Have you ever returned home with exposed film?
 

My neice was telling me that the last time she traveled that her film was exposed when her luggage was x-rayed. I have never had this happen. Has anyone ever heard of this and if so should one carry there film in there carry on or in there checked luggage, or what can you do?

I don't understand the first part of your question, but you should always take your film in your carry-on, because the x-ray used on carryon puieces is not as strong, and therefore not as damaging, as the x-ray used on luggage that is checked through.

You definitely want to carry your film in your carryon luggage. The x-ray used for checked luggage is much stronger and will ruin your film. I have never had a problem with film that I have carried on.

Ask her if her film was in a checked bag. if so -- most likely it was and that always ruins film. As the others said - film should only be carried in hand luggage and never checked.

I always chuck my used films in my checked bag & I've never had a problem.

This is an informative page on the effect of X-rays on film:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/servi.../tib5201.shtml

I always handcarry my film, but unfortunately I can't seem to get people to handcheck the film. The page suggests that 5x for carry-on luggage would be too many. Unfortunately these days it's quite easy for me to exceed that with a layover.

I usually use 400 speed film. Occasionally I definitely do get these "foggy" pictures, but it's hard to say if that's due to too much X-rays or to my bad photography (I use a simple point-and-shoot).

111op,

I've never had any trouble in the U. S. or Canada getting my film hand inspected. The usual conversation involves my request, the security guard's reminder that the machine won't affect my film, my reminder that I'd rather not take the risk, and my immediate request again for hand inspection. (All done in a friendly tone and demeanor accompanied by an understanding smile on my face.)

The risk of not getting the film hand inspected is that the X-ray machine suddenly goes wacko, out of calibration, and my film is ruined. If there is only 0.0001% chance of that happening, it's still too much of a risk, especially considering the importance of my travel photos, the associated memories, and that in many countries it is my legal right that my film be hand inspected.

I have had much stronger resistance in foreign countries, the most being in Cambodia, but I have never, ever been refused a hand inspection in more than 20 years of travel.

It is not unusual for me to carry 50 rolls of film. In the post-9/11 environment, I usually carry my film in a see-through bag to make it easier for the security guard to do a visual inspection. I also often remove the film cannisters from their boxes for the same reason. Very often, especially in foreign countrie, that makes it easier for the inspector to make a quick inspection, rather than feeling compelled to search every individual cannister on a one-by-one basis.

A few years ago a leading photo magazine ran various films ten times through the standard X-ray used at U. S. airports at the time (this was definitely pre-9/11). There was no evidence of any X-ray effect. I believe all of the films were under 1000ASA but I don't remember that exact detail.

If the entire roll of film used in a point-and-shoot camera is foggy, the likelihood is that it was affected by X-ray or developed incorrectly. If it is an occasional photograph that is foggy rather than an entire roll of film, I don't know what the likely cause would be but I really do doubt that it would be the X-ray. The advantage of a point-and-shoot camera is that very few mistakes that cause fogging are made by either the user or the camera unless the camera is defective. If that's the case, all rolls of film would probably be problematic.

In the event that I am ever refused hand inspection within the U. S., I always keep a copy of the following regulation in my carry-on bag to show the security guard. (I've never needed to mention it, much less provide it.) The website that provides it is no longer available. I hope the regulation is still current. The following is that regulation:

PART 108--AIRPLANE OPERATOR SECURITY

SPECIAL FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS

Excerpt: 108.17 Use of X-ray systems.


(e) No certificate holder may use an X-ray system to inspect carry-on or
checked articles unless a sign is posted in a conspicuous place at the
screening station and on the X-ray system which notifies passengers that such
items are being inspected by an X-ray and advises them to remove all X-ray,
scientific, and high-speed film from carry-on and checked articles before
inspection. This sign shall also advise passengers that they may request that
an inspection be made of their photographic equipment and film packages
without exposure to an X-ray system. If the X-ray system exposes any carry-on
or checked articles to more than 1 milliroentgen during the inspection, the
certificate holder shall post a sign which advises passengers to remove film
of all kinds from their articles before inspection. If requested by
passengers, their photographic equipment and film packages shall be inspected
without exposure to an X-ray system.

