Shipping film.

I recently won a auction on ebay for three tins of tri-x (old). I am

in Canada and the seller is in the US. Could anyone tell me how to

have it shipped it so it is not damaged by x-rays.

 

Thanks

I'd have the seller ask the post office clerk if packages are x-rayed in either country, and if

mailing film is a concern. I'd also insure it. I've found postal clerks in both countries to

generally be knowledgeable and helpful in this regard.

Who says tri-X can be damaged by X-rays anyway?

Macman, what planet are you from? Of course Tri-X will be damaged by x-rays in sufficient dose. What's sufficient? BTSOOM, I'm no expert in radiation or radiation fogging of film. However: it's reasonably well known that US carry-on baggage x-rays won't damage Tri-X in a reasonable number of passes, but check bag x-rays sometimes damage film in a single pass ("sometimes" likely because not all bags are x-rayed at any given terminal).

 

Robert, within the US, it seems to work well to mark the packaging "Photographic Film -- No X-Ray" or similar, prominently on all faces of the box. During high security alerts, such a package might be opened for inspection, but if the tins are marked with original Kodak labeling and sealed with original tape, they're unlikely to open the tins (though they are likely to swab the exterior to test for whatever they're alerted over). For international mail, even to Canada, I wouldn't count on that label.

 

Simplest, if you're close to the border, might be to make arrangements to have the package sent to a UPS Store (formerly Mailboxes Etc.) on the US side for you to cross over and collect. Then you can deal with any customs issues (probably no big deal, based on value of old film) in person as well, and avoid border delays due to all Canada Post from outside the country going via a storage box in Ottawa.

In 1994 the National Association of Photographic Manufacturers in the USA? (NAPM)

conducted an extensive study - in?conjunction with the country's civil aviation body, the

FAA (Federal Aviation Agency) - on the effects of X-ray scanning on photographic Film.

Testing was conducted at the FAA's Technical Center in Atlantic City (New Jersey) using

machines identical to those in all FAA-controlled airports in the USA and representative of

models installed in all the world's major international airports. The NAPM tests were

conducted in co-operation with Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, Konica, Ilford and 3M who each

supplied 500 rolls of 35mm film -- color negative, color reversal and B&W - ranging in

speed from ISO 50 to 1600. These were then grouped in batches that received one, four,

16 or 100 X-ray inspections at the FAA prescribed dosage of no more than one

milliroentgen. Films were also pushed and pulled up to two stops in an effort to replicate

what NAPM termed a worst case scenario; namely a professional photographer traveling

through a number of airports carrying films of widely different speed ratings with all the

cassettes closely packed in a container or bag.

 

The test results indicated that, in the case of color transparency films rated between ISO

50 and 1600, up to 16 passes through the scanner didn't do any damage at all. After 100

scans only the highest speed emulsions exhibited some slight effects, and then only

detectable in the D-Max areas. B&W films were similarly unaffected up to 16 scans even

when pushed to ISO 3200.

 

The findings on color negative emulsions showed that 16 X-ray inspections produced no

discernible damage and, after 100 passes, it was still difficult to detect any damage, but

that "discriminatingviewers" might be able to notice some slight effects in "demanding

scenes".

 

According to the Fuji representative who took part in the study, it was virtually impossible

to see any evidence of X-ray damage even when a high speed film was subjected to the

worst case scenario in terms of exposure and the way the cassettes were stacked and

scanned.

 

The findings on color negative emulsions showed that 16 X-ray inspections produced no

discernible damage and, after 100 passes, it was still difficult to detect any damage, but

that "discriminatingviewers" might be able to notice some slight effects in "demanding

scenes".

 

The findings on color negative emulsions showed that 16 X-ray inspections produced no

discernible damage and, after 100 passes, it was still difficult to detect any damage, but

that "discriminatingviewers" might be able to notice some slight effects in "demanding

scenes".

