Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Film And Security... Again I Know...  
User currently offlineRolex01 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

I am shooting slides, Film speeds 100... I am too lazy to take all my film out (Yea, bad huh) and the security says that its ok to put slower speed film thru the machine. I got a roll back (From a December trip) and no problems on the film. I recently took another trip, and some of the same unused rolls passed thru the machine a couple more times... I didnt have any problem in December, but, kinda worried I just messed up.. Should I worry?

Just would like to ease my mind a bit. Thanks.

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

The problem with Xrays is that the effect is cumulative, just like normal light. No properly maintained machine should damage any normal film with one pass - but 3 passes and you're beginning to push your luck.

People will tell you that they've had film pass through numerous times, no problem. But firstly, the effects can be subtle - slight loss of contrast, less vibrant colours. Secondly, not all security systems are alike - while they are all supposed to be below a certain threshold, the intensity can vary considerably - also the operator has the option to increase strength if necessary to get a better look inside a bag.

In short, you may have got away with it,
but I wouldn't risk this film on anything really important

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

Colin,

All your assertions are undoubtedly correct as I believe that the case has now been proven, but the practical problems of persuading security (certainly in the UK and some other countries, and maybe moreso in the US too recently?) to hand check film mean that my film ends up going through the x-ray machine on the majority of occasions whether I like it or not. Being honest, in a lot of cases I've given up having the argument as (a) if I loose it often ends up that the ramp up the x-ray just to get me back and (b) I'm one of those people who'd claim no NOTICABLE effect from having film x-rayed somewhat more than once or twice. Of course, slower film helps here, as it is less affected by x-rays than faster film (hurrah for K64 Big grin).

Pragmatically, I believe that the best we can hope to do these days is reduce to a minimum the number of times a film passes through a machine, and if x-rayed film is brought back from a trip its probably best not to take it on the next trip but to use it at home. One thing I wouldn't particularly recommend is one of those x-ray bags - as soon as the security guys see the black blob of the shielded bag on their screen, they ramp up the power to see through it, negating the benefit of the bag and probably frying the film that's in the camera rather than in the bag.

Andy


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2014 times:

Andy - agree with what you say - I'm sure one pass through is safe anyway. The only real answer is use the film as quickly as possible to avoid multiple passes!  Smile

The other answer is to put film you don't need immediately to hand in your luggage.

Incidently, is anyone aware of any systems which might affect digicams? Also, am I right in presuming that digicams come under the general class of "electronic equipment" and hence should not be used during takeoff & landing?

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

The other answer is to put film you don't need immediately to hand in your luggage.

NO, NO, NO! Under no circumstances should film be put in luggage that's checked in. At a lot of airports hold luggage is screened by x-rays, much stronger than those used on hand baggage. The likelihood of film being fogged is therefore much greater if you put film in your luggage than it would be in hand luggage.

I would imagine that almost all modern cameras could technically classed as "electronic devices", and whether a member of cabin crew could distinguish between your D30 and my EOS-3 anyway must be debateable.

Andy


User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2002 times:

Andy is right, never ever put film in your luggage!!
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

Thanks for that info - I was always under the impression that luggage was not X-Rayed except in special cases (oops - no pun intended!)

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1996 times:

Colin

And for most of your "always" you would have been quite right. Hold luggage screening in the UK is a relatively recent innovation, post Lockerby if I remember correctly, and is I believe only being implemented fully in the US at the moment. However, as I said, the thing to remember is that the x-ray dose a hold bag gets is much higher than they use in the carry-on scanners.

Andy


User currently offlineRolex01 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1984 times:

So should I throw my 6 rolls of slide film out or take my chances?



User currently offlineRolex01 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1980 times:

Should I throw my 6 rolls I have left away, or go ahead and take the chance that they are ok.

User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days ago) and read 1975 times:

Save them and use them for other purposes at home.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days ago) and read 1972 times:

What film speed? How many times were they x-rayed?

Assuming no more than 200ISO and three or four passes, use them on something not too important close to home.

Andy


User currently offlineRolex01 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days ago) and read 1967 times:

Speed is 100. Passed thru 3 times. All are in my camera case and inside their plastic cases still...



User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days ago) and read 1960 times:

Well I guess I'd use them - but not for anything real important  Smile

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineCcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 10 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There are bags you can buy that can prevent your film from getting messed up by the X-rays at the airport. I bought one just in case.


"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
User currently offlineRolex01 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

How much do those bags run? I am going to use a couple rolls and if they are messed up, then I will throw the other rolls out. What are the symptoms of film ruined by the machine? How can I tell? Also, does slide film have a better chance of being ruined by a machine than print film, or does it not make a difference?

Thanks again all for your help.


User currently offlineCcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1950 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It depends on the size and the film speed. They run from $5.99 on up to mabye $25.00. If you try Ritzcamera they will have some in different sizes and speeds to protect. When you go to the search feature type in film safe and there will be some of these. My best bet is the the one with the larger speed.

Http://www.ritzcamera.com



"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (12 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1947 times:

Are there problems with security at airports now? If things work out I am going to PHL, and LAX in Nov. Will the security cope with me if I take out 30 rolls of K64 and not allow it to go through the X-Ray machines?

-Dmitry


User currently offlineRolex01 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

I would say, 64 speed you wont have a problem.. I have one roll of 64, about four rolls of 100 and one 200. The higher the speed (from what I heard) will be a problem... I am not to worried about the 200 speed.. Ill probably wont use it.. Too grainy.



User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

CcrlR, Rolex01,

On the bags things, tests here in the UK have indicated that these bags simply don't help that much, and I say again from above:

One thing I wouldn't particularly recommend is one of those x-ray bags - as soon as the security guys see the black blob of the shielded bag on their screen, they ramp up the power to see through it, negating the benefit of the bag and probably frying the film that's in the camera rather than in the bag.

Basically, they aren't going to let you go through with a big "lump" in your bag that they can't identify, and the easiest way to resolve their problem is to ramp up the power of the x-ray, negating the benefit of the bag.

Andy




User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29840 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (12 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1928 times:

Alaskaairlines: you are probably better off buying your film in the lower 48 anyway.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Film And Airport Security posted Sun Mar 12 2006 04:01:11 by Cadet57
Photo Sales Question - Again, I Know... posted Tue Dec 6 2005 18:04:06 by PositiveClimb
Film And Airliners.net posted Sat Aug 28 2004 15:59:02 by Dlx737200
Film Thru Security Checkpoints posted Fri Aug 6 2004 21:59:42 by KC7MMI
Slide Film And Airport X-Ray Machines posted Wed Sep 24 2003 09:13:06 by UTA_flyinghigh
Film And Camera Settings For Night Shots? posted Tue Dec 17 2002 19:40:35 by Airplanenut
Film And X-Ray Machines posted Thu Dec 27 2001 06:52:48 by Usa4624
Tripods And Security posted Sat Dec 8 2001 15:01:48 by 704tangoalpha
Film Vs Digital Again posted Fri Dec 7 2001 12:11:11 by Ckw
Film And Camera Info In The Database? posted Thu Nov 1 2001 06:10:37 by Sunilgupta