could not happen. On the site you directed, it mentions a cumalitive effect. Personally, I would want all my film hand inspected, because, regardless of what you say, I did this for a living and I saw the effects first hand. I stopped using film and went digital and I know that digitial media is not harmed by scanners.
I also do not recommend that anyone send precious pictures via the mail or outlabs. Stuff gets lost, and this I also know as fact.
I had to answer to the customers.

My information is not false, it is out there.

From Fuji.

Is there any danger to bringing my film through an airport x-ray machine?
In an effort to make the skies safer for the traveling public, new scanner technology, which detects explosive devices, is being installed at many airports around the country. Because of its silver content, photographic film, especially bricks of film, appear particularly suspect. Unfortunately, the new scanners are fogging undeveloped film left in checked baggage. Unlike the airport x-ray equipment of the past which had little or no effect on unprocessed film, the Photographic & Imaging Manufacturers Association has tested the new CTX5000 scanners at the request of the FAA and determined they have the potential to damage both unprocessed color and black and white film. Processed film is unaffected.

While we applaud the FAA in their efforts to ensure that checked baggage is safe, we also realize that your pictures are very important to you and want to do all we can to see that these photographic memories are preserved. We offer the following suggestions to help you avoid damage by these new scanners.

* Make sure there is no unprocessed film in your checked baggage.

* Carry your undeveloped film with you as carry-on baggage and ask for hand inspection whenever possible.

* When carrying large amounts of unprocessed film, contact the airline prior to your flight to arrange for a special baggage inspection. When possible, send your film via a cargo carrier that will certify that the film won't be x-rayed. The FAA and PIMA are currently working on guidelines with respect to this situation.

Key: advice to carry your undeveloped film and ask for hand inspection.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
Timon,

In essence, both you and Gail are correct. I believe you when you say the scanners you use utilize a fixed power level. But the behavior of the CTX-5000 scanners are also a fact. Before 9/11, the FAA rolled out the newest breed of "smart scanners" that could scan luggage with a low power beam and then increase the power to closer examine items that its software found of interest.

Here's a link from the scanner's maker, InVision: http://www.invision-tech.com/products/film.htm

However, this scanner is designed for checked luggage. But, in the past the FAA hasn't been willing to say that they would never be used for carry-ons. Pre-9/11, the FAA only had a modest fleet of these scanners and they were moved around at random and as intelligence reports warranted.

Many photo publications and professional groups looked at the scanners, did a lot of testing with them, and didn't like what they saw and heard from the FAA. Most of them alerted their members and readers to be safe and ask for hand checks. From InVision's site, I see they also offer a carry-on version of their scanner that seems to employ the same technology, but I don't know if film reacts to it like its bigger brothers.

The point about the lead pouches is that they used to be safe when used in checked luggage, but the use of the CTX scanners changed all that. This fact, and the fact that (as you mentioned) carry on scanners use pretty low doses, the lead bags are pretty much useless when travelling within the US (and Canada).

As for "But your link is all about MOTION PICTURE FILM, NOT consumer film!", it makes no difference. The chemistry used to process motion picture film vs. 35 mm film is different, but the science both films use to make images is the same. Any ISO speed 100 motion picture film would behave the same in a scanner as 100 speed "consumer" film.

It's true that the chances of your film being ruined by carry-on scanners is very low, but since hand checking is available by law and can be easily down by un-boxing the film and placing it all in a Ziplock bag for inspection, I say it's the best way to go.

Thank you Geoff.

 

[Geoff_M]

Gail,

No problem...

It's interesting to see that everyone seems to have a different set of recommendations from the joint InVision and PIMA study of the CTX scanners. You posted Fuji's advice.

Here is InVision's recommendations:

Do not put unprocessed film in checked baggage

Place film and cameras containing film in carry-on luggage

http://www.invision-tech.com/products/film.htm

Here's the PIMA's take on it:

when traveling with film:

Do not put unprocessed film in your checked baggage.

Your film and cameras containing film should be placed in your carry-on luggage.

The vast majority of X-ray equipment used to inspect carry-on luggage use a very low level of radiation that will not cause noticeable changes to your film.

If you are traveling with high-speed film (ISO 400 or higher) and expect to go through multiple X-ray examinations, you can request a hand search. FAA regulations in the U.S. allow for a hand search of photographic film and equipment if requested.

http://www.i3a.org/x-ray.html

Note that the PIMA (Photographic and Imaging Manufacturing Association, the lead photo trade association) defines "high speed" film as starting as ISO 400!!!

 

[Timon]

Okay, I just wanted to clear this up. You are all talking about CHECKED LUGGAGE x-ray machines. I never mentioned anything about the checked luggage machines. They are VERY powerful and you should NEVER put your film in your checked luggage! I am not saying anything different! These CAT-type machines DO have control over the amount of radiation exposed to a bag. You CAN change many controls and it also detects for explosives. When the operator stops a bag, they can increase the sensitivity, they can do a lot of things to enhance the image.