 

In the UK, a similar study by the British Photographer's Liaison Committee (a group of

various industry and professional organizations) reported similar findings to NAPM.? The

UK tests involved 300 rolls of films from each of the major manufacturers,spanning

speeds from ISO 50 to 3200.? These were subjected to a maximum of 32 X-ray inspections

in a scanner of the type used by the British Airports Authority (BAA) which operates the

majority of the UK's major airports.? The UK report concluded that no visible damage

resulted from "routine hand baggage??examination under normal traveling conditions.

Okay, so now you're saying Tri-X *can* be damaged by x-rays, and providing some quantitative information on how much it takes. That's much more useful than your previous post.

 

BTW, it's also worth noting that air terminal x-ray machines, and those used by postal systems, outside the United States might well have higher doses per inspection than those in FAA controlled terminals. Higher dose per inspection naturally means fewer inspections will cause detectable damage.

Macman, you may want to look at <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml">this</a> and <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis98/cis98.jhtml"> this</a>.

I'd want to see something more recent than a 10-year-old NAPM study. Security concerns have changed significantly since 1994 and so may have practices.

 

Unfortunately I could find nothing specific on the USPS website addressing whether or under what conditions parcels might be subjected to X-rays. The only Kodak document I could find regarding the USPS and handling of film was in relation to sanitizing certain articles as a result of the anthrax scare:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/aboutKodak/sanitize.shtml

 

There may be more current and relevant information on Kodak's labyrinthine website but some effort would be required to dig it out.

 

You have two options:

 

1. Ask the seller to enclose the film in a lead-lined bag, hoping that if postal authorities do X-ray the parcel and see the odd shape they'll recognize it as film after opening and inspecting the package and won't expose the film itself.

 

2. Ask the seller to simply label the parcel as light sensitive film, please do not open or X-ray.

 

Whether this will work is anyone's guess.

Some american pop photo rag (maybe even pop photo, I don't recall)

did a one page piece on x-ray damage in, I would guess, 2000. I

BELIEVE, anyways, that it was just before sept. 11. They took the

same portrait (a reallly bad one) on several rolls some colour neg.

film. They then stuck those rolls in

suitcases through checked luggage x-rays a variety of time, then had

them processed and printed. One pass showed minor fogging and

discolouration. After something like four or five passes the

picture was almost completely fogged out. The above tests

(mentioned by Mr. Macman) may have been on carry-on grade x-rays.

The question is, what's used on cargo? (if anything)

I found this on the USPS website <a href="http://www.usps.com/news/facts/lfu_012902.htm">here</a>:

<p>

"The FDA has extensively evaluated the safety of irradiation and found that using irradiation destroys disease-causing germs. Dangerous substances are not created. Irradiation can adversely affect some mailable products, such as biological samples, diagnostic kits, photographic film, food, eyeglasses and contact lenses. Electronic devices would likely be rendered inoperable and drugs and medicines also can be affected."

<p>

Kodak, <a href="http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/xrays_airport.jhtml">here</a> says:

<p>

"The United States Postal Service is installing new equipment to sterilize items sent through the mail. For security reasons, they are not disclosing whether this process will be limited to letters, or if parcels and other packages will also be included.

<p>

Until further tests are conducted, it would be wise to assume that the high energy beams used in the sterilization equipment will fog or damage all film - processed or unprocessed, exposed or unexposed, negative or print. In addition, photographic prints, slides, DVDs, picture CDs, CD-ROMs, video tapes and even the CCD sensors in video cameras and other products may be affected. Because those materials often contain valuable - and sometimes, irreplaceable, images - Kodak recommends that you err on the side of caution until more information is available.

<p>

All imaging materials should be sent via a courier or an express air shipping company that does not use the US postal system. Local laboratories may have additional information and/or offer alternative shipping arrangements."

<p>

So, they seem to think you should avoid USPS for sending film. Since so many people use mailers just fine, I assume they don't sanitize small envelopes, or envelopes that are obviously film mailers. I have recieved several packages of expired film from people off ebay, without there being any markings on the package that it included film. None of it has gone over the border, however. I can't remember what mailing service it used; I think it was UPS, not USPS.

We've been shipping film to Canada regularly for 2 years by USPS marked "Photographic Film - Do Not X-Ray" and have never had a problem. The odds are that it will be fine and not X-Rayed.