An Interesting questiopn about a camera...
Robert Bodling
guys out there are pretty smart so I want to ask a silly question of
you smart guys... Would an X ray (the ones they use in the Airport to
scan your luggage) effect 35mm film in one of those well known
disposal cameras? Just curious...
Robert L. Bass
Yes, airport x-ray machines can damage undeveloped film. The best solution
is to buy your film (or disposable cameras) at your destination and have it
developed there. The x-ray machines don't hurt developed pictures or
negatives.
Experienced photographers will tell you to keep film in your carry-on
luggage rather than checked bags. The machines used for checked bags *used
to be* more powerful than the ones at the gate. That may no longer be the
case with the updated hardware in place these days.
The safest solution is to take your film or camera out of your carry-on,
place it in the little basket and hand it to the agent for manual
inspection. The rules say they have to honor the request but don't be too
surprised if the newly hired agent unceremoniously tosses your stuff onto
the belt anyway.
My solution is to use a digital camera. I carry a couple of 512-meg compact
flash cards in a shirt pocket and put them in the basket. AFAIK the x-ray
does not hurt their performance. When I went to Brazil I didn't want to
carry my Nikon so I bought half a dozen disposables, used them up, developed
them locally and mailed pix I wanted home to the states. The envelopes
arrived about two or three weeks after I got back.
Regards,
Robert
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics, Inc
2291 Pine View Circle · Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
941-232-0791 Wireless
Nextel Private ID - 161*21755*1
http://www.bass-home.com
=============================>
"Robert Bodling" <Robert...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qajsevkuunmih7ob7...@4ax.com...
sp...@spam.com
WILL damage the film.
Robert L. Bass
Aluminum film cans work perfectly. They'll go through the new bomb sniffer
/ x-ray unit. At the other end the bag will be opened and manually
inspected but your film will be safe.
Still the *second* best option (if you use commercial film processors) is to
have the negatives developed locally if there's a decent processing house
around. The *first* best is to spring for a D1X and forget the film.
Someday..... :^)
Regards,
Robert
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics, Inc
2291 Pine View Circle · Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
941-232-0791 Wireless
Nextel Private ID - 161*21755*1
http://www.bass-home.com
=============================>
> Accoreding to the press, the new machines that scan your checked baggage
> WILL damage the film.
Nathan D. Olmscheid
35mm Cannon. I have yet to have a roll of film wrecked at any airport. Its
always in my carry on so it goes through those scanners.
"Robert Bodling" <Robert...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qajsevkuunmih7ob7...@4ax.com...
Robert L. Bass
I've traveled around the US, Canada, Mexico and S America. I had one roll
of film ruined (presumably) by an airport scanner. IIRC, it was at Bradley
Airport (BDL). All of my pictures came out with a broad, foggy streak down
the middle. A number of photographers I know recommend using those little,
aluminum film cans. Since I started using digital cameras a few years ago
it's no longer an issue for me.
Regards,
Robert
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics, Inc
2291 Pine View Circle · Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
941-232-0791 Wireless
Nextel Private ID - 161*21755*1
http://www.bass-home.com
=============================>
"Nathan D. Olmscheid" <nat...@theolmscheids.com> wrote in message
news:daFHa.9$Ma2....@news.uswest.net...
Mick
the x-Ray machines. THey were designed especially for that reason. I
don't know where you get them from , but I would assume that a camera
store would be able to help you out
Mick
Nathan D. Olmscheid
Correct, I have heard of the problem as well. Its just odd with all of the
film (usually 8-10 rolls each vacation) I have never had a problem. Maybe I
can consider myself lucky. I have heard there is a difference in the speed
of film you use as well. I forgot what the rumor was. Higher speed or lower
speed has a higher likeliness to get wrecked.
I have always taken it as another rumor that MIGHT be true. I have never
experienced. I also get a kick out of the rumor that says that using cell
phones on planes messes with their instruments. Well in reality it doesn't,
and the airline pilots themselves use them if they are low enough. I have a
few friends that are pilots for Sun Country and call their spouses when they
are nearing landing. They said it does not do a darn thing.
I do believe airport X-rays could mess up film, but I have to see it to
believe it. :-)
Nathan
"Robert L. Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hBicnUNkjtb...@giganews.com...
Robert L. Bass
With cell phones it's actually the pilot's discretion. AFAIK, no commercial
pilot will sanction their use. Airlines may also have regulations
concerning them. I don't recall there being a FAR against cell phones at
altitude. However, there are FCC rules and issues. One problem with using
a cell phone at altitude is it jams the system. The cell sites each have
only so many available channels. As you drive around with your cell at 3
feet AGL you are usually only hitting from one to three towers at a time.
