Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,382   Posts: 1,683,069   Online: 912
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10,164
    Quote Originally Posted by jackc View Post
    ...so, why aren't the shops saying anything about X-ray damage?

    Most probably as they don't know much more either...

    But as far as I remember reading posts on fogging here, there was no specific evidence of radiation caused fogging. This whole issue might rather be a risk than a problem. I don't know.

  2. #12
    Robbedoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Doesburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    443
    I just posted an order at Goat Hill for a 25 feet Minox-sized film roll. Before loading it to my cassettes I'll cut of and develop a little piece as a check.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    28
    If you are specifically trying to look for the damage (by airport X-rays), I imagine it may not be easy to find or prove conclusive. Looks to me that the damage, which surely exists however small, would be incremental and circumstantial, depending on many random factors, such as which airline, which airports, how many hops the route has, size and markings of the book, terrorist alert level of proceeding days, the operator's experience, his mood of the day, how the boxes pile on the conveyer belt that may or may not shield your package, etc, etc. Even if the damage gives you the equivalent of a year's worth of cosmic radiation, it may not be easy to tell.

    So if you develop an unexposed piece and compare it with an unexposed "unshipped" piece (where do you find this "unshipped" piece?), then any additional density you perceive probably indicates damage. But if you don't perceive additional density, it probably proves nothing.

  4. #14
    Robbedoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Doesburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    443
    @jackc, Cynical but fun.
    I'll promise to not even try to find something.
    Joe of Goathill is sending film stuff to Europe for more than ten years and has never had one complaint.
    I just have to trust him I guess.

  5. #15
    Thanasis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by jackc View Post
    What about the film shipped from online shops like adorama, bhphoto and freestyle? These are ordinary cartons shipped by UPS, FedEx or the post office. They are not even marked special in any way, nor any indication of film inside. Are these also X-rayed at airports where they are shipped? If so, why aren't the shops saying anything about X-ray damage?
    I recently made an enquiry about possible X-ray damage during the shipping of film to Australia to Freestyle and they replied that while my concerns were understandable and the threat was real, they have no control of what gets x-rayed in different customs depts around the world. Having said that, he also told me that they have never had customers report that film has been fogged as a result of x-rays.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    Joe of Goathill is sending film stuff to Europe for more than ten years and has never had one complaint.
    The longest experience anyone can claim is 6 years 7 months, not 10 years. This is because the use of X-rays at airports have changed a lot since the 9/11 attacks on New York. Now everyone and everything is presumed a bomb until proven otherwise. You read about this sort of thing in the news all the time.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,261

    Once upon a time....

    .....the X-ray machines used for passenger baggage scanning really blasted the subjects. I passed many a roll repeatedly in those days in a lead bag and never had a problem. They get better results now with far less energy. So, that's good.

    Just saw on the telly the other night that only 10% of air freight is scanned at any point on the journey. So, that's good. But our ever vigilant "security" is trying to ramp that up by having the shipper X-ray the containers. ""Lesseee, Mr. Atta, you want a position in our shipping department, eh?" So, that's bad if your film is in some freight consolidator's container. Of course, you might ask Freestyle's great customer service to put your film order inside the lead bag you ordered.

    If it's your own product, put it in a lead bag, for Pete's sake. No need to carry more than a few rolls in your carry-on, generally. I just hand them to an agent and ask for a hand check. Never a problem, sometimes they open a box but mostly just look puzzled and pass them on past the X-ray machine.

    Frankly, I think we all have much bigger problems than this hypothical or if, if, if one.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,405
    Images
    84
    I've bought lots of film, paper & other photo products from overseas & had them delivered by post. Pretty much have to when you live in Australia. Never had a problem with any scanner damage. I buy from Freestyle in LA, Megaperls in Japan, Frugal Photographer & various other suppliers incl ebay sellers.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by mexipike View Post
    try HC110 (although silvergrain claims it's good for nothing).
    I'm afraid I did not say that.

    Pictorial b&w film users (most of us here) are better served with D-76 or XTOL in terms of image quality, period. Sure, HC-110 gives lower fog, but so does Microphen. The real advantage of HC-110 are the speed, convenience and cost, which are all important factors to some users. Users of electron microscope films, Tech Pan users (those who used TP for light microscopy or other low contrast images), some industrial radiography films, and press photography all liked that developer. In short, some of the D-19 users got the advantage of HC-110 much more than D-76 users.

    Besides, the use of PVP and amine-sulfur dioxide adduct in a liquid concentrate developer is quite an innovation at that time.

    Among pictorial film users, some large format users seem to prefer the above advantages over penalty on granularity and speed loss.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin