Jump to content

traveling to Japan - do I need to think about xray in the airport


sethmcallister

Recommended Posts

My experiences hand-checking film in Japan have been favorable. Most of the carry-on baggage scanners will not fog film under 800 ISO, and will have a placard (or sticker) on the machine indicating that it is safe for film. In any case, follow the standard advice of removing the film from the canister and placing it in a clear plastic bag (it's amzing how useful ziploc bags can be). If the screener sees that he or she will not have to spend an hour opening canister in order to verify the contents, they are usually very willing to accomodate your request.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, I went to Japan last April, and pushed some Provia 400F to 3200 while I was there, and then totally forgot to get it hand checked on the way back, and the stuff was still underexposed.

 

Lesson #1 - Don't worry about it.

 

Lesson #2 - Shoot 400F @ 2500 with a 3 stop push.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for what to expect, you can expect your feet to swell during the flight, so don't wear tight shoes, or you won't be getting them back on without a good bit of pain. And don't eat the meat-cake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith,

 

I could be mistaken, but it seems like people that are afraid of their film getting zapped are afraid of fogging, or unwanted extra exposure, or colors getting knocked all out of whack. My point is that the carry on baggage X-rays that I unwittingly let my pushed to the moon film go through showed no signs of any of this, in spite of the fact that it was rated at 3200.

 

As far as underexposure goes, I'm talking about a consistent thing, not my incompetency in metering, and fwiw, I actually had snip tests done anyway, since once I realized that those rolls had been subjected to the X-rays, I thought maybe they wouldn't need to be processed as 3200 speed film. Turns out that the snip tests told the lab to process at +3.3 to +3.5, so the X-rays didn't do any damage, and the fact that lesson #2 is to shoot 400F@2500 for +3 developing is just fyi, and should come as no surprise, really, since pushing anything that much usually causes a speed breakdown, and requires a little extra exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My point is that the carry on baggage X-rays that I unwittingly let my pushed to the moon film go through showed no signs of any of this, in spite of the fact that it was rated at 3200"

 

Your comments still make no sense to me. Your 400 speed film, regardless of whatever speed you shoot it at, is still 400 speed film. Shooting film at a different speed does not change its "rating". So, even though you shot the film at 3200, it's still 400 speed emulsion. The x-ray machine doesn't care what speed you shot the film at. Added to the fact that x-ray effects are cumulative, I'm not sure why the concern for 400 speed film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith,<p>

 

<i>"Aaron - I'm assuming 400 speed film pushed to 1600 is not as affected to the same extent by xrays as 1600 speed film - I could very well be wrong"<p>

 

That's very likely what you are, I'm afraid. At least according to Kodak's paper on airport x-raying of film, wether you use a high speed film or a pushed low speed film doesn't matter much, there's risk of trouble. After all, T-MAX 3200 is really an 800 ASA film or something like that, which is good for pushing.<p>

 

Anyway, my version of common sense also says that it's your e.i. that's significant, not the ASA stated on the pack.<p>

 

-- Ivar Wind Skovgaard , June 03, 2003; 10:55 P.M. Eastern

</i><p>

From <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005DzS">this thread</A>.<p>

 

Point being that a 400 speed film rated by you and your camera at 3200 is now a 3200 speed film, and will be developed as such, and any level of radiation, whether by visible light or by invisible X-rays, over and above the lower levels required by any 3200 speed film (of which there are basically none, as the fastest films have what is widely regarded as a nominal speed of no greater than 1000asa), will provide you with additional and unwanted exposure. A pushed 400asa film <i>is</i> more sensitive than a box rated 400asa film, and you are right about the emulsion already being a non-changable thing, but the sensitivity will be made up in the processing.<p>

 

My point is that I accidentally experimented with this, and the carry on baggage X-ray didn't put a dent in my 3200asa (formerly 400asa) film.<p>

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to save you some trouble looking:<p>

 

<b><i>OTHER CONSIDERATIONS</b><p>

 

Other factors can affect the severity of x-ray exposures on

photographic films. Film that is�or will be�underexposed

and film that you intend to push-process may be particularly

vulnerable to x-ray exposure.<p>

<b>Underexposure.</b> X-ray fog occurs in the lower exposure

range of the film. Film that is underexposed has more of the

image recorded in this range. Therefore, the effects of x-ray

exposure may further reduce the quality of underexposed

images.<p>

<b>Push Processing.</b> Push processing involves

overdevelopment of film to increase the effective speed and

increase the density of underexposed images. Just as

overdevelopment increases image density, it will also

increase the density of any fog, including x-ray fog.

Limiting x-ray exposure is increasingly important for film

that may be subject to underexposure or push processing.</i><p>

 

This is from <A HREF="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis98/cis98.pdf">

this PDF</A> at the Kodak site. You're welcome.<p>

 

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...