The same channel can be used by someone else in another cell. But a cell
phone in an airplane would be picked up by potentially hundreds of towers at
once, quickly using up available channels. At least that's the way my CFI
explained it in ground school.
BTW, did you ever notice that in the USA we park in driveways, drive on
parkways and learn to fly in ground school? No wonder Europeans think we're
nuts. :^)
Regards,
Robert
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics, Inc
2291 Pine View Circle · Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
941-232-0791 Wireless
Nextel Private ID - 161*21755*1
http://www.bass-home.com
=============================>
> Correct, I have heard of the problem as well. Its just odd with all of the
Robert L. Bass
just use keep old aluminum film cans in the little film pockets in the top
of my camera bags. I have a Lowepro bag for my digital camera and a
speedlight (the only reason I bought the 990). There's a pouch for film
with an odd plastic liner in it. I wonder if it's anything special. Since
my "film" is now a few compact flash cards it's no longer an issue for me.
Regards,
Robert
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics, Inc
2291 Pine View Circle · Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
941-232-0791 Wireless
Nextel Private ID - 161*21755*1
http://www.bass-home.com
=============================>
> I have seen little bags for film to be placed in that protect them from
Nathan D. Olmscheid
problems.
When flying in a personal aircraft, your correct you can use a cell phone
all you want. They actually have headsets that have a jack for you to plug
your phone into. Pretty neat.
I was just kind of referring to the thing about people getting all hyped up
that you can not use a cell phone on a commercial airline airplane because
it screws up the radars and such on the plane. I just laugh. We all know it
does not harm them, or the pilots would not use the phones themselves.
Do you own a plane Robert? Getting my PPL is high on my list, but I need to
get settled into this new house first. (Close on the 30th of this month)
Flying is a great experience. When I was looking for a club or a shared
partnership to join I got to do some flying as they wanted to show me their
planes. That was my first experience in flying in a single engine plane. Now
I need to make some time and start training.
Nathan
"Robert L. Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0qKdnYsMu7x...@giganews.com...
Robert L. Bass
> problems.
I don't recall what ISO the film was that was ruined.
> When flying in a personal aircraft, your correct you can use a cell phone
> all you want. They actually have headsets that have a jack for you to plug
> your phone into. Pretty neat.
Yes.
> I was just kind of referring to the thing about people getting all hyped
up
> that you can not use a cell phone on a commercial airline airplane because
> it screws up the radars and such on the plane. I just laugh.
The flight attendants always say that in the preflight announcements. After
so many flights the public accepts it as though it was in the FARs.
> We all know it does not harm them, or the pilots would not use
> the phones themselves.
I don't know for certain that it can't hurt anything but I suspect you're
right.
> Do you own a plane Robert?
Naah. I didn't even finish getting my ticket. I went through flight
school, did everything for the exam but my long cross country. My CFI got a
real (paying) job. I didn't care for the other CFI there so I put it off.
Now I only fly my cousin's airplane when he comes to visit. If I ever can
spare the time I'll go back and finish.
> Getting my PPL is high on my list, but I need to get settled
> into this new house first. (Close on the 30th of this month)
> Flying is a great experience. When I was looking for a club
> or a shared partnership to join I got to do some flying as
> they wanted to show me their planes. That was my first
> experience in flying in a single engine plane. Now I need to
> make some time and start training.
Do it. Don't put it off too long if you can. My cousin took me up in his
Citabria many years ago, showed me a few snap rolls, stalls and such. Then
he leveled off about 5000 AGL over the everglades, showed me what the stick
and rudder do and said, "Your airplane." That was the greatest moment I'd
ever known. Well, there was one night in Phoenix, but we won't go there...
:^)
Want to hear a ridiculous airplane story? Someone I know claims he went
inverted in a Boeing 737 at 5000 AGL and lived to tell about it. I suspect
the guy also talks to Elvis. :^)
MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com
<Robert...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
<qajsevkuunmih7ob7...@4ax.com>:
Yes.
You should assume that if film is scanned, it may be damaged or ruined. The
best way I have found to prevent film from being damaged is to insist on
having it hand inspected. On my last trip, this meant that each of thirty
or so rolls of 35mm film was hand-swabbed and the swab analyzed.
Having traveled to every continent except Antarctica (missing that
experience is still a sore point 30 years after the fact) I have found that
one way to increase the odds that inspectors will pass the film through
without scanning or swabbing is by taking 35mm out of the canister and
putting the film in (eg) groups of six in plastic Film-Stor boxes (not
Film-Safe-X !) from Porter's Camera
http://porterscamerastore.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=F1G
On the _outside_ of the film box, I tape the box from a high-speed (ISO 800
or greater ) film and when I show the film boxes I make sure that the high
speed label is visible.
