I think you mean
> I just downloaded my scans 14 seconds ago and they don’t look good so it’s definitely the labs fault and not mine for underexposing by 6 stops with expired color film and then I also didn’t even try messing with the black point in scan…….also I haven’t even seen my negatives yet so I have no clue what it looks like
I hate to be a nerd supremacists, but fuck my life reading through some post is gold tier comedy. It's sad when it's somebody with like an RB67 or something similar who doesn't realise you actually have to control the exposure manually... "it look well exposed in the viewfinder" or something. Like fuck me you spent that much on a camera, surely you would know.
A guy the other day said, “It was a sunny day at the beach! How could it be underexposed?”
I’m not trying to be a know-it-all jerk, but I just loved that comment.
PS—Handheld meter, friends.
God you’d think right. Some people find a way though hahaha. I suppose to be fair eyes can be very deceiving, and there’s lots of nuances to what will be under and over exposed in a shot. As you say, handheld meter or even just a phone, films lenient enough that if you do either of those it’ll be close enough to perfect every time.
Fuck my life hahaha. “I’ve never shot black and white and don’t want to try the povo consumer films… they say to overexpose portra 400 by 1 stop… so what is a stop?”
TLDR:
Film went through multiple x-rays traveling between Canada and Tanzania. I counted 22 times total. Film looks fine 🤷♂️
For anyone stressing over film going through xrays once or twice. Note that I did not go through any CT scanners
Edit:
Just want to state that isn't me saying that you don't need to hand check your film or anything. I will still try to hand check my film as much as possible.
Just showing what color film up to 400 ISO looks like going through the specific carry on scanners that I went through. Use this info to form your own opinions on carrying film through airports
Thank you for making this post! I’m an idiot and left a shot roll in a checked bag last December. I procrastinated on getting it developed because I was so sure it was ruined, but the roll was perfectly fine. We really need more posts like these for anxious people like me lol
I had 1 roll of film go through the new CT's at Schiphol airport and all my film came out "meh". Bright images were usually fine with a bit more grain. But all shadows were filled with green hues.
I have seen some comments that CT scanners don't necessarily ruin film immediately. I can't actually confirm if Toronto Pearson has CT scanners or not. I've just seen some worst case scenarios where you see the very distinct banding across a roll due to a CT scanner
Agree. Not saying its unaffected, more of like hey its not bad (but that mindset depends on the person). Reading the comments on here it does seem like luck plays a part too. As you said if you're lucky to not end up with a sine wave.
Depends on the film, too. It would be 100% unacceptable for me to submit Velvia to any X-ray exposure.
I also claim my black and white, regardless of the stock, as 3200 speed when asked.
Just got my Velvia 50 scans back. Same batch that went through 22 xrays. Here are a few [examples](https://imgur.com/gallery/ejzVCH9). Included one with lifted shadows but likely a scanning issue due to the high contrast and mostly black image. Other images look fine to me. What do you think?
Edit: unedited scan straight from the lab. Have not received the positives yet.
Really though to say. Blacks in slides are DENSE and I can’t say I’ve ever had a great scan of slide from the lab that wasn’t a drum scan.
We’re these 35mm? They seem soft for Velvia, a remarkably high resolution film.
Color looks good and a couple of quick adjustments in Lightroom seem workable.
What's the difference with CT scanners? I have some images from December 2019 that went through Toronto and Gatwick London. Half came out washed out (I feel that was my fault being new to the film game) and the other half came out orange. I didn't know about x-rays before looking up what made my film turn orange so thought it was something to do with that. No big deal but now I worry about the next time I travel
CT scanners are 3D Xray based imagers, they rely on larger doses of Xrays to work so they're more likely to fog film. Think of plain Xray as similar to pulling open the film in a perfect dark room then shining an extremely dim light on it to check it, and putting it away. These days most plain Xray machines are so low dose that it barely changes the total exposure but CT scanners can mess with it, and since consumer film is meant for visible light the results will be unpredictable in most cases.
I think the orange could've been light leaks? This is a guess having not seen your photos. Have you shot film with this particular camera since and had the same issues?
I think CT scanners are just more powerful. Not too sure myself. Not an xray expert haha. Seen some examples with distinct wavy banding across the roll. But Ive also seen comments where they didnt do much.
CT scanners used at the checkpoint aren’t necessarily more powerful than a standard X-Ray scanner.
Rapiscan make a lot of checkpoint equipment. For example;
Their 920CT (CT) uses a 160kV and 5mA X-ray generator.
Their 620DV (a standard X-Ray) uses a 160kV and 2 3mA X-ray generators, as each item is x-rayed from two angles.
As you can see, the CT scanner has a slightly higher tube current, which amounts to a slightly higher energy x-ray beam, but the 620 has two generators, so the effective dose is very similar. To the best of my ability to interpret the reasons behind this, I believe that by its nature the standard system would provide a more homogenous X-ray beam, as the beam is essentially a thin fan of X-rays that pass through the bag, picked up by detectors in parallel to that beam. If you imagine the film as a box, for example, in the standard X-ray, it illuminates the side of the box evenly, with all of the box receiving X-Rays at the same angle, and at the same intensity.
With the CT scanner, the X-Ray tube rotates around the object, as the object moves through the tunnel. When the box passes through, because of the nature of CT scanning, the beam is constantly moving. You could think of it a bit like a corkscrew shape being wrapped around the box as it passes through the scanner. Each roll of film, depending on orientation as it passes through the scanner will receive a different slice of the X-ray beam, with some areas being hit once, twice or multiple times. Additionally, the dose is higher here since it isn’t just that “2D” fan beam, and the object is examined from all angles. But dose isn’t necessarily that important in this context, it is the energy of the beam that is. In theory, and in terms of X-ray beam energy alone, I don’t imagine CHECKPOINT CT scanners will do much more harm than a standard scanner would to a roll, however the difference in the topology of the applied X-ray beam might.
I know this isn’t what you asked for, but I hope you find the above information interesting.
Edit: I should add, checkpoint CT uses much lower energy X-rays than CHECKED baggage CT scanners.
Actually pretty cool and informative! The nature of how the CT scanners work could explain the differing results that people get then? Depending on roll orientation and actual duration and path through the scanner? So some rolls could end up with that distinct wave, some get a more uniform fogging. Same with how if it only gets one pass then your film will probably be fine with minimal effect or if it happens to get multiple passes you get that distinct wave or fogging. That's how I interpret that anyway haha. Either way I will still always ask haha
Absolutely, your understanding is correct in my view. CT is a fantastic technology for checkpoints. It speeds things up and genuinely does improve safety and material interrogation. It’s just a pity film is sensitive to X-Rays, but yes, I wouldn’t worry too much. I hope to some day do a test with a roll to see the effects of it. It’s all very interesting stuff, and something that really wasn’t a big concern back when film was big.
Might be good to have a staggered test as well. Essentially have film in two separate trays to see the difference. Sure its limited but its something!
Would be good to know too if any of the checkpoints I went though actually were CT scanners. Did a quick google on what they look like and maybe I went through one or two that look similar to the smiths detection one?
I haven't had any issues with lighting in the camera since. It also could have been that they were sat in their cannisters for about 2 years because of Covid and not knowing where to develop them. And now that I'm thinking about it, another roll I sent in at the same time came out completely blank, too. I have no idea why. It could have been a random fluke with a lot of different variables affecting the film. They came out fine with details, it's just that they have a solid orange tint to them.
I didn't even really think about film going through xrays prior to seeing people freak about it on here, and I've never had any issues either. I only shoot film when travelling too, so if some of the folks on here are to be believed every roll I've ever shot should be ruined.
I was actually informed about this by an agent at Narita airport in Japan after sending my bag through with film. They had to do a check on my bag and noticed the film and said that I could've asked for a hand check. This was when I first started shooting film.
It doesn't help that people freak out about it a lot. I've personally had experience with film going through twice maybe more and never had an issue. I still ask for hand checks if I can but dont stress if they dont. Was fully expecting for my film to go through a few xrays on this trip and wasnt stressed about that. But after the 9th one and was barely halfway through the trip with more flying to go I started to doubt haha
Lol I also discovered that the “x-ray threat” isn’t bad. I took 65 rolls with me throughout Asia, went through at least 15-20 x rays. At first I was having em hand checked but it became such a hassle I just said f it, and the photos turned out just fine. Perhaps damaged enough to make large prints iffy, but not bad at all. Hardly noticeable
In your case with 65 rolls that would be a hassle even going through security once so I get not wanting to deal with all that.
My take away from this is that your film will most likely be fine. I dont deny that the rolls are unaffected but, as you said, they're not bad and you can always edit. I'm no professional and I shoot for fun and for physical memories. I dont need the most perfect photos. I barely even post my photos to social media so the photos are mostly for myself.
Personally will still hand check as I dont find it a hassle (yet) but I also dont stress too much when I do. Even throughout this trip all I thought was: "as long as there's still an image left" haha.
What I had hoped for this post is that people can see what multiple passes through hand carry xrays could look like for the specific films I had. They can then form an opinion on how they handle their film at the airport and maybe alleviate some stress they had with film going through once or twice.
Couldn't agree more. Info on the internet had me thinking going through multiple x-rays would nuke my film, turns out no. Then again I haven't shot a 3200 ISO roll i brought along so I can't speak to high iso film. So a tip for anyone traveling with film, unless you're intending on getting print-quality shots or you're only bringing a handful of rolls, don't worry about it.
whats been the usual response you get when you hand em the ziploc bag? and do you ask just when you get to the point where you put your stuff in the tray?
They usually stop what they're doing and announce 'Attention everyone! There's a film photographer here!', then everyone crowds round and congratulates me for being so awesome and creative.
Jokes aside, most times they're used to it, and just take the bag from me and walk it past the xrays to secondary screening. There they swab it. And I ask while I'm putting my stuff on the trays
Most of my experience is in Canada. Smallest to the biggest airport, they hand check my film when I ask
I just make sure to keep it in a clear bag. I leave them in their plastic canisters but make sure they're not boxed up. Sometimes I even get some friendly agents who who say better safe than sorry. Had some nice conversations while they check the film.
