Film and airport security?

Ben_Edict · 12-17-2009, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Cosmo

If you shoot alot of film, it would be a good idea to post it home, maybe mid trip. But make sure to write on the box that it contains film and must not be scanned.

As far as I know, airmail is X-rayed - with much more radiation than your normal luggage. Also checked-in lugguage receives usually a higher dose, than carry-on luggage, so that carry-on is the next best solution to manual contraol.

Ben

woof · 12-17-2009, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

in many countries, officials simply deny manual control. I have had that in the USA, Spain and even Great Britain. The security people simply told me to put the film through the scanner and fly or to insist on manual control and stay grounded...

I have experience just this in several airports in the US. They would not even consider doing manual for film under 800 ASA. In all cases they specifically asked if it was 800 ASA or above and when I said no, they made it clear that it WAS going through x-ray.

woof

ytterbium · 12-17-2009, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by woof

I have experience just this in several airports in the US. They would not even consider doing manual for film under 800 ASA. In all cases they specifically asked if it was 800 ASA or above and when I said no, they made it clear that it WAS going through x-ray.

woof

Does push processing counts?

Vendee · 12-17-2009, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by ytterbium

Does push processing counts?

No, its the native ISO of the emulsion that matters, not the exposure you have given it.

I've been refused a manual check at UK airports but wasn't too bothered because it was only 400 ISO film. I'd not be happy at having something like Delta 3200 x-rayed and I would hold out for a manual check.

Ratmagiclady · 12-17-2009, 11:23 AM

I've only had one not-pleasant experience with the TSA people, (in recent years I'd done more flying around the country than previously in my whole life. But we'd usually fly at off-peak hours out of concern for my health (It just goes a lot easier if we go when I'm not as prone to get badly fatigued, ) and on that particular leg, it was both crazy-busy there at the checkpoint and I *was* pretty tired, so I don't blame the young lady for being snippy. Had the impression she was new to the job and a bit overwhelmed.

In general, if you're all ready for the inspection and thus make it easy on them, they don't seem too picky about the ISO of films that may be in your baggie. (I use a clear makeup purse and generally only carry a few rolls: one place, one of the fellows there actually had an interest in trying some Neopan when he saw mine. Can't beat a fellow film shooter at the booth.

)

But if you make it easy and are friendly, you might reduce the amount of exposure on your trip. The only possible problem I ever detected was from this roll of rather seriously-expired T-max 100 I think actually got exposed to X-rays pretty repeatedly over that time, forgotten in the bag itself. But that's why I wasn't more careful with it, I suppose, it might have been skunked anyway.

stevebrot · 12-17-2009, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by woof

I have experience just this in several airports in the US. They would not even consider doing manual for film under 800 ASA. In all cases they specifically asked if it was 800 ASA or above and when I said no, they made it clear that it WAS going through x-ray.

woof

Does that mean that terrorists only shoot slow film?

Steve

Ben_Edict · 12-17-2009, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by ytterbium

Does push processing counts?

Yes, ofcourse. The final ISO is the determining factor. In push-processing you also increase contrast considerably, so that in fact even slight traces left by the X-ray exposure may be more prominent than in film of the same "official" speed.

(I know I am counterdicting Vendee, sorry, for that...)

Ben

Vendee · 12-17-2009, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

Yes, ofcourse. The final ISO is the determining factor.

Ben

The ISO setting you dial in when pushing is simply an exposure compensation. Exposing a 400 ISO film @ 1600 ISO is no different than using the camera in manual mode and shooting with an aperture two stops smaller than metered.

Its the sensitivity of the emulsion on high ISO films that makes them more prone to x-ray damage.

stevebrot · 12-17-2009, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Vendee

The ISO setting you dial in when pushing is simply an exposure compensation. Exposing a 400 ISO film @ 1600 ISO is no different than using the camera in manual mode and shooting with an aperture two stops smaller than metered.

Its the sensitivity of the emulsion on high ISO films that makes them more prone to x-ray damage.

Except that other half of pushing is to change the development. The Kodak reference indicates that film intended for push-processing is more at risk.

"Push-processing involves over-development of film to increase the effective speed and density of underexposed images on color-negative and black-and-white films. On color-reversal films (slides), push-processing on underexposed images decreases the density range. X-ray exposure has the potential to degrade the quality of images that will be push processed."

Steve

**Just1MoreDave** · 12-17-2009, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Does that mean that terrorists only shoot slow film?

Steve

I hope they don't realize high ISO, APS-C digital and stabilization would give them better results.

Ratmagiclady · 12-17-2009, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

I hope they don't realize high ISO, APS-C digital and stabilization would give them better results.