It probably usually helps that I typically carry ~25lbs of professional
photo gear as carry-on. To reinforce the notion that I am serious, I
sometimes conspicuously remove a roll of film from a camera body
immediately before giving it to the inspector and put that roll in amongst
the ones to be hand inspected.
I also shoot 4"x5" sheet film and have usually _not_ been successful in
avoiding having it scanned. The sheet film I use is ISO 50 or 100 and a
single pass through some scanners *will* fog film but is more likely to be
_evenly_ fogged than 35mm and therefore less objectionable.
I used to use various lead shields but this is no longer a good idea
because they increase the odds that the film will be scanned multiple
times. Aluminum shielding provides negligible protection from X-rays.
I have taken to having both slide and negative film developed (but not cut)
even while traveling overseas if I can find a pro/reputable lab.
HTH ... Marc
MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com
www.econtrol.org
Robert L. Bass
> I have taken to having both slide and negative film developed (but not
cut)
> even while traveling overseas if I can find a pro/reputable lab.
Agreed. The problem is finding someone who can/will do a good job in some
out of the way places. I didn't want to risk my own cameras in Rio so I
rented a Nikon and took lots of pictures all over Rio, Cabo Frio and Buzios.
The lab in Rio insisted on prepayment. I stupidly agreed and never received
a single roll of developed film back from them.
Next year we're going to Bahia. I'll bring my camera and assorted gear.
The difference is we'll be staying in our condo instead of a hotel -- much
safer.
Regards,
Robert
Robert Bodling
With what you said below, what's the probability that the Airport
would X ray luggage that is transported via the luggage compartment?
I know with what has been happening lately, the security in the
Airports are not what it used to be before... My wife picked up her
film that was developed and everything she says looks just fine (other
than the photographer's mistakes). Is it her luck then?
MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com
<rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
<s8idndCGfoT...@giganews.com>:
>That Film Safe-X looks good, Marc.
Note that I'm not recommending that you use a "film safe" to try to keep
your film "safe". Objects that are radiologically opaque tend to get zapped
even more. I use the $3 plastic containers because it makes the film more
compact than in canisters and keeps it better organized (for the way I
travel and shoot). But anything that makes the inspectors take you
seriously helps and a "film safe" in your hand when you ask for a manual
inspection may help.
>
>> I have taken to having both slide and negative film developed (but not
>>cut) even while traveling overseas if I can find a pro/reputable lab.
>
>Agreed. The problem is finding someone who can/will do a good job in some
>out of the way places. I didn't want to risk my own cameras in Rio so I
>rented a Nikon and took lots of pictures all over Rio, Cabo Frio and
>Buzios. The lab in Rio insisted on prepayment. I stupidly agreed and
>never received a single roll of developed film back from them.
Bad luck. It helps to have friends all over the world who have rock
hammers ... ;-)
Here's a couple of my "hydrologic" pix from a 1999 trip to Brazil. One is
looking across from Brazil to Argentina.
http://banklick.basins.org/brazil/Foz_32.jpg
MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com
<Robert...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
<b0jcfvc10gj4netee...@4ax.com>:
>Marc,
>
>With what you said below, what's the probability that the Airport
>would X ray luggage that is transported via the luggage compartment?
>I know with what has been happening lately, the security in the
>Airports are not what it used to be before... My wife picked up her
>film that was developed and everything she says looks just fine (other
>than the photographer's mistakes). Is it her luck then?
As I understand it, much/most stowed luggage in US airports is inspected by
X-raying.
Whether the X-raying will have a noticeable effect depends on film speed,
number of times the film is scanned, strength of X-ray field at the film,
and whether the resulting "fogging" (increase in optical density) is
uniform across the negative/slide.
Film can be fogged by visible light , X-rays, cosmic radiation, heat,
chemicals and through aging of the film emulsion itself. If the fog is
uniform, it simply causes a reduction in contrast. This can be dealt with
during printing if not too severe. In fact, an old trick to improve photos
taken under conditions of extreme (lighting) contrast is to pre-fog
negative film to build up the shadow detail.
If the x-raying results in uneven "fogging" of the negatives, prints from
those negatives will turn out "streaked" and so are damaged.
I used leave at home several sheets from each box of 4"x5" black and white
negative film and compare the density of that stay-at-home film with that
of some travelled-but-unexposed film to determine whether compensation in
during development was needed.
</offtopic> .. Marc
MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com
www.econtrol.org