120 film and airport scanners

[bruce_erickson1]

Unexposed 120 roll film (from Kodak) is wound on a plastic spool and

comes in an opaque plastic foil. It seems to me that one could put

one or more rolls of this film in one's pocket at the airport

security check in and walk through the magnetic metal detector

without problem, thereby avoiding the X-ray scanners. Is it

possible that the silver metal content of the film would set of the

metal detector?!?! Anyway has anyone carried 120 film this way

through the metal detector?

[jeff.grant]

Why bother? As long as the film isn't in your checked luggage, it shouldn't be a problem. Hand baggage scanners are meant to be film-safe and that is certainly my experience.

[simonpg]

Bruce, NEVER NEVER put film on your person in pockets or anywhere and walk through an airport metal detector - I'm read in various travel advisory publications it's a sure way to ruin your film due to the type of

 

Just put your film in your hand luggage and let it go through the hand luggage scanner. This is generall safe for even up to 1600ASA film from my experience; and certainly safe up to 400ASA. Some machines have a sign showing the safe limits and newer machines now seem to be safe up to 1600asa (I've done it many times and have never had a problem).

 

If you have film faster than 400 ASA ask for hand inspection to avoid the xray of hand luggage; some may refuse depending upon the individual and how busy they are. Most are obliging.

 

Some photo web sites say that metal detectors can be more damaging to film than an xray machine.

 

It's also wise NOT to put film in your check-in luggage because it is generally subjected to far heavier doses of xray these days.

[shay_ohayon]

I always request a hand inspection, and security workers always agree (even in forgotten coutries like Egypt...)

 

I had only one problem, when I carried Kodak HIE (infrared film), since it cannot even be exposed to daylight. The security officer finally (after much discussion) agreed to "feel" it inside my darkbag (Always handy to bring one with you...).

 

Shay

[elliot_n]

120 film will not set off the metal detector, so yes, you can stuff your trouser pockets and

thereby avoid the x-ray machine. I've done this often, but it's probably not advisable in the

current security climate. anyway, if you ask right, you can normally get a handsearch. (it's

news to me that metal-detectors damage film. references?)

[mike dixon]

Don't forget to store your film in a containter with thick lead walls (a couple of inches all around should be enough) to protect it from the higher levels of radiation you'll be exposed to during flight! After all, if you're going to be irrationally paranoid about x-ray damage to your film, you might as well do it up right.

[david_holland1]

I have never been able to get a hand inspection in Europe, where all of the security personnel are photo experts who will assure you that regardless of film speed it will require more than 20 passes through security in order to affect the film at all.

[OCULUS New York]

I requested hand inspection of my equipment, with unopened propacks in a clear plastic zippered container. This took forever, even after I had been hand-inspected. Only then did I discover that the bozos sliced open EVERY wrapped film spool container in sealed Pro Packs, and then swabbed them. I was furious and reminded them that these 20 rolls of 220 film could no longer be stored in a refrigerator.

 

I should have put it through the luggage scanner, but they would have inspected the cameras and lenses anyway. Go to the air traffic safety web site and read their recommendations. In short, they say one pass will not damage normal film. My concern was that I might have multiple screenings, but that was not required as my flights interconnected directly.

 

So, take you chances, but be prepared for your FILM's SECURITY to be breached by these dopes, who finally asked: "What's this? (Rolleiflex 6003 body) and then lamely said, "Oh, you must be... like a photographer..."

 

Yeah, exactly.

 

Ray Hull

[herve_laurent]

Hello everyone

I want to bring some feedback to this post since I have studied this problem carefully and

travel often to Europe where hand inspection is almost always refused

First, it is incorrect to say that the metal detector would do anything to the film. while it

would demagnetize your audio and video tapes, it is absolutely harmless to photo films

Secondly, it is incorrect to state that new x-ray machines for inspection are harmless for

films. while it is true that the chances of damage would not show on one or two passages

through the machine for films up to 400 asa, the important thing to remember is that the

X-ray effect is CUMULATIVE. in other words , when you have multiple flights , connections

or simply when you have films for the previous trip, it WILL DAMAGE YOUR FILMS

this is not up for debate. all serious tests establish that without a doubt

this is why you must buy a lead bag for times when you want to travel abroad

Finally , never never put undeveloped films through the X-ray of checked luggage

the X ray dosage is such that it would fogg the films regardless of the ASA sensitivity

the administration admits it plainly and you see a lot of signs advising you not to put films

in checked luggage

feel free if you have any questions

[herve_laurent]

hello bruce

I also forgot one comment. while the metal detector are harmless, the staff at the control will

probably give you a hard time if you go through the metal detector and insist then on having

the films go through the x ray

in the us and canada you are better off asking for a hand inspection.sometimes they insist

that it is harmless for films up to 800 or 1000 iso but in the us I have never had a staff

member refuse a hand search and believe me I have asked many many times

[Brian]

Herve, what I would like you to do is to post some images from your air-traveled 120 film showing x-ray damage. The matter is very much open to debate because evidence for damage is very hard to find. If you've got some, you'll be doing us all a service by sharing it.

[mike dixon]

<i>the important thing to remember is that the X-ray effect is CUMULATIVE. in other words , when you have multiple flights , connections or simply when you have films for the previous trip, it WILL DAMAGE YOUR FILMS this is not up for debate. all serious tests establish that without a doubt</i><P>

Can you cite the sources for these serious tests? I've had rolls of film make multiple passes through carry-on scanners with absolutely no noticeable effect. I travel overseas (with connecting flights) regularly, so this is an issue of real concern. I'd like to see the tests you mention.