Hey, back in the day, spies and the like could handhold Exactas with 400/8 preset lenses out car windows at night. You never know what people are capable of. I saw it in movies, really.

Ben_Edict · 12-17-2009, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Vendee

The ISO setting you dial in when pushing is simply an exposure compensation. Exposing a 400 ISO film @ 1600 ISO is no different than using the camera in manual mode and shooting with an aperture two stops smaller than metered.

Its the sensitivity of the emulsion on high ISO films that makes them more prone to x-ray damage.

That's wrong, as stevbrot already pointed out. If you expose a ISO 400 film at ISO 1600 you not only change the exposition, you also have to increase development time (and temperature) to actually make the underexposed latent image visible. And that also increases the vulnerability to X-rays among other things (increased Gamma, increased grain etc.)

"Pushing" the very word, refers to that "pushed" development and not to the exposure. If you step back for a second, you will immediately see, that this must be true, because if you exposed a ISO 400 film at ISO 1600 without push-processing, all you would get is a film 2-stops underexposed...

Ben

redrockcoulee · 12-17-2009, 05:08 PM

My second last trip throught the States involved about 30 rolls of 120 film and six check throughs at airports. At all airports my film was hand checked quickly and politely. In fact I do not think they did anything to it at one airport as they just held the baggies and talked to each other. But the next trip with 35mm film at one airport they refused to hand check and insisted that it was safe so it went in with the stuff from my pockets. Those machines are supposedly safe for up to 6 exposures so it depends on how many times you need to check in,

In Canada it has always been hand checked as well. Be on time and be polite and tell them that you are catching additional flights there and back and are concerned about the cumulitve effects on your film. There used to be on the American site that provides the official policy. Print it out and carry it with your film. It takes time to hand check so do not make the agents feel that they are rushed for time and make it as easy as possible for them, plastic bags film already out of the boxes (not for large format of course) and do not spend the time at the line up looking through your bags for your film. Be prepared, polite and early and your problems should be at a miniumum.

12-17-2009, 01:24 PM	#24
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Vendee The ISO setting you dial in when pushing is simply an exposure compensation. Exposing a 400 ISO film @ 1600 ISO is no different than using the camera in manual mode and shooting with an aperture two stops smaller than metered. Its the sensitivity of the emulsion on high ISO films that makes them more prone to x-ray damage. Except that other half of pushing is to change the development. The Kodak reference indicates that film intended for push-processing is more at risk. "Push-processing involves over-development of film to increase the effective speed and density of underexposed images on color-negative and black-and-white films. On color-reversal films (slides), push-processing on underexposed images decreases the density range. X-ray exposure has the potential to degrade the quality of images that will be push processed." Steve

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's happening with airport security........	Phil1	General Talk	50	01-06-2010 09:34 PM
Airport Security Screening	tpeace	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	06-11-2009 02:17 PM
DSLRs and American airport security?	rpriedhorsky	Photographic Technique	30	04-01-2009 08:21 AM
Camera Equipment and Airport Security	nonnstop	Photographic Technique	26	03-06-2008 12:29 PM
K10D & Airport Security	caillin	Photographic Technique	13	12-24-2007 03:31 PM

12-17-2009, 07:09 AM	#16
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by Cosmo If you shoot alot of film, it would be a good idea to post it home, maybe mid trip. But make sure to write on the box that it contains film and must not be scanned. As far as I know, airmail is X-rayed - with much more radiation than your normal luggage. Also checked-in lugguage receives usually a higher dose, than carry-on luggage, so that carry-on is the next best solution to manual contraol. Ben

12-17-2009, 09:30 AM	#17
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	Originally posted by Ben_Edict in many countries, officials simply deny manual control. I have had that in the USA, Spain and even Great Britain. The security people simply told me to put the film through the scanner and fly or to insist on manual control and stay grounded... I have experience just this in several airports in the US. They would not even consider doing manual for film under 800 ASA. In all cases they specifically asked if it was 800 ASA or above and when I said no, they made it clear that it WAS going through x-ray. woof

12-17-2009, 09:34 AM	#18
ytterbium Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,076	Originally posted by woof I have experience just this in several airports in the US. They would not even consider doing manual for film under 800 ASA. In all cases they specifically asked if it was 800 ASA or above and when I said no, they made it clear that it WAS going through x-ray. woof Does push processing counts?

12-17-2009, 09:39 AM	#19
Vendee Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 1,134	Originally posted by ytterbium Does push processing counts? No, its the native ISO of the emulsion that matters, not the exposure you have given it. I've been refused a manual check at UK airports but wasn't too bothered because it was only 400 ISO film. I'd not be happy at having something like Delta 3200 x-rayed and I would hold out for a manual check.

