Super 8 and airport x-ray machines

[skyhook]

Hi, I recently shot my first cartridge of super-8 whilst in Montenegro over Christmas.
I flew back from Croatia and forgot to put my exposed cartridge in my checked baggage, so it went with my hand baggage.
What is the deal with x-ray machines now - surely they don't just blitz all exposed film at this day in age? (And don't checked bags get x-rayed anyway?)
Dubrovnik airport is newly refurbished and they weren't using old machines as far as i could tell. Plus i put the cartridge back in the foilesque bag it was sent in. The film is Kodak E64T.

Fingers crossed I haven't wasted all my time shooting that first cartridge.

Any advice much appreciated, cheers
Chris

[S8 Booster]

http://www.filmshooting.com/index.php?o ... Itemid=154

[cubdukat]

I had to deal with this issue this past August when I went to L. A.. I had won an auction for a Pro8mm production package that had not been used, and the film was quite old. I decided that it would be a good thing to have them hand-inspect nine cartridges of 50D and 100T film, since hand inspection is really your only option if you insist on taking film with you.

Big mistake.

I nearly missed my flight, because when you force the TSA to actually do their job, they tend to make you sorry you asked. As I was.

Moral of the story: Avoid taking film with you through the airport, and if you absolutely have no choice, get there seriously early and demand a hand inspection. Just know that you're going to be there a while if you have a lot. And finally, DO NOT let them send your film through ANY X-ray machine, regardless of what speed it is. ALL speeds of film are affected, though with the slower speeds, it's more of a cumulative effect and not immediate like with faster films.

For my next trip in L. A., I'm buying all my stock there and shooting it all there so that I'm not taking anything with me but the cameras.

[aj]

Why all this self inflicted troubles?

Standard ISO film (i.e. 400 and lower) is not inflicted by modern 'röntgen' machines. Neither 35mm still nor super-8. The machines operate a very low radiation level and only intermittently.

You could easily have your films scanned 10 times and still nothing would show.

[TheCircus]

I second that.
My 20 rolls of E64 went through xray machines 12 times from Sweden to Mozambique (and back again) witout any fogging or problems. Just take them with your hand baggage and youre safe!

/ Tony

[steve hyde]

..its true. the hand bag scan won't hurt your film. If you left your film in your checked baggage, you might see some x-ray damage since the high-powered x-rays are used on checked bags.

[etimh]

Like others have said, it doesn't really matter that much taking it in your carry-ons, but you can still try and ask for hand inspection if you're nervous about it--just be prepared for a variety of responses. I always ask for it just for the hell of it and have had experiences across the spectrum--sometimes there is absolutely no problem and a cool person will happily look through the boxes and pass them back to you (last trip through LAX). Sometimes they'll do it but are real pissy about it, take a while, and tear open all of the film packaging (last year at JFK). And sometimes they will flat out REFUSE to do it and no amount of insisting will change their mind (EVERYTIME at Sea-tac). There doesn't seem to be a universal policy for all airports.

Tim

[steve hyde]

...true. SeaTac insists on scanning and I don't fight with them about it. I've gotten hand-checks in Toronto and Lima, PE. with no problems.

[superadio]

I have been nervous that my films gona be ruined by those x-ray machines too. When going thru Amsterdam airport Shiphool, i asked them to not send the films thru. The answhere i got was: Run them thru, or you can throw them in the garbage container behind you. Its up to you mister. So I hope its ok this time as well.

[cubdukat]

Why all this self inflicted troubles?

Standard ISO film (i.e. 400 and lower) is not inflicted by modern 'röntgen' machines. Neither 35mm still nor super-8. The machines operate a very low radiation level and only intermittently.

You could easily have your films scanned 10 times and still nothing would show.

Actually, Popular Photography did a test on this a few years back and found out something completely different. Films ISO 200 and slower aren't immediately affected, but it is a cumulative effect that does build up. But ISO 400 and greater is affected outright. In fact, I can show you examples of that from my own personal experience. And ALL films are affected by the scanner that handles checked bags.

So, my original recommendation that you take no film at all with you unless you intend to demand a hand inspection stands. And I noticed in a later post that someone said that there's not a uniform policy. Actually, there is. According to the TSA regs, if you request a hand inspection, you are completely within your rights to do so and they HAVE to honor that. Just know that they will make you regret it. It's irrelevant what the individual airport policy is; TSA regs trump that.

