| Author |
Message |
    
Harlee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 07:18 pm: | 
|
This isn't regarding a camera, but the 35MM film. I travel a lot into europe and I'm finding that almost all of my film developing is coming out terrible. I talked with a Fuji Lab rep., and they claim it's the x-raying of the film when I travel that's producing the poor quality images. Is there any way to protect my film, generally ISO 200 and 400 negative type when traveling abroad. I have been using one of the supposedly x-ray-proof lead lined bags, but quite frankly I don't have any confidence in them. I always carry my fresh film in my carry-on bag as I've been told those x-ray machines are not as strong as the checked through bags x-ray machines. Any suggestions? |
Ben
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 07:31 pm: |
|
400 speed film is supposed to be good for up to five passes through a carry-on baggage scanner. I've talked to people who have done it twenty some odd times, though, with no ill effects. When I went to France over the summer, my 20 some odd rolls of 400 speed print film were X-rayed three times-once in Lexington, Kentucky; once in Nice, France; and finally once in New York City. I saw no fogging or other ill effects.
By the way, that was all unprotected. I had one roll in my camera(Canon A-1) each time, but other than that, all was just in its plastic film can.
I would think that your film would be almost completely safe in a lead-lined bag.
If you're concerned, though, the best option would be to buy your film over there and have it processed before you leave. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 09:51 am: |
|
You do not give the specifics on what is wrong with the processing. In my experience you are looking at the last factor in the failure chain first. I have never had problems with security X-ray equipment degrading either exposed or unexposed film stock.
As you appear to be using two types of film, film stock problems can be ignored. Storage of the films is the next area, both the retailer and yourself. I have seen some very questionable storage of professional stock by so called reputable retailers over the years.
The next variable will be the actual processing/processor. Do you use the same company all the time and if so, is it the same branch?
Finally, is your equipment working properly? Silly question? Well no, a certain acquaintance of mine once created a great stink over the self same problem. Swore blind that his recently serviced kit was not to blame and made accusations of depleted chemicals etc. Unfortunately he did not bother to check the metering system with an external source, 'I've paid £300 to have this lot serviced, course it works!'. Well it did work in the correct fashion, ie aperture closed down, shutter opened/closed but under exposed by something like 4.5EV.
Not suggesting for one moment that you are anything like that pompous idiot, but problems sometimes can be traced back to our own doorstep.
I do feel that your problems may be due to the processor/processing if you are only using one company. Try another firm for the next batch of films or at least have one cassette processed and printed by a firm that deals with professionals, we still use film and expect and get first rate results. Not something you can say for minilabs. |
Lori
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 12:22 pm: |
|
I have heard that when x-ray screen examiners get lead-lined bags blocking visual screen on the belt, they simply turn up the intensity and you get a higher dose than if you'd left the film unprotected - but I have no way of verifying this. |
BrianShaw
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Lead-lined bags isn't a good option. In the US, at least, the airport screeners will not only turn up the power... but they will remove your bag for further inspection. The inspection options (their choice) include: remove film from lead-lined bag and X-ray it again, swab the film canisters for trace detection, or visually inspect it.
Incidently, they turn up the power for batteries, too, since they can't be seen through. I don't put film and batteries in the same carry-on bag anymore.
The better option is to take the film in a clear baggie in your hand as you go to the metal detector and politely ask the TSA person to visually inspect it. At their option, they either will comply or not. Arguing never helps... only gets them mad and encourages them to prove that they have the upper-hand. I saw this happen once - young guy arguing about TSA's refusal to hand-search his film. No threats were made, but the conversation was loud and the guy was clearly agitated. The film was put through the X-ray, his carry-on bags were hand searched, and he was frisked. I was right behind him so I quitely put my film onto the belt and didn't bother asking for any special treatment.
In 20 years of frequent air travel I've never had a problem with 400 ASA or slower film, including times when I've passed through half-a-dozen airports. |
BrianShaw
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 12:57 pm: |
|
From the US Transportation Security Administration, recommendations about carrying film on airplanes:
http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1035.xml |
John Shriver
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 09:01 pm: |
|
Two notes. One, the power cannot be "increased" on the carry on scanners. The operators don't want their nuts cooked, nor do I.
Second, if you put film in checked bags, IT WILL BE RUINED. They use MUCH more powerful X-ray machines for the bags.