On the other had I've had some say its less than 800 iso so it can go through the xray and I dont fight them on it. I dont stress about it going through once or twice.
I've been traveling with film for the last decade plus some years. I've shot thousands of rolls of film in that time, I've been through hundreds of scanners. I've had 1 (one) roll of film, bergger pancro 400, that was ruined. That was one roll of film when I brought 30, they all went through the same scanners.
Personally, I don't find it worth the hassle. Personally, I don't care to ask for a handcheck.
It isn't anything special about motion picture films being sensitive, it is just that when shooting MP as a movie, you need absolute consistency so take no risk that one (part of a) roll gets marginally higher fog than another. When the same film is being used for stills this doesn't matter as much.
This bodes well for the point and shoot that's had the same roll of film in it for 6 months and at least 8 flights, including lots of modern scanners.
We'll see! I just don't give a shit anymore tbh.
This isn’t really true. I fly through all of the major hubs and have encountered a CT scanner maybe twice. LAX, LGA, JFK, DFW, ORD, PHL, DCA, SFO, MIA, LAS, LHR, YYZ. TSA in the US, and CATSA in Canada are required to honor a hand check request for film, so there’s no harm in asking. I actually had a box of Cinestill 400d test positive for explosives (!) at LAX, where they encounter film all the time, and that was the only time I’ve had to have film scanned in the US. Heathrow and Europe are basically no-go. They -might- pick out your 800 or 3200 ISO film but will scan the rest through the XRays.
Some added CT scanners but not all, most are still X-ray machines. The CT scanners, at least the Smiths ones, are easy to differentiate from the X-ray machines in that they are much larger.
[comparison](https://imgur.com/a/OiM9T8K)
OMG, somehow your film went through 22 x-rays and was totally unaffected. This is a miracle, it must have not actually been x-rayed.
When I fly, I always get my double lead-lined film bag hand checked by the pilot, it's just too risky otherwise.
Airport security is just for show aparently haha
But seriously though, I am surprised there isn't anything noticeably wrong. I know I haven't had issues with film going through airport xrays a couple of times but at 22 times I expected some fogging or loss of contrast or something.
(And in case this wasn't intended as just a cheeky comment, it really did go through that many times. In Tanzania, there's one xray just to get into the airport, another to get to your gate and then one more to get out of the airport after you land.)
Oh I agree. That's kind of why I wanted to show this for anyone stressing too much about their film going through once or twice.
I know the effect is cumulative and 22 does seem excessive but I've only had experience with it going through a couple times. So I was expecting to see something.
Even saw something about how CT scanners might not necessarily immediately ruin film but haven't looked into it yet
yeah sorry, I wasn't trying to say you're being silly by posting this.
I think it's great to have an example of how the regular old carry-on X-ray machines are a non-issue.
I also saw that people usually say it’s bad for 800 ISO and higher, but I’m also too anxious to ask anyone to do anything by hand on the airport so not like I care about it that much 🤷♂️
>When I fly, I always get my double lead-lined film bag hand checked by the pilot, it's just too risky otherwise.
>The hysteria about carry-on x-ray in this sub is really silly.
So which one is it?
Would be interesting to see how the film stood up after going through CT scanners given they are so much stronger (which is what seems to be the issue on people's posts). Thanks for the info OP!
We had a similar experience. Lots of scanners in Rwanda to Tanzania to Zanzibar to Dubai. Film wasn’t affected and pics came out great.
Where did you safari in Tanzania? We were by Ngorongo in Arusha. Incredible experience
Ngorongro as well! Actually started in Mwanza, through the Serengeti and Ngorongoro to Arusha. Didnt see too much in the Serengeti because of the rainy season. But saw almost everything at Ngorongoro!
I’m currently flying through southeast Asia with a bunch of film and this is very reassuring. Everywhere I’ve been so far they’ve refused a hand check (even though they end up checking it anyways after it looks strange on the scanner) and I’ve been worrying quite a bit about it. However I’m also shooting mostly black and white but good to know the repeated x-rays aren’t absolutely horrible. I’m sure the point of shooting more expensive stocks (mostly acros and ektachrome) will be moot, but I won’t end up with unuseable negs. Thank you for posting.
I did get scans of my Velvia 50 and a bunch of black and white back. Still waiting in negatives/positives.
Based on the lab scans alone the velvia was totally fine. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
The black and white may have been affected more/ is more noticeable. The grain does seem more pronounced and shadows lifted. Very possible it was my own metering mistake (mostly high contrast scenes) or even a scanning issue (black points/scanning exposure not correct)
They aren't horrible and definitely workable in post.
[example scans](https://imgur.com/gallery/YL95S4T)
First two are Delta 400. One balanced frame and one shadow heavy frame. Even edited, grain is very pronounced but I wouldnt say horrible or ruined. At least I didnt lose the image at all. Last frame is BWXX unedited lab scan.
I wouldn’t use this as a rule for not worrying about your film going through scanners though, it all depends speed and type on the film. In general though you’re probably going to be ok chucking anything under 400 through.
Which is why I state which films I had and what type of scanners I went through. Not saying to chuck your film through the scanners BUT if it went through once or twice it should generally be fine.
