AlanG Posted December 5, 2011 Share #61 Posted December 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I never had xray issues with my film. Not even Delta3200 or Tmax3200. If you never had a car accident, would you not use seat belts? I guess you were either lucky, or didn't see or accepted the fogging. Here is a study: http://www.i3a.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/i3afilmxraytestreport.pdf "Between 1 and 5 passes through the carry on baggage X-ray scanner caused fog on the ISO 3200 roll film. The ISO 3200 roll film was clearly the worst affected, once again the fog is not even, with the higher doses, i.e. 25 and above, producing a clear image of the film's spool." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Hi AlanG, Take a look here film ruined by airport security. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted December 5, 2011 Share #62 Posted December 5, 2011 Better not use film in YOUR Leica, then, Alan Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted December 5, 2011 Share #63 Posted December 5, 2011 If you never had a car accident, would you not use seat belts? I guess you were either lucky, or didn't see or accepted the fogging. Here is a study: http://www.i3a.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/i3afilmxraytestreport.pdf "Between 1 and 5 passes through the carry on baggage X-ray scanner caused fog on the ISO 3200 roll film. The ISO 3200 roll film was clearly the worst affected, once again the fog is not even, with the higher doses, i.e. 25 and above, producing a clear image of the film's spool." What I also do is load my Bulk film (iso 100 and 400) in Delta and Tmax 3200 cassettes and I politely ask them to manually scan them. When they see "ISO3200" they gladly accept. That's an old trick of mine that always work. But I don't go crazy with it. To this date I've never had a ruined film because of Xrays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 5, 2011 Share #64 Posted December 5, 2011 Better not use film in YOUR Leica, then, Alan Regards, Bill Your sarcasm is wasted on me but if you have a need to keep doing it, that is not my concern. I have no idea why you would care what kind of cameras - film or digital I use. You may not see a benefit to it but all I am doing is politely posting information about film and X-rays. I can't believe that anyone who truly cares about using film would not take precautions to get the most out of it. I have a science degree in photography from RIT and this included some perhaps esoteric information about film and film handling. So maybe I am more sensitive to this subject than some are. I don't see why you or anyone else would ignore or cavalierly dispute the industry's published research on this. An important aspect of professional photography is to try to anticipate, avoid, or compensate for all of the numerous things that potentially can ruin a shoot or keep it from being the best it can be. It is very easy to end up with repeated scans of carry on bags if you are on an extended trip with various stopping off points or layovers. I had a 3 week trip to China, that was shot all on film, comprising about 10 flights. Earlier this year I had a trip with 6 flights, each requiring a scan. Plus you might not use up all of your film and want to bring it on another trip. And with higher speed films a single pass may cause noticeable fogging. Whether everyone agrees this constitutes "ruined film" I can't say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 5, 2011 Share #65 Posted December 5, 2011 But Alan, you clearly care deeply what kind of cameras we use, film or digital, so why should we not care likewise about you? My degree is in advanced agenda detection, although I am never so rude as to wave it about. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 5, 2011 Share #66 Posted December 5, 2011 Yes my agenda is for you and others to ask for a hand inspection and not risk damage to your film. I want this to be a world standard in all places that have X-ray scanners and this shouldn't add to the workload of the screeners much as film usage will mostly be by a relatively small group of knowledgeable film aficionados before long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 6, 2011 Share #67 Posted December 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Gentlemen, please untwist the knickers - this subject does not merit ruffled feathers, if i may mix a metaphor... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 6, 2011 Share #68 Posted December 6, 2011 Gentlemen, please untwist the knickers - this subject does not merit ruffled feathers, if i may mix a metaphor... I beg to differ but I can't see where I have made a statement that would ruffle any feathers or had any personal aspect to at all other than saying I didn't mind the sarcasm. I have absolutely no idea what Bill may have against me but I certainly have no personal animosity towards him or opinion of any sort. I have never met him and I don't presume to know him. I think everything I wrote was directly to the issue of X-rays and film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 6, 2011 Share #69 Posted December 6, 2011 No underwear discomfort here. I have nothing against you, Alan, I simply remain puzzled as ever by your continued and unrelenting desire to run film down at every turn, to point out its every shortcoming and to comment with relish upon every negative story concerning the industry. I am far from being the only one to notice this. I think it is a great shame. You have much to offer but you seem hell-bent on focussing on the negatives in both senses of the word. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 6, 2011 Share #70 Posted December 6, 2011 I've heard of more plane crashes (many) than I have of ruined films from airport X-ray's (none) but Alan is happy to live with the risk of a crash........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 6, 2011 Share #71 Posted December 6, 2011 The interaction of cosmic rays on the silicon in the sensor is by Neutrinos only, lower energy radiation causes no damage. The low energy of X-rays will not damage a sensor at all, irrespective of the exposure. In this case, I was simply surprised that AlanG was so preoccupied with the putative damage to films that pass through x-ray machines, and apparently unconcerned at the cumulative damage that occurs when flying with a digital camera. After all, the film we're talking about here is a 'one-off' - it may contain your best ever holiday snaps, or even your cherished honeymoon images, but if (IF) there is some slight deterioration in image quality, that effect is not passed on to the next roll of film you put into your camera. With a digital sensor, the damage is permanent and cumulative - each time you fly, the images you capture on that sensor thereafter are all negatively effected by the damage incurred. That was my only point. And for the record, I've flown with both digital cameras and film - and never noticed any problem whatsoever with either. Seems to me just some people looking for an excuse to knock film (again). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 6, 2011 Share #72 Posted December 6, 2011 It is even worse - damage on ground level is still there - albeit dimished. In some decades, all digital sensors will have deteriorated. Except those owned by Trolls - provided their holes are several miles deep, and provided they never bring their cameras to the surface Unfortunately that rules out most forum members.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 6, 2011 Share #73 Posted December 6, 2011 Except those owned by Trolls... Unfortunately that rules out most forum members.... I'm not so sure.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted December 6, 2011 Share #74 Posted December 6, 2011 ...random question - is there an assumption here that all scanners work at the same output setting for "regular" scans? Is there a standard? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 6, 2011 Share #75 Posted December 6, 2011 ...random question - is there an assumption here that all scanners work at the same output setting for "regular" scans? Is there a standard? Yes, it's mentioned in the link I posted above. It's important to remember that the aiports will have to work within whatever the guidelines are in terms of health and safety for their staff and passengers, as will the manufacturers of the machines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 6, 2011 Share #76 Posted December 6, 2011 In this case, I was simply surprised that AlanG was so preoccupied with the putative damage to films that pass through x-ray machines, and apparently unconcerned at the cumulative damage that occurs when flying with a digital camera. After all, the film we're talking about here is a 'one-off' - it may contain your best ever holiday snaps, or even your cherished honeymoon images, but if (IF) there is some slight deterioration in image quality, that effect is not passed on to the next roll of film you put into your camera. With a digital sensor, the damage is permanent and cumulative - each time you fly, the images you capture on that sensor thereafter are all negatively effected by the damage incurred. That was my only point. And for the record, I've flown with both digital cameras and film - and never noticed any problem whatsoever with either. Seems to me just some people looking for an excuse to knock film (again). If it makes you feel better, I hate film and I think all film users must be total morons!!! Doubly so if they are French or Republicans. I can almost tolerate Deardorf users. What surprised me is the cavalier dismissal that some showed toward the TSA guidelines so I linked to the report of the detailed tests that were made to establish them. (Kodak, Fujifilm, Konica/Minolta and the TSA were behind this.) That report is simply factual test results along with handling guidelines and if you want to see references to it as some kind of agenda of mine, so be it. I really don't care. One post also questioned the TSA's motives! That seems kind of wacky to me. Other posts show a complete disregard or ignorance of any risk - allowing 3200 ISO film to be X-rayed, placing film in checked baggage. So if anyone is using a bias to make assumptions about film it is not me. If you don't want anyone pointing out the data that shows there is risk in this, then I am sorry I offended you. I think it is in your imagination if you feel that I was knocking film. I used film for commercial jobs for 25 years and never let a single roll be X-rayed. I don't believe in taking chances especially when one can simply ask for hand inspection and eliminate the risk, as the TSA guidelines advises in various scenarios. I think every pro I have known has also done this. Well for the record, I've never had a single frame ruined due to digital camera sensor defects. I have no idea where you get the idea that there is some kind of sensor degradation that visibly affects all photos, but if you have some information on that, I'd love to read it. However that was not the subject of this thread. I have never had film degraded or ruined by X-rays either because my film has never been subjected to any. And I think if you are an amateur photographer who makes occasional trips, and only uses lower speed film, you are very unlikely to see the affect of X-rays as long as the film is not subjected to more than 5-10 passes. So go for it and X-ray that film and don't cause any trouble asking for a hand inspection... or shoot high speed film, underexpose, or push process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 6, 2011 Share #77 Posted December 6, 2011 If it makes you feel better, I hate film and I think all film users must be total morons!!! Doubly so if they are French or Republicans. I can almost tolerate Deardorf users. At last! The truth!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 6, 2011 Share #78 Posted December 6, 2011 "Wouldn't want to hurt no Kangaroo?":D Anybody remember Randy Newman? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 6, 2011 Share #79 Posted December 6, 2011 Alan, there is no earthly point in debating with you. It is interesting to take the time to look back at the threads to which you contribute, and the recurring theme to each of those threads and your contributions thereto. I went back ten pages then lost the will to live. You are either oblivious to the way you come across or all too aware. I can't be bothered to guess anymore. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 6, 2011 Share #80 Posted December 6, 2011 Alan, there is no earthly point in debating with you. Bill I don't know what you mean by debate. I simply pointed out the facts and recommended people follow them as I have. I can't see anything to debate about here as there is nothing to contradict those facts. If my writing style, choice of subjects, or approach offends you I suggest you don't read my posts. Film does have some clear downsides compared to using digital and travel is certainly one of them. This is not debatable either yet I didn't dwell on it because those using film already know that and still use film. So it seems wise to protect it the best they can rather than finding out later that they should have. Every professional photographic group I have been associated with has recommended hand inspection. I do take exception to what I feel is some bad advice here and felt I should point people to the facts and let them decide how much risk they might want to take vs. asking for a hand inspection. The only thing debatable in this is why asking for a hand inspection is not a "no-brainer." (At worst, they can refuse to do it.) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.