Re: RE: [Followup] airline screening and film

Jeff Dilcher wrote:

> >From my research since I first posted, I have determined that
>
> a) you are likely to get zapped by much higher powered devices
> if your film is in bags which are "checked" and not carried on board.
>
> b) 100asa and under film *should* be able to withstand several exposures
> to walkthrough devices.
>
> c) Current FAA regulations state that you can demand a hand check of your
> film at the walk through scanners. Apparantly some checkers will still
> require you to put your item through the scanner, if it is not "high
> speed" film.
>
> d) There are lead lined pouches available, which can safely resist both
> walk through, and the higher powered "checked baggage" scanners. Though,
> high power resistant bags are a bit pricier.
>
> Building a camera onsite is not an option for me, and FEDEXING my film
> back and forth will be difficult since I don't know anyone there. I can't
> buy and process film on location, since I work with large format, and have
> my own peculiar processing desires.
>
> I decided to order the SIMA lead lined bag product
> http://www.simacorp.com/photo.html#filmshield for my upcoming Utah trip.
>
> The lead lined bag approach will work well if the carry on handlers won't
> hand check my film- I will still have another layer of protection as I
> anxiously watch my film go through the "cooker".
>

After following this thread for a bit I thought I would add my two cents to
the debate. I recently took an eight week holiday to new Zealand and
Australia, and I had concerns with regards to x-rays. After reading similar
threads on the internet from various groups that all seemed to spell doom,
then going to national geographic sources that claimed film 400 asa and under
can withstand up to 16 passes through hand check scanners in first world
countries I decided to risk it and just let my camera bag go through the
scanners (I already knew I would not have a choice in the matter in LA and
Toronto). I bought most of my film in Toronto, but I did run out and had to
buy more in both New Zealand and Australia (finished the trip with 35 rolls
of Slides and 12 rolls of negative). The film that I used was Kodak E200,
Fuji Provia 100F and Fuji Superia 400 for snap shots. The film from Canada
passed through x-rays 7 times; Toronto-LA, LA-Auckland, Auckland-Sydney,
Sydney-Alice Springs, Alice Springs-Sydney, Sydney-LA, LA-Toronto. After
processing back here in Canada, all the film looked fine. I can't visually
tell the difference between the film that I bought in Canada and the film I
purchased in Australia. Maybe if one was to take a density reading of a
neutral grey their might be some variations, but as far as I'm concerned I'm
happy with the results.

--Mark

Now for pin-hole related notes. I was out early this morning taking photos
with my Zero Image 2000 and a 50's era TLR (an Olympic ??), I used E100S in
the Zero Image and I swear its sharper than the images from the TLR, though I
admit it is a low end camera from 50 years ago, but hey it still works.
Received on Fri May 10 18:37:17 2002