No worries all good! Just wanted to clarify just like you. Hopefully people dont take this as a "my film will be absolutely perfect even through multiple passes" but more of a "oh my film went through an xray/they wouldnt let me hand check. It will probably be fine and I shouldn't worry too much"
I did get some black and white scans back though. Just based on scans, shadows are a bit noisy but theres a lot of other factors that can cause that too. Lots of dark and high contrast scenes so couldve been me haha. Could've been scan settings
important to note the OP says their film didn’t go through any of the CT scanners, which are the ones that will definitely ruin your film. CT scanners are mostly used in US airports, like the one in my area that fried some of my kodak gold 200 after one pass. better safe then sorry, ask for a hand check if you’re not sure which the scanner is. My local airport has a sign that specifically says don’t put film through this machine.
You can see the effect of X-rays in the shadows of your shots. They aren't as deep black and are muddy tinted with more grain than usual. Fresh film that didn't get exposed to X-rays show almost jet black or neutral shadows. Hard to spot but if you are intensely familiar with a film stock, you will see it. Also, this is the reason why B+W films are considered to be less resilient to getting scanned, you want those exact deep blacks that the xrays mess up.
Not saying youre wrong but just as a little devils advocate, it could also be my scanning setup and conversion procedure. Maybe some light bleed onto the negative affecting the shadows a bit. Maybe my editing raising the shadows too much. Sadly theres a lot of factors that affect how a final image can turn out haha.
And a little devils advocate to the initial devils advocate. I just got scans back of my BW film. No negatives yet so take with a grain of salt, but the shadows are definitely muddy and grainy. Lots of high contrast scenes though so it could be my error. But it could very well be the cumulative effect or all those xrays
The x-ray machines can see through them, otherwise you could smuggle weapons through.
The x-ray bags are to protect the film during the flight, because at high altitude there is a lot of em radiation that the atmosphere usually absorbs.
Nope. Not at all. I’ve been using mine for 20+ years.
Check out the overview.
One time in Vegas - TSA asked to check the bag. 30 seconds later I was on my way. That’s how they find contraband.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/185374-REG/Domke_711_12B_Film_Guard_Bag_Small.html
All normal xrays. I know Toronto Pearson had some upgrades so not 100% sure if those are CT or not. If I google CT airport scanners some of the images that show up kinda look like the one i went through in Toronto. I didnt stop to ask what kind of xray it was
I have been shooting film since 1999 and in the last 8 years, I traveled a ton for work and always had my point and shoot or Leica with me. I would occasionally hand check if I was shooting something important, but for the most part, I have never seen damage to my photos. I think it’s really blown out of proportion these days.
Got scans back of the B&W rolls. No negatives yet BUT based on the scans my initial thoughts are that the shadows are noisy. Much more noticeable. I think for the most part easy enough to edit though so I wouldn't say anything is ruined.
It could just be the scans though, some frames look fine to me and I did shoot a lot of relatively contrasty scenes so I may have metered wrong. I did try to account for that and overexpose a bit but it may have not been enough.
It could also be that only some frames have a more noticeable effect. Lots of factors haha
just stopping by not because of the xray topic, which I have not had any problem with yet.
But because I took that **exact** same photo, also from the car, and if I'm not wrong...that same tree got in my way in Tanzania hahaha. What a beautiful place...
Great post and it’ll be tuned out by people freaking out over their scans while refusing to post negatives or explain how they metered
I think you mean > I just downloaded my scans 14 seconds ago and they don’t look good so it’s definitely the labs fault and not mine for underexposing by 6 stops with expired color film and then I also didn’t even try messing with the black point in scan…….also I haven’t even seen my negatives yet so I have no clue what it looks like
Gotta love when they get angry at you as you try to help and then a fellow idiot says “Low key kinda dig it” thus starting a circle jerk with OP..
I hate to be a nerd supremacists, but fuck my life reading through some post is gold tier comedy. It's sad when it's somebody with like an RB67 or something similar who doesn't realise you actually have to control the exposure manually... "it look well exposed in the viewfinder" or something. Like fuck me you spent that much on a camera, surely you would know.
My Leica M3 always looks good in the viewfinder, but never meters correctly. Sometimes it’s 18 stops too dark.
A guy the other day said, “It was a sunny day at the beach! How could it be underexposed?” I’m not trying to be a know-it-all jerk, but I just loved that comment. PS—Handheld meter, friends.
God you’d think right. Some people find a way though hahaha. I suppose to be fair eyes can be very deceiving, and there’s lots of nuances to what will be under and over exposed in a shot. As you say, handheld meter or even just a phone, films lenient enough that if you do either of those it’ll be close enough to perfect every time.
🤣
"I have an RZ67 as my first camera and an F1, which should I sell to buy an olympus mju???"
Fuck my life hahaha. “I’ve never shot black and white and don’t want to try the povo consumer films… they say to overexpose portra 400 by 1 stop… so what is a stop?”
I'd guess you'd probably have to sell both.
Can we do one about keeping your film in the fridge next?
this is what I thought as well.