X-ray damage is obvious by it's uneveness on the negatives, and it extends into the margins between the frames.
John Shriver
http://john.shriver.home.comcast.net |
Alex
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 03:47 am: |
|
I've taken ISO 800 film through airports with no detectable ill effect, so I'd agree with those who are discounting X-ray inspections as the source of your problem. You don't describe just what it is about the images you are getting that is 'poor', but Glenn's caveat about the camera itself is worth looking at. I once had several rolls of film ruined by what I thought was poor processing -- splotchy images, strange colour casts, banding. The processor replaced the film as a gesture of goodwill, as I insisted that the camera (Contax) was in top form. Just to be sure, I then went and had the shutter serviced. Problem persisted. Turned out to be light leakage, fixed by an inexpensive pack of light seals. |
BrianShaw
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 08:35 pm: |
|
Re: John Shriver's post...
You're right about the power levels of Rapiscan (and similar) carry-on baggage x-ray machines... they are 1 power and use a bunch of post-processing features to enhance the x-ray image and "bad thing" detection capabilities. My error... sorry. Rapiscan, according to factory data, guarantees 1600 ASA for 10 exposures without damage.
But InVision CTX (the favored x-ray machine for checked baggage) is starting to be used for carry-on bags, too, in some places. CTX has a low-power (similar level to the Rapiscan-type systems) initial scan AND it has a high-power level that can be either operator-induced or automatic... and it will (as you say) cook film.
"The InVision CTX-5000SP, produced by InVision Technologies, Inc., employs conventional x-ray and cat scan technology.
The system pre-scans baggage to evaluate it for any potential threat (explosive), then scans further using a focused, more intense narrow width beam if suspicious materials are detected. This concentrated high-energy beam (1cm wide / 100 - 300 mR in power) is causing fog damage to unprocessed photographic films. By comparison, older, conventional x-ray inspection units produced less than 1mR of energy and after "many" passes through these systems, unprocessed films could exhibit a radiation caused effect.
Systems employing this new technology start with an initial inspection at lower x-ray intensity. If anything is deemed suspicious about the shape, size or content of objects in the luggage, it automatically triggers additional scanning with the CTX-5000SP machine.
While the CTX-5000SP and CTX-5500 are not typically used today to inspect carry-on luggage, the FAA has indicated that this technology will be implemented in the future, where practicable. Several reports of it being used for carry-on inspection have already surfaced.
Tests conducted by the Photo Industry Marketing Association (PIMA) indicate that the CTX-5000SP will cause significant fogging of all unprocessed color negative films with an ISO speed of 100 or higher when the film sustains a direct hit by the machine's high intensity x-ray beam. The orientation of the fog stripe is dependent upon the orientation of the film relative to the x-ray beam. The density of the fog stripe depends upon the film speed; the faster the film the more dense the stripe. Additionally, whether this stripe is seen in the photographic print may depend upon scene content. Busy scenes with flowers, foliage, etc. may tend to obscure or lessen the x-ray effects."
See
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/publications/tib5201.jhtml
for images of x-ray damage caused by checked baggage x-ray inspection. It helps clarify the type of damage that John described. |
Harlee
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Thanks for all the input. Much of my film processed in the US after a trip into Russia and Ukraine comes out with a lot of grain and foggy. When returning the negs for reprints, they come out about the same, but perhaps a little better because they take a little more care in processing after I complain. While most of the posts have been in regards to US scanning, there's no telling what the Russians and/or Ukrainians utilize. In my dealing with them at the airports, they seemingly have little regard for your personal property and couldn't care less about your "pictures." As for a possible problem with my camera, I generally take several cameras with me, including SLRs, rangefinders and digitals as well. The digital prints do appear to come out OK, but I don't like digital cameras!!! The prints from the different cameras generally come out quite badly. Now, I must admit, some of my film has made several trips and it looks as though I'll have to deep six those rolls. Perhaps the best thing would be to purchase film over there and have it developed over there, but that gets very expensive. Thanks for all the input. |
John Shriver
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 07:47 pm: |
|
Do the troubled negatives look thin when you inspect them by eye? That would indicate underexposure.
X-ray damage would look like dark marks across the negatives, since it exposes them, and makes them darker. |
|
