The effects of checked baggage x-ray scanners on film...

skysh4rk

skysh4rk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,134
Name
RJ
Edit My Images
No
Errr... what effects?

Back in May, I accidentally left a box of 120 format Acros in my checked bag on my return trip from NYC back to Glasgow via Dublin, which I hadn't realised until I got back home. Having read about the effects of the checked baggage scanners, I assumed that the rolls were toast, chucked them in the fridge, and never really bothered with them.

Fast forward to last week and I decided I'd test out my new Rolleiflex Automat with one of the rolls from this box. Well, it would seem that either the x-ray scans don't have much impact or, perhaps, they don't scan every bag. At any rate, I've done quite a bit of travelling over the past two years and I've still never seen any ill effects from x-rays scans of hand or checked baggage.

View attachment 22744 View attachment 22745 View attachment 22746
 
Last edited:
Good, we wouldn't want a broken one....:D
 
skysh4rk said:
All fixed now. I hit the enter button accidentally and it prematurely created the thread before I'd even typed anything.
Click to expand...

Trouble is I now look like a loony......:D
 
Curse you and your cleverness RJ.....:D
 
I'm not too sure about the checked baggage X-ray machines but I've done hundreds of flights carrying film in my camera bag and it's always been perfectly fine. I don't think the checked baggage machines should do any harm usually but I've always carried film in my carry-on as I know they're perfectly safe.

I'm off to the States a week on Sunday, deciding what camera gear to take is killing me! :runaway:
 
I wonder if it being unexposed has anything to do with being unaffected? Exposed film is effectively preflashed, so it would exhibit higher sensitivity to X-ray. Having said that, I've traveled with Neopan 1600 and Tri-X pushed to 1600 with no problems before, although the rolls were never in checked baggage.
 
chris2jz said:
Next time i'll scan your back several hundred times and we can see what happens .
Click to expand...

I don't think that modern x-ray machines do as much damage to film as people think, but I'm not sure I'd want myself or anything I own subjected to several hundred scans...

chris2jz said:
P.S Why always carry the fluffy handcuffs ?
Click to expand...

Because you never know when you'll encounter someone naughty. ;)

PMN said:
I'm not too sure about the checked baggage X-ray machines but I've done hundreds of flights carrying film in my camera bag and it's always been perfectly fine. I don't think the checked baggage machines should do any harm usually but I've always carried film in my carry-on as I know they're perfectly safe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the carry-on scanner is definitely safe for a reasonable number of passes, but everything that I've read, including advice from Kodak (e.g., https://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml#SEC43) and Fuji (e.g., http://www.fujifilmusa.com/support/...o?dbid=670359&prodcat=495907&sscucatid=664277, suggests that you should never put any film in your checked luggage, so I assumed that the film was fried.

I'm not sure if I've just been lucky in this instance (i.e., it wasn't scanned) or if the threat to film from the checked baggage scanner has simply been overstated.

PMN said:
I'm off to the States a week on Sunday, deciding what camera gear to take is killing me! :runaway:
Click to expand...

I only took my SQ-A and 105mm lens and that did the trick for me.:)
 
FruitFlakes said:
I wonder if it being unexposed has anything to do with being unaffected? Exposed film is effectively preflashed, so it would exhibit higher sensitivity to X-ray. Having said that, I've traveled with Neopan 1600 and Tri-X pushed to 1600 with no problems before, although the rolls were never in checked baggage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure if being unexposed matters or not with x-rays.
 
PMN said:
It's gonna be a mostly digital trip for me!

:exit:
Click to expand...

Ruh Roh! Whatever works, I suppose. I've sold all of my digital stuff and only own 6x6cm MF equipment, so it makes the choice easy for me.
 
skysh4rk said:
Ruh Roh! Whatever works, I suppose. I've sold all of my digital stuff and only own 6x6cm MF equipment, so it makes the choice easy for me.
Click to expand...

Yup, definitely an easy choice for you. It's an easy choice for me too actually, film wouldn't at all work for most of what I want to do so digital is the only choice. I'm hopefully gonna take a 35mm SLR and a little stack of Kodak Vision3 though. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm not overly worried about the effects of X-Rays on my film, I accidentally left my bag with a camera and film in it in a lab with several unshielded X-Ray diffractometers in and had no adverse effects, even after about 4 days of exposure.

I wouldn't worry about it but do what makes you feel happy

Side note - I'm planning to try to run a few experiments on some film to see what sort of X-Ray dose is needed to cause a significant effect on the image, will keep you posted when I can get access to the X-Ray generators.
 
robhooley167 said:
Side note - I'm planning to try to run a few experiments on some film to see what sort of X-Ray dose is needed to cause a significant effect on the image, will keep you posted when I can get access to the X-Ray generators.
Click to expand...

Brill!
 