Admittedly it's probably not really worth it to challenge this, but don't just let them walk all over you. The only reason they get away with it is that not enough people call them on it.a

[aj]

Please name the year and number of the magazine with the article.
Few years is like?? 20-30??

Last few years people are frightened over their memory chips. Especially in popular photography.

It is complete nonsense.

I have travelled with ISO 3200 films in my camerabag and even in a suitcase. Also ISO 400 never had any trouble. And neither did standard ISO like 100-200. And this is travelling through Africa where machines weren't all that modern.

Other people haven't had any trouble in years of travelling either and you alone have had multiple experiences?

If you would want to inflict damage on purpose it takes a lot of effort to get any effect.

[Angus]

Kodak have tests on their site.

I have travelled a lot, with 35mm print, slide, B&W film and with super 8 (K40, 64T, 200T) and never had any visible problems. OK so I am not a professional but I think I would notice. Some of my films have been throuhg 6 different airports in order to get "there and back" and I've never noticed anything untoward.

The thing is, do take your film in your CARRY ON bag. Don't ever put it in your suitcase. The machines they scan your checked bags (suitcases) with - especially in the USA - use a much higher dosage of radiation. Plus they tend to blast anything electronic several times to be sure its not suspicious. If your film is stored near your camera, you'll be subjecting it to several scans by quite high intensity x-rays.

The scanners for hand baggage are less intense, as there is an actual live person looking at the scan. Generally your bag goes through once per airport and that's it. They can recognise the film and know its not dangerous.

As for the notion that 400ASA film was damaged on the first scan...I am not sure what drugs the writer of the article was taking but I've put Ilford Delta 3200 through several hand baggage x-rays, pushed to 12,800ASA without noticing any aftifacts from the x-rays.

If you are shooting pro, you might want to mail your film to your final destination if you're worried. On the other hand, the fact that you have to take film in your hand baggage means you can whip out your compact super 8 in the cabin and film from the windows

[cubdukat]

Please name the year and number of the magazine with the article.
Few years is like?? 20-30??

Last few years people are frightened over their memory chips. Especially in popular photography.

It is complete nonsense.

I have travelled with ISO 3200 films in my camerabag and even in a suitcase. Also ISO 400 never had any trouble. And neither did standard ISO like 100-200. And this is travelling through Africa where machines weren't all that modern.

Other people haven't had any trouble in years of travelling either and you alone have had multiple experiences?

If you would want to inflict damage on purpose it takes a lot of effort to get any effect.

Actually, it was five years ago.

Here's the link:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameraaccessori ... urity.html

And I still insist that if you want to take film through an X-ray machine, you're playing Russian Roulette. True, you've probably done it thousands of times before without ill effects, but what about Time one-thousand and one? Why risk it, especially if you make your living off what you shoot? Yeah, it's a hassle and it takes more time, but how much more time will you save when you have to reshoot stuff after you discover the airport nuked your footage--and that's assuming that you actually can reshoot.

[Will2]

I can say for certain the checked baggage scanners will hurt 500ASA film and severely harm 200ASA negative. 16mm & Super 8. I lost some irreplaceable footage by packing it in a suitcase about 5 years ago. My mistake.

On hand checked baggage I was told that the scanner user can "turn up" the intensity when they encounter something they don't see through at first. Perhaps that accounts for the variable experiences people have with film passing through them.

After bad real experiences, I just make it a habit to fill out FedEx forms before I leave on a shoot so I'm ready to ship the film when the project is done. I also just have Kodak or Fuji drop ship the film to the venue or hotel when I need it.

[Bob2099]

Actually, it was five years ago.

Here's the link:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameraaccessori ... urity.html

And I still insist that if you want to take film through an X-ray machine, you're playing Russian Roulette. True, you've probably done it thousands of times before without ill effects, but what about Time one-thousand and one? Why risk it, especially if you make your living off what you shoot? Yeah, it's a hassle and it takes more time, but how much more time will you save when you have to reshoot stuff after you discover the airport nuked your footage--and that's assuming that you actually can reshoot.

That article kind of disproves your point. The only comment given on the effect of the hand-luggage scanner on film is this one: "Our film had six passes through hand-luggage X-rays, and none showed any degradation."
What's written in the next sentence about the cumulative effect of X-rays is a known fact, but the writer has already noted that the cumulative radiation of six passes did not show any damage to the film. When he writes "six or more passes can do damage" it's not based on anything he himself observed.