highscore
Hi everyone
I had a roll of Ilford 3200 in my hand luggage on six flights.
After developing it, I was absolutely stunned.
A dark grey base with barely recognisable photos.
The film can be printed.
But according to my measurements, the base density has now risen to 0.63.
An unprocessed base had only registered 0.07.
What are your experiences with X-ray screening?
I’m certainly annoyed.
Because the film probably wouldn’t have been able to withstand much more.
Regards
Heighscore
Bonderer
I develop black-and-white film for a photojournalist, and he’s had some nasty experiences. Mind you, he works in places we’d never want to go. With old and ageing equipment, if the security guard doesn’t spot anything, they’ll crank the machine up to full power. But he usually ended up with those striped patterns on the negatives. I then told him he should insist on a hand check and carry films in his hand luggage, but the security staff are deaf to that – it involves movement, after all.
So the only option left is protective film tins. I can’t guarantee it because the equipment varies from airport to airport, but it’s better than nothing, and in Europe you should insist on a hand check if you’re carrying film. In other parts of the world, it gets trickier.
Hama and Kaiser don’t make them anymore, but have a look on eBay or a US company probably makes them again.
High-speed films are probably more at risk, but I wouldn’t take any chances with them.
Urnes
I’m assuming this isn’t the first Delta 3200 you’ve developed, because otherwise I’d say you’ve tried to expose it at 3200 ISO; under normal circumstances, the film only delivers just under 1000 ISO.
Otherwise, I’ve never had any problems, either in India and Cambodia or on my last trip from Stuttgart to Amsterdam to Istanbul to Paris and back to Stuttgart. I had the 400 Delta with me and pushed it to 800 ISO on each occasion.
Regards, Sven.
highscore
Well, well.
It was actually 1600 ASA n+1.
I needed that to keep the exposure times at a manageable level. Thanks to Schwarzschild, I had to expose for up to 12 seconds!
With a 400 film, I would have been looking at 30+ seconds for night photography.
Another film with 200 ISO, which I had exposed in a camera that was unfortunately faulty, shows a clearly visible shadow on the negative at every reel change.
I didn’t actually measure the difference in density specifically, though.
Renate
Hello,
You get what you pay for. We want to fly cheaply, which is why airport security staff are paid very little. As a result, they won’t accommodate any special requests.
Lead bags or lead containers are always counterproductive for film in X-ray machines. The energy is cranked up until something can be seen. That’s why I always put my films in plastic bags, which are then run through the machine separately from other items of luggage, alongside hand luggage. At 100 ASA, this causes no problems. I never have a film in the camera during security checks either.
Best regards,
Renate
Pitt23
Hello,
The comments above are correct, in particular: X-ray machines cause (slightly) streaky shadows. Putting film in a lead bag doesn’t help; it tends to cause extra stress. However: on longer flights, ‘altitude radiation’ becomes noticeable for anything above 400 ASA (effective sensitivity), and the longer the flight, the more so. This is significantly stronger (for film) than standard X-ray machines. Here, the lead bag helps considerably.
So for the operation, you’re looking at at least six X-ray checks plus the altitude radiation during the flights – it’s a miracle there are any images left to take at all!
On another note: which film for night shots? Given THOSE long exposure times, even a Fuji Acros 100 would have been faster. Is there anything similar available anymore?
Good light!
Pitt