That's interesting. Thanks Mike. Perhaps I'm just not sufficiently insistent. Usually I've my film out and ready to be handed to the guards, but they'll just ask that I put the stuff through the machine. Sometimes I put my rolls of film in my pockets -- that sometimes works unless the detector is set off.

I've not really traveled much within the US since I moved to NYC. All my recent trips have been to Europe -- so I've only dealt with NY airport security or European airport security.

Regarding the foggy pictures -- one of the Chenonceau castle looked foggy. Maybe it was just overexposed (too much sun?). A couple from the Rhine also didn't come out well -- but I remembered that the lighting seeemd fine when I took the pictures. Granted, my camera is very old (it's a very old Nikon point-and-shoot -- probably at least 15 years old).

I did have a scare this time. I forgot to take my roll of film out with the Alhambra while I was at the Cordoba train station. I thought that the X-rays might have been too strong, but that roll of film actually came out fine. That was not a pleasant experience, since it wasn't that easy to get to the Alhambra in the first place. So I understand exactly what you mean about not wanting to run any risks.

Anyway, I'm not really a photography person, and, for the longest time, I didn't take any pictures. I've only just started again, sort of.

111op,

After posting my message, I read the web page you provided. That's the exact page from which I extracted the FAA regulation at the bottom of my post. You might want to print that regulation because the link to it no longer works.

I didn't want my post to be too confusing, so I intentionally omitted any discussion about the distinction between fogging and over exposure that you mentioned. I think a lot of people probably do understandably confuse the two.

When using a point-and-shoot camera that is operating properly, the only time you will get an over-exposed image is when you are taking a picture that is very dark, such as the next time you are in the jungle taking a close up of a gorilla. :) Much, much more often than that, point-and-shoot cameras will produce an underexposed image because most casual photographers take pictures in situations that produce under exposure rather than over exposure. As an example, a LOT of pictures are taken at the beach and that's where the circumstances tend to produce under-exposed images.

As for your Nikon being old, age is probably only a problem if it is consistently producing bad images. One of my film cameras is nearly 22 years old. The other one is the exact same model (now discontinued) that was purchased almost ten years ago.

Since you are just getting back into photography, you might want to seriously consider going digital. It really is a lot more fun for most casual photographers and, of course, it completely eliminates the issue of X-rays at airports.

Thanks -- I've been thinking of getting a digital camera, but then, I need to get a computer (!). The one at home is too old.... So out of inertia, it's easier to stick with something that's easy to use (for me) until I can work out a better solution.

Like Mike, I've never been refused hand inspections at a US airport. But, maybe because I'm not as insistent as he, I've always acquiesced in foreign airports to running film through the carry-on x-ray. And, I've gone so far as to remove film cannisters from their plastic containers and put them in see through zip-loc bags to make hand/visual inspection as easy/quick as possible.

These days, to avoid any hassle, I put my film, exposed or not, in a lead bag in my carry-on. They may want to hand inspect after running it through x-ray, but that's what I'm hoping for in the first place. You can buy lead bags for varying film speeds.

Bottom line; listen to your niece; never put film in checked bags.

Thanks for all the information. I will definately pay attention where I put my film. Last spring I brought back 11 rolls of film from Europe. Some were in my carry on and some in my checked luggage. All were good, well, as good as th photographer. I also use a digital camera, which my son-in-law loads on to a disc and I bring it home and print out the ones I want to and the rest I store. I like the digital, but I still prefer my old trusty Pentax.
One good thing about the digital though,is that it is easy to e-mail photos home to friends and family, especially work buddies, so they can be jealous of all the places you are seeing and things you are doing. I will be going back in January, and my film will be hand checked.

Check out this website - it has lots of info on the new machines that are being used to X-Ray after 9/11, the effect they can have on your film, and what to do about preventing it happening.
http://www.f-stop.org/