Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,291   Posts: 1,535,423   Online: 783
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by thuggins View Post
    There is no inherent reason why 120 should be susceptible airport scanners while 35mm is not. As others have noted, film can go thru airport scanners (carry on baggage) numerous times and never have a problem. Just because your film went thru a scanner doesn't mean the scanner caused the problems you're seeing.
    well, 35mm has a case which (I think) protects it from Xray. Anyway, from my experience, I never had problems with 35mm film, while I did have with 120mm film.

    If anyone can explain the wierd things I saw on these 120 shots I'd be happy to hear. I hope they were not caused by xray (I never had them on films that were't scanned)

  2. #12
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,245
    Images
    148
    Assaf, Tim's right, it looks as if there's some other problem with your films

    Back in October/November while I was shooting B&W 120's my wife was shooting Colour. We had no problems at all.

    The films passed through scanners at:
    2x Izmir
    1x Istanbul
    1x Zurich
    1x Santiago
    1x Lima (on arrival)
    1x Lima (departure)
    1x Cusco
    1x Lima (departure)
    2x Santiago
    2x San Paulo
    1x Zurich
    1x Istanbul

    My B&W film had previously been scanned twice at Gatwick on my way to Turkey.

    That's missing at least 5 or 6 scans, often there's a scan as you arrive at the airport and a second before boarding the plane. In addition in some countries there are scans as you enter shopping centres, or important national museums etc. (This is common in Turkey).

    Only one of those Airports - San Paulo, offered hand-checking of films and that was specifically for specialist scientific films, ie Infra Red films etc. Their notice stated that their scanner was safe for all other films including High speed emulsions.

    It's interesting that no-one has ever made a post on this forum about airport damage of films through carry-on hand baggage scanners.

    In contrast there are posts from people who have lost film through the X-rays used on hold luggage.

    Ian

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,033

  4. #14
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,245
    Images
    148
    What's interesting Brian is that it contradicts the far more up to date tests carried out in the UK.

    A few other points need to be noted, only one make of machine is tested, the X-ray radiation levels are significant enough to register on a dose meter, and the data is quite old, even though the copyright says 2008.

    It's also worth mentioning that many US airports may still be using older machines, while most International airports are using the latest newer technology machinery. I've stated before that the only older technology machines I've seen in years was at Philadelphia Airport.

    There is no doubt that in the US there's recognition that certain machines can damage films, which is why hand checks are offered. The problem is that in other countries the airport authorities are equally confident that their modern machinery causes no problems even with multiple passes, so won't even consider allowing allowing hand searches instead of scans.

    I've always tried to have my film hand checked, but so far this has never been allowed. Despite the high number of scans our films were perfectly OK, contradicting the report you cite, so it's a Catch 22 situation.

    Ian

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,033
    Yes, this data is a bit old. I have no idea why they slapped a 2008 date on it. Do you know where the more up-to-date British studies are documented?

    I gave up, years ago, even asking to have film handchecked... and have never had any film damage. I surely wouldn't chance film in a CTX, but that is only for checked baggage here in the US.

  6. #16
    Antje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Near Erlangen, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    478
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Assaf View Post
    well, 35mm has a case which (I think) protects it from Xray. Anyway, from my experience, I never had problems with 35mm film, while I did have with 120mm film.

    If anyone can explain the wierd things I saw on these 120 shots I'd be happy to hear. I hope they were not caused by xray (I never had them on films that were't scanned)
    Frankly, if the little box the 35mm film is in would protect the film from x-ray, you'd have to open the can and un-spool the film... I don't think you'd be able to go on board an aircraft with dozens of little metal cans the security guys can't see through.

    You can see through metal with x-ray, it's just a matter of how hard you look...

    Oh, and the images look like you have a light leak. At least, they look just like the ones that came out of my Billy Record with its pinholed bellows...

    Antje

  7. #17
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,245
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    Yes, this data is a bit old. I have no idea why they slapped a 2008 date on it. Do you know where the more up-to-date British studies are documented?

    I gave up, years ago, even asking to have film handchecked... and have never had any film damage. I surely wouldn't chance film in a CTX, but that is only for checked baggage here in the US.
    As far as I can tell the UK data hasn't been published. I did a lot of checking about 2 years ago because there was a ban on all carry on hand luggage in force when I booked a flight to Turkey and I intended carrying film. Luckily the ban was partially lifted 2 days before I flew.

    The scanners at BAA (UK) airports have been updated this year, all I've found is comments hat tests have shown that ISO 800 + films show the first signs of the effect of the scanners after 8 scans, but that there is no visible effect until after 32 scans.

    Interestingly BAA and the manufacturers claim that the new machines are very much safer than the CT machines used to check hand baggage in US airports. They go on to say that the same manufacturers scanners for checked in/hold luggage are safe for 20 scans before the effects become visible, but that this baggage is scanned with a combination of machines from different manufactures, implying that it's not safe to assume your film wouldn't be fogged.

    Ian

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    The scanners at BAA (UK) airports have been updated this year, all I've found is comments hat tests have shown that ISO 800 + films show the first signs of the effect of the scanners after 8 scans, but that there is no visible effect until after 32 scans.
    Well that sounds like a 2X improvement or more over the older equipment. I stopped paying attention to that technology about 6 or 8 years ago. Back then the radiation dosages were about the same and it was the post-processing capabilities that were changing fast. It sounds like maybe they are "doing more with less (radiation)". That's good news! I sure wish the UK data were published, though.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Interestingly BAA and the manufacturers claim that the new machines are very much safer than the CT machines used to check hand baggage in US airports.
    Just for clarification, Ian... CT is not used to check HAND CARRIED baggage in US for domestic flights... only checked (hold) baggage. Perhaps that is different for international flights, but I haven't traveled internationally for more than a decade now so I can't say.
    Last edited by BrianShaw; 07-04-2008 at 11:16 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Removed commentary I quickly found to be untrue.

  10. #20
    Antje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Near Erlangen, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    478
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    Just for clarification, Ian... CT is not used to check HAND CARRIED baggage in US for domestic flights... only checked (hold) baggage. Perhaps that is different for international flights, but I haven't traveled internationally for more than a decade now so I can't say.
    No, I travel internationally almost every week, and I've never seen a CT for carry on luggage.

    Antje

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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