That is NOT what I am talking about. The only reason I posted was to correct Gail's comment about pre-board screeners, at the carry-on luggage inspection point. They CANNOT change the amount of radiation the machine gives out. This is a fact, not my opinion. When the operator stops the bag for further examination, and you see them pressing buttons, it is only to correct the image they already have on the screen. There are no further exposures of radiation being done. On our machines, we have different sensitivity buttons which help us change the picture, such as black & white mode, organic sensitivity mode, mixed metals mode, etc.



http://underwaterphotos.com/Filmsafe.htm

"There are many myths surrounding airport X-ray inspection equipment and it's easy for ignorance to lead to paranoia among photographers who regularly travel by commercial airliner.

For example, while it is indeed possible to vary the dosage emitted by these machines, in the USA and a number of other countries, it is illegal to do so. Furthermore, it is not possible for the machine's operator to alter the dosage during an inspection pass because these settings are concealed inside the unit and cannot be accessed during normal operation.

It also needs to be understood that these modern machines are X-ray scanners and so the object is inspected line-by-line by a small and precisely controlled fan like emission of radiation. Only this line - which represents a very small area, even of an object as small as a 35mm cassette - receives a dose of X-rays at any one time.

Another misconception is that an object is scanned continuously so, when the conveyor belt is stopped so the display can be examined by the machine's operator, it will receive multiple dosages of radiation. In fact the X-ray signal is now amplified to create the display and the object does not receive multiple scans in order to maintain the picture. Once is sufficient. One of the problems with older equipment was that poor amplification of the X-ray signal meant it was necessary to use a much higher dosage in order to obtain a good image.

The preceding discussion applies to film examined through normal security area x-ray machines used to scan hand carried baggage. Film checked through as checked baggage is a different matter altogether. Many airports now require baggage that contains cameras to go through a special scanning device and this will definitely fog your film. The dosage is sufficient to fog all film not just faster speed film. If you fail to tell the check in operator that the checked baggage contains camera equipment, it will be scanned and if devices similar to cameras are identified, the baggage will be pulled (and you potentially along with it) for additional inspection."


As for the comment on Gail's second link, it is directed to information on Motion Picture film. Geoff, I understand your comments about the types of film, I never said it was different from any other types of film. I was just pointing out that the site was talking about motion picture film and not to put it in your CHECKED luggage. This is where the "he will increase the intensity of the x-ray until he can" comment came from. The link I provided is directed at carry-on x-rays where they point out that the low x-ray level for the carry ons are perfectly safe!

 

[Geoff_M]

Timon,

I think we're talking past one another here. I think Gail, you, and I can agree that your average run-of-the-mill carry-on x-ray is not variable in its power output and poses little threat to most film in people's carry on. But here are several reasons to continue to recommend people ask for hand checks:

1) I do find it interesting, that PIMA's research has found that film as low as ISO 400 can be at risk during normal conditions... I assume that this is due to the fact that most film is scanned more than once before development and the effects of x-rays on film is cumlative. This level is a lot lower than the safety threshold cited by the FAA and TSA. PIMA's done the research and I'll take their advice.

2) Where's the data on carry-on explosives scanners like: http://www.invision-tech.com/products/qr160.htm It uses the same basic MRI-like technology, though at lower levels, as the CTX "film-zappers". InVision doesn't reference the QScans in their film safety statement one way or the other.

3) There's plenty of anocdotal first hand reports of photographers who only passed their film through domestic carry-on scanners (and I'm not talking about 3200 ISO film) and the film's been fogged.

Am I paranoid? When it comes to my unprocessed film that contains images that be can't be reproduced... you bet I am.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
Timon,

I think we're talking past on another here. I think Gail, you, and I can agree that your average run-of-the-mill carry-on x-ray is not variable in its power output and poses little threat to most film in people's carry on. But here are several reasons to continue to recommend people ask for hand checks:

1) I do find it interesting, that PIMA's research has found that film as low as ISO 400 can be at risk during normal conditions... I assume that this is due to the fact that most film is scanned more than once before development and the effects of x-rays on film is cumlative. This level is a lot lower than the safety threshold cited by the FAA and TSA. PIMA's done the research and I'll take their advice.

2) Where's the data on carry-on explosives scanners like: http://www.invision-tech.com/products/qr160.htm It uses the same basic MRI-like technology, though at lower levels, as the CTX "film-zappers". InVision doesn't reference the QScans in their film safety statement one way or the other.

3) There's plenty of anocdotal first hand reports of photographers who only passed their film through domestic carry-on scanners (and I'm not talking about 3200 ISO film) and the film's been fogged.

Am I paranoid? When it comes to my unprocessed film that contains images that be can't be reproduced... you bet I am.

Me too. And, if you carry it on on your way down and then on your way back you have subjected that film to two small doses.
Frankly, I don't want any on any film I use.

The link I posted from Kodak may have been using Motion Picture film, however, labs/film places like Seattle use that film. It is reformatted to 35 mm. That is why it cannot be processed in mini labs. It will ruin the machines. They were also speaking of carry on film in additon to checked film.

I do agree, we three are talking around each other.

My recommedation, having been in the business for years, is have it hand checked. Like you, Geoff, I am very possessive of the images I take. Now I use Digital and just love it. And...I can print it at home on our color laser. Even better, eh?