[bruce_erickson1]

Thank you all for your replys. I guess I will just put the film in the camera bag I will be carrying and let 'em zap it at the check point. The highest rated film I use 400 ASA. Getting a 1 in. thick lead box did sound tempting though.

[david_henderson]

Mr Laurent . You can say what you want and quote what you want. I have enough personal experience and input from other regular travelling photographers to know that what you're saying is frankly just scare-mongering. You can dig up as much so-called research as you like and until my films (which are never hand inspected and always go through the carry on scanner) are visibly damaged I'll just continue to believe that posts like yours are misleading. I remind you that in the UK its virtually impossible to get a hand check on anything other than extremely fast film. Our photographers still fly and their photographs don't show signs of damage. Our industry here has not fallen apart. Photographers continue to place their reputations and their incomes on the line. Do you think they'd do that if they were getting their film damaged?

 

If you can show or otherwise direct us to evidence of actual damage to medium and slow film suffered by real photographers in carry on X ray, I'll listen to you. So far no-one on photo.net seems to have done that and this topic comes up very frequently.

[nickolystephens]

I agree with the comment that you can run them through the carry on scanners without any trouble. Recently I went on a trip - 8 passes through the security scanners with undeveloped film - some of it was TMax3200 and all of it was undeveloped.

 

No issues with image or fogging at all.

 

my2cents....

[35mmdelux]

put your film in a protective film bag. 50 rolls won't fit in my pocket. If it has metal covering it will set off the alarm, almost anything will.

[nathaniel_pearson]

I always request a hand-scan just to be safe (the light-based scanners vary airport-

to-airport anyway). If they need to open sealed boxes/film wrappers, so be it -- I

don't take it as a slight, but as a good sign that they take my own safety seriously.

The gas chromatograph technology is quick and fairly convenient for both parties.

 

That said, I think airport screener corps/companies could benefit from a short

educational seminar about photo gear. The 'look-through-the-viewfinder-to-see-if-

it's-a-real-camera' test just doesn't cut it, in my book -- this is a bad potential

loophole for would-be baddies, especially with the huge supply of cheap old (read:

unfamiliar) cameras out there that could be readily stuffed with something other than

film (who knows what is being developed to beat the GC detector?), and still let a

viewfinder (often not even TTL) image through.

 

I think screeners should know, for example, how to ask a camera-owner to remove

any interchangeable lens, and even to rewind any exposed film in a 35mm camera in

order to inspect the inside. If a screener or two were trained in using a film leader

retriever well, even the most automated P&S could be inspected quickly this way

(although some of them might not be able to shoot the required blank shots to get

back to where the film was).

 

It's tougher to know what to do about medium format gear that's already loaded with

'film', especially if there's no red window. But why not at least implement some more

knowledgeable screening for 35mm gear, if just as a deterrent to ne'erdowells?

[nathaniel_pearson]

Also, re. 'evidence':

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml#SEC47

[elliot_n]

Re. tests / evidence

 

The British Journal of Photography ran extensive tests on carry-on x-rays scanners a few

years ago.

 

They concluded that photographers should not be concerned.

 

They did however show examples of image degradation that resulted when a film had

been scanned 30 or 40 times.

 

Maybe someone else can recall the exact details of the test (e.g. the speed of the film that

got degraded).

[mike dixon]

Note that the 'evidence' link in Nathaniel Pearson's post takes you to examples of what can happen with high-dose scanners used for checked baggage. I was asking for evidence that carry-on baggage scanners will harm 400-speed (and slower) film.

[elliot_n]

Ok, Mike, I looked it up.

 

Here's a fairly detailed summary of the BJP's findings:

 

http://www.pdngallery.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000753

 

My impression is that the tests were thorough and that the conclusions are worth noting.

[david_henderson]

Nathaniel Pearson. I'm sure you are aware that the examples you show are from two different types of scanner used for checked baggage, not carry-on X Ray.

[mike dixon]

Elliot, thanks for the link.

[conrad_hoffman]

Not a clue on most of this, but a couple comments. When I last flew a few years ago, multiple passes through the check-in scanner did no detectable damage to medium speed films. As for silver metal content of films, I believe it's zero. The silver is in the form of halides, and no metallic silver is present until development. Thus the phrase "reduced to metallic silver". Finally, unless the security people now have their MDs, and the metal detectors are actually x-raying people, there is no way a magnetic metal detector will damage film. Further, magnetic fields drop off so rapidly, it's doubtful that magnetic storage media could be damaged unless it was right up against the coils of the machine. (It will, however, trigger the machines.) Sure, the potential for damage exists in theory, but I doubt you'll find any more hard evidence of that, than of the check-in x-ray machines damaging film.

[nathaniel_pearson]

Mike, to be clear, I did post the link expressly to try to get to all the 'evidence' about

the question, not just to show the damning evidence for checked bag-scanners

(which had already been mentioned). For those who don't go to the link, it does

expressly find that a single run through a typical 'carry-on' scanner does -not-

saliently fog most types of film. The document dates to 2003 (which is, of course,

after 2001 but before 2005).

 

All that said, the reason I still request hand-checks is that any upgrading of carry-on

scanners will likely -not- be announced publicly; to me, the risk of them boosting the

radiation flux on my bags is enough to merit the mild hassle of getting a hand-check.