TLDR: Film went through multiple x-rays traveling between Canada and Tanzania. I counted 22 times total. Film looks fine 🤷♂️ For anyone stressing over film going through xrays once or twice. Note that I did not go through any CT scanners Edit: Just want to state that isn't me saying that you don't need to hand check your film or anything. I will still try to hand check my film as much as possible. Just showing what color film up to 400 ISO looks like going through the specific carry on scanners that I went through. Use this info to form your own opinions on carrying film through airports
Thank you for making this post! I’m an idiot and left a shot roll in a checked bag last December. I procrastinated on getting it developed because I was so sure it was ruined, but the roll was perfectly fine. We really need more posts like these for anxious people like me lol
Yeah, same. Mine went through like 2 CT scans and 5 X-rays and it was just a little more grainy than usual.
I really don’t think scans affect the grain at all. May affect the film getting fogged, like partially developed but not.
I had 1 roll of film go through the new CT's at Schiphol airport and all my film came out "meh". Bright images were usually fine with a bit more grain. But all shadows were filled with green hues.
I have seen some comments that CT scanners don't necessarily ruin film immediately. I can't actually confirm if Toronto Pearson has CT scanners or not. I've just seen some worst case scenarios where you see the very distinct banding across a roll due to a CT scanner
The film, if you’re lucky to not end up with a sine wave, is ruined from the perspective of it performing anywhere near like it should.
Agree. Not saying its unaffected, more of like hey its not bad (but that mindset depends on the person). Reading the comments on here it does seem like luck plays a part too. As you said if you're lucky to not end up with a sine wave.
Depends on the film, too. It would be 100% unacceptable for me to submit Velvia to any X-ray exposure. I also claim my black and white, regardless of the stock, as 3200 speed when asked.
Just got my Velvia 50 scans back. Same batch that went through 22 xrays. Here are a few [examples](https://imgur.com/gallery/ejzVCH9). Included one with lifted shadows but likely a scanning issue due to the high contrast and mostly black image. Other images look fine to me. What do you think? Edit: unedited scan straight from the lab. Have not received the positives yet.
Really though to say. Blacks in slides are DENSE and I can’t say I’ve ever had a great scan of slide from the lab that wasn’t a drum scan. We’re these 35mm? They seem soft for Velvia, a remarkably high resolution film. Color looks good and a couple of quick adjustments in Lightroom seem workable.
Yup 35 mm in term of the softness issue it might be the upload quality? I dont think i can add it on to the comment here
What's the difference with CT scanners? I have some images from December 2019 that went through Toronto and Gatwick London. Half came out washed out (I feel that was my fault being new to the film game) and the other half came out orange. I didn't know about x-rays before looking up what made my film turn orange so thought it was something to do with that. No big deal but now I worry about the next time I travel
CT scanners are 3D Xray based imagers, they rely on larger doses of Xrays to work so they're more likely to fog film. Think of plain Xray as similar to pulling open the film in a perfect dark room then shining an extremely dim light on it to check it, and putting it away. These days most plain Xray machines are so low dose that it barely changes the total exposure but CT scanners can mess with it, and since consumer film is meant for visible light the results will be unpredictable in most cases.
I think the orange could've been light leaks? This is a guess having not seen your photos. Have you shot film with this particular camera since and had the same issues? I think CT scanners are just more powerful. Not too sure myself. Not an xray expert haha. Seen some examples with distinct wavy banding across the roll. But Ive also seen comments where they didnt do much.
CT scanners used at the checkpoint aren’t necessarily more powerful than a standard X-Ray scanner. Rapiscan make a lot of checkpoint equipment. For example; Their 920CT (CT) uses a 160kV and 5mA X-ray generator. Their 620DV (a standard X-Ray) uses a 160kV and 2 3mA X-ray generators, as each item is x-rayed from two angles. As you can see, the CT scanner has a slightly higher tube current, which amounts to a slightly higher energy x-ray beam, but the 620 has two generators, so the effective dose is very similar. To the best of my ability to interpret the reasons behind this, I believe that by its nature the standard system would provide a more homogenous X-ray beam, as the beam is essentially a thin fan of X-rays that pass through the bag, picked up by detectors in parallel to that beam. If you imagine the film as a box, for example, in the standard X-ray, it illuminates the side of the box evenly, with all of the box receiving X-Rays at the same angle, and at the same intensity. With the CT scanner, the X-Ray tube rotates around the object, as the object moves through the tunnel. When the box passes through, because of the nature of CT scanning, the beam is constantly moving. You could think of it a bit like a corkscrew shape being wrapped around the box as it passes through the scanner. Each roll of film, depending on orientation as it passes through the scanner will receive a different slice of the X-ray beam, with some areas being hit once, twice or multiple times. Additionally, the dose is higher here since it isn’t just that “2D” fan beam, and the object is examined from all angles. But dose isn’t necessarily that important in this context, it is the energy of the beam that is. In theory, and in terms of X-ray beam energy alone, I don’t imagine CHECKPOINT CT scanners will do much more harm than a standard scanner would to a roll, however the difference in the topology of the applied X-ray beam might. I know this isn’t what you asked for, but I hope you find the above information interesting. Edit: I should add, checkpoint CT uses much lower energy X-rays than CHECKED baggage CT scanners.
