cthahn

When you go to another country, you do as they say do. If you are determined to use film, then suffer the
consequencies. If you do not like that, then do not go to those countries. That is not hard to figure out.

twowindsbear

Then why are the wholesale film cases from Kodak marked "PROTECT FROM RADIATION DO NOT X-RAY?"

twowindsbear

Can you post a photo, or scan, of a few of the strips of negatives that show the damage?

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

The earliest xray "machines" used nothing BUT intensifying screens. And when photographic film was used to capture xray generated images the exposure (or dose in the case of living things) was EXTREMELY high to produce poor quality images. THAT'S why special film was developed and special cassettes utilized. Because the majority of the emulsions used for standard photography just are NOT sensitive to xrays, ESPECIALLY at the energies used to image every day objects (including people).

And you are right about us NOT knowing what types of machines they use in the Middle East... but you can be sure that the scanners for carry on luggage are NOT dangerous or they wouldn't be approved for use around members of the public.

You can also be sure they aren't the types of industrial radiography machines used to inspect welds.

Now I can understand this fogging if the film were checked; those machines are a LOT more powerful and the tubes energized for a much longer giving a much greater exposure to items being xrayed. But even in that case 400 speed film SHOULD be OK. SHOULD be... but it's possible it could be fogged.

As for the Kodak article... well, go back and re-read it again. Then look at the publication date.

Remember; Kodak is a film company that WAS at the time, limiting it's liability by warning consumers what could happen in worst case scenarios.

I suggest you look at Fujifilms warning for airline travel: Is there any danger to bringing my film through an airport x-ray machine? (Click on the link) It is not only up to date, but reflects the current industry standard.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

See above.

therwol Loc: USA

That's what the photos I posted do. Those are scans of the negatives. Look for the areas of fogging.

twowindsbear

That's the image - I'm asking to see an entire strip of the film in question. The edges, sprocket holes, film identification info, etc., Not JUST the image area.

therwol Loc: USA

My son in-law has those, and he lives 100 miles from me. The scanned negatives were uploaded to the labs site, and that's how I got them. I will ask him if he has the ability to scan or take a picture of one strip, but that would have to be around his schedule. Sorry.

jmkap22

muslims, that's all I have to say. from the greatest bomb makers in the world comes a look into the future. beware of travelers carrying cameras

twowindsbear

If he can, great. If not, that's OK too

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

Remember- the original 35mm films of the 1920's were on Nitrate emulsions, and were quite explosive. That is why the projection booth was always concrete block and sealed of from the theatre!
No reason not to expect film to be explosive. If our guard is down it'll happen!

therwol Loc: USA

Okay, you know more about x-rays than I do, but there is no other explanation I can think of for the streaks of fogging on the film. I will question my son in-law on whether any of his film could have been in checked luggage. See the picture from the Kodak site superimposed on one of his.

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Whenever I've traveled with film, it goes in carry on. I ask that they hand inspect the film cassettes. I've never had a problem, nor had anyone insist on putting it through x-ray. I had one TSA agent, when he saw the Nikon F complimented my choice of camera and said he rather have me handle it for the inspection. I was asked to remove the lens, cock and release the shutter. That's been the extent of it.

HP-5 is high speed film. After being zapped with x-rays a number of times, I'm sure that is fogged film you're looking at here.
--Bob

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

I had the fortune/misfortune to work for TSA as a checker and baggage checker. We had machines made by L3 co. One day when the L3 tech guy was at lunch I used his Geiger Counter to check the entrance and exit points behind the lead curtains. It was off the scale and in the "your going to die zone". Several of us requested as to why we weren't given the doseage badges that X-ray techs ware. That question was blown off as to "don't worry your ok". One reason I found another job. Anyway TSA states that scanning "should" not be a problem. With the fine print mentioning films with a speed higher than 400. I did some personal checks with my own film, 400 speed color neg and B&W. I could see problems even with 400 films and just one pass. Be aware that the checker may stop the conveyer belt to get a longer look at your bag or feed it through a second or third time after rotating the bag. You just never know. When I travel I always shoot digital. If you do shoot film, the best procedure is to have it developed there before heading home. The next best option is to FedEx it home. Do not trust any inspectors signage for film. Do not trust putting your film in the lead lined Do not X-ray bags. Inspectors have been known to open the bags and send the film through the X-ray machine anyway. Word to the wise...a cell phone image is better than a fogged 35mm or 21/4 film image.

therwol Loc: USA

Very interesting. By the way, I just e-mailed my son in-law and asked him if at any time he put his film in checked luggage. I'll pass along his response. I was under the impression that he did not do that.