12-17-2009, 11:23 AM	#20
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	I've only had one not-pleasant experience with the TSA people, (in recent years I'd done more flying around the country than previously in my whole life. But we'd usually fly at off-peak hours out of concern for my health (It just goes a lot easier if we go when I'm not as prone to get badly fatigued, ) and on that particular leg, it was both crazy-busy there at the checkpoint and I was pretty tired, so I don't blame the young lady for being snippy. Had the impression she was new to the job and a bit overwhelmed. In general, if you're all ready for the inspection and thus make it easy on them, they don't seem too picky about the ISO of films that may be in your baggie. (I use a clear makeup purse and generally only carry a few rolls: one place, one of the fellows there actually had an interest in trying some Neopan when he saw mine. Can't beat a fellow film shooter at the booth. ) But if you make it easy and are friendly, you might reduce the amount of exposure on your trip. The only possible problem I ever detected was from this roll of rather seriously-expired T-max 100 I think actually got exposed to X-rays pretty repeatedly over that time, forgotten in the bag itself. But that's why I wasn't more careful with it, I suppose, it might have been skunked anyway.

12-17-2009, 11:50 AM	#21
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by woof I have experience just this in several airports in the US. They would not even consider doing manual for film under 800 ASA. In all cases they specifically asked if it was 800 ASA or above and when I said no, they made it clear that it WAS going through x-ray. woof Does that mean that terrorists only shoot slow film? Steve

12-17-2009, 12:31 PM	#22
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by ytterbium Does push processing counts? Yes, ofcourse. The final ISO is the determining factor. In push-processing you also increase contrast considerably, so that in fact even slight traces left by the X-ray exposure may be more prominent than in film of the same "official" speed. (I know I am counterdicting Vendee, sorry, for that...) Ben

12-17-2009, 01:00 PM	#23
Vendee Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 1,134	Originally posted by Ben_Edict Yes, ofcourse. The final ISO is the determining factor. Ben The ISO setting you dial in when pushing is simply an exposure compensation. Exposing a 400 ISO film @ 1600 ISO is no different than using the camera in manual mode and shooting with an aperture two stops smaller than metered. Its the sensitivity of the emulsion on high ISO films that makes them more prone to x-ray damage.

12-17-2009, 02:23 PM	#25
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by stevebrot Does that mean that terrorists only shoot slow film? Steve I hope they don't realize high ISO, APS-C digital and stabilization would give them better results.

12-17-2009, 02:34 PM	#26
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Just1MoreDave I hope they don't realize high ISO, APS-C digital and stabilization would give them better results. Hey, back in the day, spies and the like could handhold Exactas with 400/8 preset lenses out car windows at night. You never know what people are capable of. I saw it in movies, really.

12-17-2009, 04:06 PM	#27
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by Vendee The ISO setting you dial in when pushing is simply an exposure compensation. Exposing a 400 ISO film @ 1600 ISO is no different than using the camera in manual mode and shooting with an aperture two stops smaller than metered. Its the sensitivity of the emulsion on high ISO films that makes them more prone to x-ray damage. That's wrong, as stevbrot already pointed out. If you expose a ISO 400 film at ISO 1600 you not only change the exposition, you also have to increase development time (and temperature) to actually make the underexposed latent image visible. And that also increases the vulnerability to X-rays among other things (increased Gamma, increased grain etc.) "Pushing" the very word, refers to that "pushed" development and not to the exposure. If you step back for a second, you will immediately see, that this must be true, because if you exposed a ISO 400 film at ISO 1600 without push-processing, all you would get is a film 2-stops underexposed... Ben

12-17-2009, 05:08 PM	#28
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	My second last trip throught the States involved about 30 rolls of 120 film and six check throughs at airports. At all airports my film was hand checked quickly and politely. In fact I do not think they did anything to it at one airport as they just held the baggies and talked to each other. But the next trip with 35mm film at one airport they refused to hand check and insisted that it was safe so it went in with the stuff from my pockets. Those machines are supposedly safe for up to 6 exposures so it depends on how many times you need to check in, In Canada it has always been hand checked as well. Be on time and be polite and tell them that you are catching additional flights there and back and are concerned about the cumulitve effects on your film. There used to be on the American site that provides the official policy. Print it out and carry it with your film. It takes time to hand check so do not make the agents feel that they are rushed for time and make it as easy as possible for them, plastic bags film already out of the boxes (not for large format of course) and do not spend the time at the line up looking through your bags for your film. Be prepared, polite and early and your problems should be at a miniumum.