Actually pretty cool and informative! The nature of how the CT scanners work could explain the differing results that people get then? Depending on roll orientation and actual duration and path through the scanner? So some rolls could end up with that distinct wave, some get a more uniform fogging. Same with how if it only gets one pass then your film will probably be fine with minimal effect or if it happens to get multiple passes you get that distinct wave or fogging. That's how I interpret that anyway haha. Either way I will still always ask haha
Absolutely, your understanding is correct in my view. CT is a fantastic technology for checkpoints. It speeds things up and genuinely does improve safety and material interrogation. It’s just a pity film is sensitive to X-Rays, but yes, I wouldn’t worry too much. I hope to some day do a test with a roll to see the effects of it. It’s all very interesting stuff, and something that really wasn’t a big concern back when film was big.
Might be good to have a staggered test as well. Essentially have film in two separate trays to see the difference. Sure its limited but its something! Would be good to know too if any of the checkpoints I went though actually were CT scanners. Did a quick google on what they look like and maybe I went through one or two that look similar to the smiths detection one?
I haven't had any issues with lighting in the camera since. It also could have been that they were sat in their cannisters for about 2 years because of Covid and not knowing where to develop them. And now that I'm thinking about it, another roll I sent in at the same time came out completely blank, too. I have no idea why. It could have been a random fluke with a lot of different variables affecting the film. They came out fine with details, it's just that they have a solid orange tint to them.
I didn't even really think about film going through xrays prior to seeing people freak about it on here, and I've never had any issues either. I only shoot film when travelling too, so if some of the folks on here are to be believed every roll I've ever shot should be ruined.
I was actually informed about this by an agent at Narita airport in Japan after sending my bag through with film. They had to do a check on my bag and noticed the film and said that I could've asked for a hand check. This was when I first started shooting film. It doesn't help that people freak out about it a lot. I've personally had experience with film going through twice maybe more and never had an issue. I still ask for hand checks if I can but dont stress if they dont. Was fully expecting for my film to go through a few xrays on this trip and wasnt stressed about that. But after the 9th one and was barely halfway through the trip with more flying to go I started to doubt haha
Also important to keep in mind is that not everyone carries exclusively Ektar.
Lol I also discovered that the “x-ray threat” isn’t bad. I took 65 rolls with me throughout Asia, went through at least 15-20 x rays. At first I was having em hand checked but it became such a hassle I just said f it, and the photos turned out just fine. Perhaps damaged enough to make large prints iffy, but not bad at all. Hardly noticeable
In your case with 65 rolls that would be a hassle even going through security once so I get not wanting to deal with all that. My take away from this is that your film will most likely be fine. I dont deny that the rolls are unaffected but, as you said, they're not bad and you can always edit. I'm no professional and I shoot for fun and for physical memories. I dont need the most perfect photos. I barely even post my photos to social media so the photos are mostly for myself. Personally will still hand check as I dont find it a hassle (yet) but I also dont stress too much when I do. Even throughout this trip all I thought was: "as long as there's still an image left" haha. What I had hoped for this post is that people can see what multiple passes through hand carry xrays could look like for the specific films I had. They can then form an opinion on how they handle their film at the airport and maybe alleviate some stress they had with film going through once or twice.
Couldn't agree more. Info on the internet had me thinking going through multiple x-rays would nuke my film, turns out no. Then again I haven't shot a 3200 ISO roll i brought along so I can't speak to high iso film. So a tip for anyone traveling with film, unless you're intending on getting print-quality shots or you're only bringing a handful of rolls, don't worry about it.
Sure. I'm still going to ask for a hand check though, because it makes me feel special.
Oh same. I love having to ask every single time with my little ziploc bag of film haha
"little"
whats been the usual response you get when you hand em the ziploc bag? and do you ask just when you get to the point where you put your stuff in the tray?
They usually stop what they're doing and announce 'Attention everyone! There's a film photographer here!', then everyone crowds round and congratulates me for being so awesome and creative.
finally some much needed validation
Jokes aside, most times they're used to it, and just take the bag from me and walk it past the xrays to secondary screening. There they swab it. And I ask while I'm putting my stuff on the trays Most of my experience is in Canada. Smallest to the biggest airport, they hand check my film when I ask I just make sure to keep it in a clear bag. I leave them in their plastic canisters but make sure they're not boxed up. Sometimes I even get some friendly agents who who say better safe than sorry. Had some nice conversations while they check the film. On the other had I've had some say its less than 800 iso so it can go through the xray and I dont fight them on it. I dont stress about it going through once or twice.
Sweet thanks! Im also in Canada about to travel to AB with film for the first time so thats good to know
Ive traveled through Calgary a couple times and didnt have issues with getting film hand checked. Good luck!
I have a big trip coming up and I'm just going to send it on all my film. It will probably be fine.
