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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 12:16 PM.
Reason: Removed commentary I quickly found to be untrue.
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.
Location: Datchet, Berkshire UK- about 20 miles west of London
Posts: 280
I've carried 120 film in and out of the UK countless times without any visible problems at all. Clearly bringing the film in and having it processed at a place you trust will save you time and remove one area of concern at the possible expense of concern over X ray damage- which I don't share.
In common with many other markets its easier to buy 120 film in the UK from "out of town" outlets and bought by phone or internet. In general these outlets carry more stock and a bigger range than retailers or trade counters, and they are often notably cheaper. Try
Many photographic retailers, even in London , carry little in the way of 120 film either in terms of range or quantity. It would be best to call a selected retailer before you travel. Silverprint are OK, but they are in a rather gloomy area southeast of Waterloo Station that I wouldn't expect to be on most tourist routes, and it is a bit of a gloomy place when you get there.
If it were me I'd check my prices locally vs those from the dealers above and decide whether to carry it in or buy here, and similarly with processing. I wouldn't personally let X ray issues drive the decision.
Linear Mode
