Film, Airport X-rays - Postage alternative?

[nathan_cohen]

Hi David,

 

I recognize that you are a man of strong opinions, however I do request that you kindly do not convey them with the intention of them being at my expense. It is improper in the context of this forum.

 

If you do not feel that my methodology is acceptable protocol, then kindly enlighten us all as to the flaw(s). As it stands, there are many here who have received the impression that you have called my effort pseudo science.

 

Why is it pseudo science David?

 

Isn't your true meaning one of subjectivity: your subjective experience has allowed you to decide--for yourself--that the order of magnitude of the fogging effect is not important to your photgraphic decisions. I appreciate that. That's just dandy to me my friend.

 

However, there is an objective effect and for some of us, it is not an acceptable risk. Best wishes.

[ligia_dovale_kiamco]

Resuming, is it what John Shaw and Joe VanOs say be the bible? They are professionals whose job depends on those scanners and who travel more for photography than any of us.

[ShunCheung]

Ligia, while my name probably shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentense as John Shaw's, based on my experience, you can safely update your web page to indicate that even ISO 400 film can go through 15 scans on modern airport X-Ray machines for carry on bags, with absolutely no visible damage. In fact, the leaders in my recent Arctic Norway trip were none other than Joe Van Os, John Shaw, along with Canadian wildlife photographer Wayne Lynch, etc. As usual in these trips, the topic of airport security X ray came up, and none of them has had any problems as long as you hand carry your film. Van Os travels 8 months in a year, leading photo trips to all over the world. Here is <A HREF="http://www.photosafaris.com/FlyingWithPhotoGear.asp">an arcicle by Van Os</A> on traveling for nature photographers in the post-September 11 world, including information on carrying film.

<P>

For those who still want to ship their film to their destination, at least within the US, I would use something like FedEx or perhaps UPS. I mail order film from B&H fairly regularly and they (used to) ship by FedEx, and I ship exposed film by FedEx for processing. So far I haven't had any problems, either X Ray damage or loss. I have lost film in US Mail, though. However, I think it is safer to get the film in your hands first, verify that it is the right type, and then ship it to your photo destination yourself. Otherwise, what are you going to do at a remote location if you need Velvia in 135 format and somehow they ship Portra in 120 format? Of course IMO the best way is to hand carry your film and avoid creating unnecessary problems for yourself.

[syd]

Well I must say I am feeling pretty relaxed about carrying my film as hand luggage now, having read much info here and elsewhere. I can't thank those who have contributed to the discussion enough as the price for peace of mind is too great to measure in this regard.

 

Best to you all! Simon

[sergey_oboguev]

Scanners for carry-on and checked-in luggage are very different beasts.

 

Transporting ISO 100-400 film inside CARRY-ON luggage is safe within US and Europe. 10-20 scans (trip legs) and possibly much more will not have any noticeable impact on the film. Space radiation at flight altitude yields much higher dosage than carry-on scanner, but still not enough to fog the film unless, perhaps, you chance to fly at the time of major solar flare. The latter, in any event, is the uneliminatable minimum of risk.

 

However under no circumstances place film in checked-in luggage since checked bags can get scanned with high-intensity scanners such as CTX.

 

If your carry-on happens to be selected for additional CTX scan during security check at the gate, on top of usual carry-on scanner, make sure all film is taken out of it, or it will get toasted.

 

If you have large number of rolls to carry, beyond capacity of carry-on baggage, FedEx is the best option **domestically** within US. They have special green form that gets attached on the box to indicate that contents should not be x-rayed and should be kept away from radioactive materials. To be on the safe side, I usually attach additional strongly worded and visual custom notice, on both sides of the box, saying there is unprocessed professional photographic film inside and it is ok to scan it using only low intensity scanners emitting under 1 millirad, however if scanning with CTX or other high-intensity scanner is required, stop shipping and contact sender immediately. Having green form is helpful in any event since FedEx employees know and recognize it. So far no problems with FedEx within US.

 

I would abstain from FedEx'ing film **internationally** because it would have to go through customs, outside of FedEx control, and just about anything can happen at this point. I can imagine customs can scan with pretty much what they want to. Besides, FedEx in every country has different internal rules (they are independent subsidiaries), so what applies within US may not be valid overseas.

 

When traveling internationally, for small amount of film, either carry it in carry-on luggage or buy it locally.

 

In the latter case, it is better to check on store locations and film availability in advance. I once spent couple of hours walking from one photo store to another in Frankfurt downtown trying to find NPH, without success (you would think that in major city...)

[syd]

Hello gents,

 

Well I've been back from my Spain trip for some months now and I just wanted to say that with 10 trips through the x-rays with all my film, that my Velvia 100F is immaculate and looks as good as the day I shot it. I wanted to follow this thread up and put the footnote in to confirm the safety of this kind of film for travelling photographers.

 

Best, Simon

[edward_isaac]

<p>Just wanted to add a recent experience. Flew from JFK last night to Europe (where I live). Asked for a manual inspection of my rolls of exposed (but unprocessed) 35mm film. The security personnel were more than happy to oblige. They were not exposed to x-rays.</p>