Time to start slipping a sheet of film into my bag every time I travel, for experimenting obviously.. but since its there....
 
PMN said:
I'm not too sure about the checked baggage X-ray machines but I've done hundreds of flights carrying film in my camera bag and it's always been perfectly fine. I don't think the checked baggage machines should do any harm usually but I've always carried film in my carry-on as I know they're perfectly safe.

I'm off to the States a week on Sunday, deciding what camera gear to take is killing me! :runaway:
Click to expand...

I have this trouble, I can never decide and end up carrying way too much.
 
Sectionate said:
I have this trouble, I can never decide and end up carrying way too much.
Click to expand...

Yeah, carrying too much gear can be such a pain! I used to carry tons of camera gear everywhere until I started realising trying to decide what gear to use was actually getting in the way if taking photos. 95% of what I shoot now is done using the same body and lens so such decisions are getting easier! :)
 
Sectionate said:
I have a severe addiction to my Fifty at the moment, using any other lens doesn't seem to figure!
Click to expand...

That's interesting as a nifty fifty is my least used lens...I prefer 35mm or 40mm prime with a very good 70-200 zoom at minimum h'mm which defeats the point of traveling light as I also carry two cameras :rolleyes:
 
It's weird isn't it? At first I only wanted to use the 50mm, then I couldn't get enough of the 85mm, now I'm glued to the 35 and 28s! I suspect this is because I haven't grown up enough to really understand which focal length is useful for what purpose, and use them. It's a version of "oooh, shiny!". :( (In my case I mean, not yours, Nick.)
 
Mind you a 50mm can\could be good for panos in landscapes and better than say a 24mm where everything in the scene is tiny. But have accepted for the very good panos, it's best to use a digital camera, well unless you want to use a roll of film for one scene.
 
Last edited:
robhooley167 said:
Side note - I'm planning to try to run a few experiments on some film to see what sort of X-Ray dose is needed to cause a significant effect on the image, will keep you posted when I can get access to the X-Ray generators.
Click to expand...

I may be paraphrasing here but... "one lab accident away from World destruction"... springs to mind.
 
PMN said:
The lens I spend 95% of my time using is the 24-105L, best of both worlds. :)
Click to expand...


Saw something like that at the bootie, but it was a drinking cup...true story and amusing as it was very well made and fooled a lot of people until they picked it up.
 
excalibur2 said:
Saw something like that at the bootie, but it was a drinking cup...true story and amusing as it was very well made and fooled a lot of people until they picked it up.
Click to expand...

You mean this one, alongside the real thing? :)

l42Rhi2.jpg
 
^^^ Yeah something like that.......I got fooled twice as this seller is at the bootie a few times and talked to him about it....reminds me of the saying that President Bush cocked up "fool me once, shame..........." ;)
 
PMN said:
The lens I spend 95% of my time using is the 24-105L, best of both worlds. :)
Click to expand...
This is the lens I was using with the company Canon 5Dii last night for a business gathering. Great versatility and perfect for the purpose, some wide shots, some groups, some mild telephoto. Only criticism was ridiculous amounts of distortion at the wide end... I think that's quite common with modern lenses actually, perhaps because some cameras can correct it themselves, and for most others there is Photoshop, but not what I expected from an "L" lens. Similarly the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f1.8 lens I got recently - it's extremely sharp and great to use but has some distortion...something my 1972 Nikkor 50mm has none of!
 
Last edited:
I honestly haven't found it to be that horrendous but I'm also not particularly interested in having everything absolutely technically correct (not saying you are by the way!) The only thing I correct is chromatic aberration because it gets right on my nerves but other than that I don't generally bother with perspective/distortion correction, the distortion in the lens is a part of how it works and I'm happy with that for my purposes. :)
 
What do you get if you cross one of those cups with a small square of aluminium foil and a Nikon body cap?

Really must get around to creating an F mount L series lens!!!
 
Rob Hornstra manged to make a project out of a bunch of films affected by x-ray scanners; Safety First. At a talk he gave in Newcastle a few years ago he explained that a lot of shops and public buildings in Russia use x-rays so through the course of a week his film would be repeatedly exposed. I always keep my film in my carry on just in case, although the last time I traveled I had around 25 rolls of 35mm lining my baggage, needless to say it looked suspicious enough for the security to want me to unpack it all...
 
-Josh- said:
At a talk he gave in Newcastle a few years ago he explained that a lot of shops and public buildings in Russia use x-rays so through the course of a week his film would be repeatedly exposed.
Click to expand...

I haven't found their use all that widespread over there although they do seem to have a love affair with them in airports. Literally the first thing that usually happens when you walk through the front door of a Russian airport is your bags are x-rayed before you even get to check-in! It's a massive pain in the backside, Russia doesn't top my list of favourite countries to travel in!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top