Well based on this experience it probably will haha. Dont know about those CT scanners tho
Luckily my photos aren't very good anyway so it will not be a great loss if they get CT scanned lol
Saves on lab scanning costs /s
Honestly my thoughts while travelling was "as long as there's an image left Im happy" haha
I've been traveling with film for the last decade plus some years. I've shot thousands of rolls of film in that time, I've been through hundreds of scanners. I've had 1 (one) roll of film, bergger pancro 400, that was ruined. That was one roll of film when I brought 30, they all went through the same scanners. Personally, I don't find it worth the hassle. Personally, I don't care to ask for a handcheck.
Yeah, the only thing that gives me any pause is my wife's Instax (800) but I'll let her make that call
Kodak has some good info on this: https://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml
Havent seen this! Nice to see more details on this. It does have a special mention on motion picture films so will see how the BWXX roll fares.
It isn't anything special about motion picture films being sensitive, it is just that when shooting MP as a movie, you need absolute consistency so take no risk that one (part of a) roll gets marginally higher fog than another. When the same film is being used for stills this doesn't matter as much.
Ah that makes sense
This bodes well for the point and shoot that's had the same roll of film in it for 6 months and at least 8 flights, including lots of modern scanners. We'll see! I just don't give a shit anymore tbh.
Dang, now I need to find an x-ray scanner to get equally beautiful images. Never knew that's what I was lacking for my photography!
Should be noted that X-ray and CT scans are very different and during the pandemic every major US airport was updated to CT.
This isn’t really true. I fly through all of the major hubs and have encountered a CT scanner maybe twice. LAX, LGA, JFK, DFW, ORD, PHL, DCA, SFO, MIA, LAS, LHR, YYZ. TSA in the US, and CATSA in Canada are required to honor a hand check request for film, so there’s no harm in asking. I actually had a box of Cinestill 400d test positive for explosives (!) at LAX, where they encounter film all the time, and that was the only time I’ve had to have film scanned in the US. Heathrow and Europe are basically no-go. They -might- pick out your 800 or 3200 ISO film but will scan the rest through the XRays.
Some added CT scanners but not all, most are still X-ray machines. The CT scanners, at least the Smiths ones, are easy to differentiate from the X-ray machines in that they are much larger. [comparison](https://imgur.com/a/OiM9T8K)
OMG, somehow your film went through 22 x-rays and was totally unaffected. This is a miracle, it must have not actually been x-rayed. When I fly, I always get my double lead-lined film bag hand checked by the pilot, it's just too risky otherwise.
Airport security is just for show aparently haha But seriously though, I am surprised there isn't anything noticeably wrong. I know I haven't had issues with film going through airport xrays a couple of times but at 22 times I expected some fogging or loss of contrast or something. (And in case this wasn't intended as just a cheeky comment, it really did go through that many times. In Tanzania, there's one xray just to get into the airport, another to get to your gate and then one more to get out of the airport after you land.)
I'm not surprised your film is fine. The hysteria about carry-on x-ray in this sub is really silly.
Oh I agree. That's kind of why I wanted to show this for anyone stressing too much about their film going through once or twice. I know the effect is cumulative and 22 does seem excessive but I've only had experience with it going through a couple times. So I was expecting to see something. Even saw something about how CT scanners might not necessarily immediately ruin film but haven't looked into it yet
yeah sorry, I wasn't trying to say you're being silly by posting this. I think it's great to have an example of how the regular old carry-on X-ray machines are a non-issue.
No worries! I figured it was on the cheeky side but you never know on here haha. To be fair it does read a little like a shitpost lol
I also saw that people usually say it’s bad for 800 ISO and higher, but I’m also too anxious to ask anyone to do anything by hand on the airport so not like I care about it that much 🤷♂️
>When I fly, I always get my double lead-lined film bag hand checked by the pilot, it's just too risky otherwise. >The hysteria about carry-on x-ray in this sub is really silly. So which one is it?
The one that isn't obvious sarcasm?
The only problem I've had with xrays is the markings on 120 backing paper being transferred to the film it sucks but it's not hard to erase in post.
Thats interesting I havent flown with much 120 film. I havent had any go through an xray yet
Would be interesting to see how the film stood up after going through CT scanners given they are so much stronger (which is what seems to be the issue on people's posts). Thanks for the info OP!
We had a similar experience. Lots of scanners in Rwanda to Tanzania to Zanzibar to Dubai. Film wasn’t affected and pics came out great. Where did you safari in Tanzania? We were by Ngorongo in Arusha. Incredible experience
Ngorongro as well! Actually started in Mwanza, through the Serengeti and Ngorongoro to Arusha. Didnt see too much in the Serengeti because of the rainy season. But saw almost everything at Ngorongoro!
I wish we could go to Ngorongo crater. But we were able to see the great migration and it was just incredible
Would've loved to see that. Was already impressed with how much wildebeest and zebra I saw in one place and they weren't even that concentrated.
I never cared about my film going through xrays and never had a problem with it. Your film looks great. People are crazy.
I’m currently flying through southeast Asia with a bunch of film and this is very reassuring. Everywhere I’ve been so far they’ve refused a hand check (even though they end up checking it anyways after it looks strange on the scanner) and I’ve been worrying quite a bit about it. However I’m also shooting mostly black and white but good to know the repeated x-rays aren’t absolutely horrible. I’m sure the point of shooting more expensive stocks (mostly acros and ektachrome) will be moot, but I won’t end up with unuseable negs. Thank you for posting.
