Rob F. Posted March 1, 2001 Share Posted March 1, 2001 I think that most security "officers" work for minimum wage or close to it. In my experience their training is minimal. So is their intelligence and education--otherwise, they would be doing something better. They are "officers" in the same sense that bank tellers are bank officers. I think that in such a position, a person would be afraid of making a mistake that could lives; or their jobs, so prefer to err on the side of caution. It would help to have a uniform international policy for inspection of cameras and film, but I suspect it's too small a matter for governments to get excited about, unless enough of us start writing letters. Any takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor_lioce Posted March 2, 2001 Share Posted March 2, 2001 When I was in college, I had a metal film can with 100 ft. of 35mm bulk transparency film that I didn't want to go through the x-ray machine because I was going to be shooting it for graded assignments. I asked for hand inspection and they wouldn't give me one. I even offered to go with someone onto a dark room and let them feel inside the can to insure there were no explosives! Finally, I asked to speak to the guard's shift supervisor, and presented the same arguement. After 20 minutes of disscussion, the supervisor stated to the guard, "Just let him take the film, and if the plane blows up, then we know who did it!" I guess persistance can pay off, but I wonder what would have happened if they had delayed me to the point of missing my flight? I probably would have caved and sent the airline a bill for the damaged film. It's hard to make that kind of call when you are going to be critiqued on color balance. Print film is easier to correct. Transparancies, on the other hand, are quite a different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted March 2, 2001 Share Posted March 2, 2001 During my Mexico trip in May 2000, the Mexico City airport customs did run my bag through their X-ray. I had a dozen rolls of color film ranging from Velvia through Fujichrome 200. They were all in a lead bag. There was no perceptible fogging of any of my rolls. I've had no damage from X-rays in the US, either. This all applies to carryon baggage only. I don't put film in checked baggage, as I understand it's a bad idea, with stronger X-rays being used there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernie_fosse Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 The only piece of luggage I carry onto an airplane is my Photo Trekker backpack. It carries a 35mm body with 2 lenses, a MF body with two lenses, 3 MF backs, a light meter, a toothbrush and an extra change of underwear. I generally carry about 30-50 rolls of 120 and 15-20 rolls of 135(Kodak Portra NC 160, Ektachrome 100, Fuji NPH 400, and NHGII 800). I pack it all in 1 gallon zip-lock bags, and put it in the soft pocket on the outside of the back-pack. (I also carry an extra baggy for exposed film.) When I get to the X-Ray machine, I take the film out of the back-pack, send the cameras through, and ask for hand inspection of the film. I have never been refused a hand inspection in Seattle (where I depart from), and I think most USA airports will grant you a hand-inspection of your film (sometimes grudgingly). I have gone through inspection at about a dozen European airports. There appears to be no uniformity regarding the practice of hand inspections. Frankfurt was adamant about X-Raying everything. They did have a sign (in English) on their X-Ray machine that said "Photo Safe through ASA 1000. If the airport does require X-Ray, I send my film through seperately and ask the operator to use the lowest possible power. (I think I do this for my own peace of mind. I don't really believe they change any settings for me -- in fact, since I always ask in English, I'm not really sure that most of them catch the photographic significance of what I'm really requesting.) But the most important thing is that I have *never* had a single case of a fogged negative. I still ask for hand inspections, but I don't push as hard for them anymore. Cheers, Ernie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altaf Posted March 6, 2001 Share Posted March 6, 2001 <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <head> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.75 [en] (Win98; U) [Netscape]"> </head> <body> If you use a very large windbreaker with those giant front pockets i can carry easily a 100 rolls of 220 with me onto a plane, I do tend to look a bit distorted but usually you can get it on the plane with no problem. Make sure to just have all the film in ziplock bags for easy inspection. <p>Altaf Shaikh <br><a href="http://www.usefilm.com">http://www.usefilm.com</a> <br>Projects for photographers </body> </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_craig Posted March 6, 2001 Share Posted March 6, 2001 I have just noticed this fairly old but still breathing thread and am only adding to it because something confuses me. Are you sure that the operatives of carry on baggage X-ray machines have that much discretion to turn up the power? I can imagine them having say 2 or 3 levels within a narrow band but surely any greater latitude would be a health risk? - remember these are security staff not trained radiologists. I have never had a fogging problem but I've never carried anything above 400ASA, which is a limitation. I use lead bags and now and again the staff ask to examine the contents because the X-ray can't see through it. BTW I don't believe the variations in practice/attitude on hand searches between US and Europe have anything to do with "Europe having more terrorism"; objectively this just isn't so. And by the way, Scott Eaton, if US authorities did something about those little collecting tins passed around Irish American bars, then there wouldn't be so many terrorists to catch here in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_m._young Posted March 7, 2001 Share Posted March 7, 2001 Hey guys.... it's a simple solution. DHL. You pack the box in front of them, tell them no x-ray, and the package is waiting for you when you get there. If you don't want to process the film while you're there... DHL back again. I'll tell ya, it's cheap insurance and you're guarenteed no x-ray problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_brightwell1 Posted March 7, 2001 Share Posted March 7, 2001 David... I was interested in your DHL comment. Do you have to go to a DHL office, or will DHL come to your location to pick it up, and can you pack the box in front of the driver? Is the idea that the box is in DHL's control the entire time, or could it get x-rayed by customs officials without DHL knowing? Would Fed Ex work the same way, or only DHL? Anyone know if Fed Ex x-rays inside the USA? Thanks, Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_m._young Posted March 8, 2001 Share Posted March 8, 2001 Well, I use DHL for international. I've sent various things many times and they're consistently the fastest, cheapest, and most relaiable. I happen to go to the office, but if you have a question about it, call 'em up and ask. As a side note, I noticed that DHL is the carrier for the US Postal Service's "global express mail", so I'd guess you can go to any post office and get the same service. I also use the Post Office's Express Mail for domestic. They don't x-ray either, and it's cheap and fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_woods1 Posted March 9, 2001 Share Posted March 9, 2001 While I have never had a problem having film hand-inspected on request in the U.S., the same is not true of European airports. There are no consistent policies in Europe, even within the same country, or even in the same airport, respecting hand inspection of photographic film in lieu of X-ray inspction. I've arrived at the conclusion that policies and laws purportedly eliminating the right to have film hand inspected are not to blame, but rather the generally surly attitude of European service personnel. This attitude seems to reach its zenith in places like Holland and Germany. Hand inspecting film takes time and effort, something European airport personnel are generally loath to expend. There's nothing in the exercise of hand inspection for them. Nevertheless, I have developed countermeasures to the European hand inspection problem. First, carry all 120/220 film in your pockets and onto the plane. Second, place all 35mm film in clear plastic bags without plastic canisters. This way the film is easy to inspect, just in case your polite entreaties to airport personnel turn out to be successful (which can actually happen if you are lucky enough to meet an airport employee who actually enjoys working). Third, and in case the second stratgy does not work, write numbers like "3200" on the film cans themselves and tell the airport personnel that you are pushing your film to ISO or ASA 3200, which is one stop faster than the best "safe" X-ray machine now being used in Europe. This last countermeasure has failed me only once (in Belgium). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_craig Posted March 9, 2001 Share Posted March 9, 2001 Tom, I agree, speaking as a European, that the unwillingness to hand inspect film is a staff attitude problem, but more usually that of management rather than front line staff who have not been briefed to do anything other than X-ray everything. After a series of tests about 2 years ago, conducted on behalf of the British Journal of Photography and BAA (who run most but not all major UK airports), it was agreed professionals would get a hand search if this was requested in advance (how!?); however, this just hasn't been implemented or BAA have reneged on their commitment. BTW I ahven't come across many security staff at UK airports who are familiar with concepts like 3200ASA or pushing film (they might offer you a trolley)[bTW also, as an "alien" entering the US, the immigration staff at Miami beat anything in Europe hands down for surliness,rudeness, hostility, lack of humour and extreme pettiness] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_woods1 Posted March 10, 2001 Share Posted March 10, 2001 Nigel, US Customs seems to have developed a well-deserved and nearly universal reputation for aggressive hostility towards "aliens" that goes considerably beyond the mere surly. While you may have your film hand-inspected in the US, you might also wind up being subjected to a full body cavity search for lipping off to Customs Agents, not to mention the risk of being shot with a sawn-off shotgun in the K-Mart parking lot after you clear customs. Such problems can be neatly avoided by flying to Winnipeg and entering the U.S. through the North Dakota or Minnesota borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher_zibert Posted November 29, 2001 Share Posted November 29, 2001 I heard that coating is thinner on APS 240 film making it more suceptible for Xray fogging. Is this true?? Any suggestions?? I hope my three months in Europe aren't wrecked when I leave Heathrow in a couple of weeks with all of my photos. Best, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_segal1 Posted November 29, 2001 Share Posted November 29, 2001 If so, it's not because of the shielding effect of the emulsion. Otherwise we could use film to protect other stuff from x-rays! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Just because the film will recieve a dose of cosmic rays at altitude doesn't mean it's a great idea to nuke it some more on the ground ;) The emulsion will stop some X-rays because of its silver content. <p> Try to avoid the X-rays period! Under the Code of Federal Regulations, film doesn't have to be x-rayed in US airports (except maybe film backs)! It does not matter what speed it is. It can all be hand checked if you like. Print out the regulations 49CFR1544.211(e)(4) to show the screeners! There is too much information on my page to put here. Here is how to avoid the X-ray machine: Check my page on it! Here is your definate answer to x-raying in airports. There are links to all the relevant regulations for printing along with an explanation of the federal structure and tips to make things go easier: <a href="http://home.kc.rr.com/aaronphoto/xray.html">http://home.kc.rr.com/aaronphoto/xray.html</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 As to the gentleman who wondered why 35mm would set off the metal detector but not his fillings... I believe 35mm containers are made of a ferrous material whereas his mercury filling are not magnetic at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now