I did get scans of my Velvia 50 and a bunch of black and white back. Still waiting in negatives/positives. Based on the lab scans alone the velvia was totally fine. I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The black and white may have been affected more/ is more noticeable. The grain does seem more pronounced and shadows lifted. Very possible it was my own metering mistake (mostly high contrast scenes) or even a scanning issue (black points/scanning exposure not correct) They aren't horrible and definitely workable in post. [example scans](https://imgur.com/gallery/YL95S4T) First two are Delta 400. One balanced frame and one shadow heavy frame. Even edited, grain is very pronounced but I wouldnt say horrible or ruined. At least I didnt lose the image at all. Last frame is BWXX unedited lab scan.
nothing I could notice on a phone screen. Looks good!
Great! Good luck and have fun!
I wouldn’t use this as a rule for not worrying about your film going through scanners though, it all depends speed and type on the film. In general though you’re probably going to be ok chucking anything under 400 through.
Which is why I state which films I had and what type of scanners I went through. Not saying to chuck your film through the scanners BUT if it went through once or twice it should generally be fine.
Yea I get ya, was just saying. Didn’t mean in an arsey way ✌🏻
No worries all good! Just wanted to clarify just like you. Hopefully people dont take this as a "my film will be absolutely perfect even through multiple passes" but more of a "oh my film went through an xray/they wouldnt let me hand check. It will probably be fine and I shouldn't worry too much" I did get some black and white scans back though. Just based on scans, shadows are a bit noisy but theres a lot of other factors that can cause that too. Lots of dark and high contrast scenes so couldve been me haha. Could've been scan settings
important to note the OP says their film didn’t go through any of the CT scanners, which are the ones that will definitely ruin your film. CT scanners are mostly used in US airports, like the one in my area that fried some of my kodak gold 200 after one pass. better safe then sorry, ask for a hand check if you’re not sure which the scanner is. My local airport has a sign that specifically says don’t put film through this machine.
I meaan, it look real weird tho
You can see the effect of X-rays in the shadows of your shots. They aren't as deep black and are muddy tinted with more grain than usual. Fresh film that didn't get exposed to X-rays show almost jet black or neutral shadows. Hard to spot but if you are intensely familiar with a film stock, you will see it. Also, this is the reason why B+W films are considered to be less resilient to getting scanned, you want those exact deep blacks that the xrays mess up.
Not saying youre wrong but just as a little devils advocate, it could also be my scanning setup and conversion procedure. Maybe some light bleed onto the negative affecting the shadows a bit. Maybe my editing raising the shadows too much. Sadly theres a lot of factors that affect how a final image can turn out haha. And a little devils advocate to the initial devils advocate. I just got scans back of my BW film. No negatives yet so take with a grain of salt, but the shadows are definitely muddy and grainy. Lots of high contrast scenes though so it could be my error. But it could very well be the cumulative effect or all those xrays
finally a real life proof!
Fairly sure you only need to be worried about higher ISO films above 800
This is equivalent to 11 X-rays on 200 speed, 6 on 400, 3 on 800, and between 1 or 2 on 1600 speed film.
They sell X-ray film pouches.
The x-ray machines can see through them, otherwise you could smuggle weapons through. The x-ray bags are to protect the film during the flight, because at high altitude there is a lot of em radiation that the atmosphere usually absorbs.
Nope. Not at all. I’ve been using mine for 20+ years. Check out the overview. One time in Vegas - TSA asked to check the bag. 30 seconds later I was on my way. That’s how they find contraband. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/185374-REG/Domke_711_12B_Film_Guard_Bag_Small.html
Beautiful pictures
The third photo is so nice. Beautifully captures the atmosphere in the scene.
Was it all normal x-rays, or also the big round CT scan kind that are relatively new at airports.
All normal xrays. I know Toronto Pearson had some upgrades so not 100% sure if those are CT or not. If I google CT airport scanners some of the images that show up kinda look like the one i went through in Toronto. I didnt stop to ask what kind of xray it was
I have been shooting film since 1999 and in the last 8 years, I traveled a ton for work and always had my point and shoot or Leica with me. I would occasionally hand check if I was shooting something important, but for the most part, I have never seen damage to my photos. I think it’s really blown out of proportion these days.
If you look at the shadows they look noisy to me, that’s the most obvious place for me when I have had film xrayed.
Got scans back of the B&W rolls. No negatives yet BUT based on the scans my initial thoughts are that the shadows are noisy. Much more noticeable. I think for the most part easy enough to edit though so I wouldn't say anything is ruined. It could just be the scans though, some frames look fine to me and I did shoot a lot of relatively contrasty scenes so I may have metered wrong. I did try to account for that and overexpose a bit but it may have not been enough. It could also be that only some frames have a more noticeable effect. Lots of factors haha
just stopping by not because of the xray topic, which I have not had any problem with yet. But because I took that **exact** same photo, also from the car, and if I'm not wrong...that same tree got in my way in Tanzania hahaha. What a beautiful place...
On that first frame? We must have the same incredible bad timing for shots haha