Shipping unprocessed stock: X-ray concerns?

[K Borowski]

Slapping "E.I. 1600 speed" labels on all of your film cans is not only undetectable, it can be entirely truthful, in that you can rate 100 speed film at 1600. There are no ASA/ISO values assigned to motion picture film, only recommended EIs.

 

Say you were shooting at night and needed to underexpose the film to get an image and need some high speed pushes.

 

 

There is absolutely no way they can prove otherwise. Just make sure they hand-inspect the film without ruining it in the changing bag or a darkened room. I'd recommend you handle film with an inspector in an changing bag AND in a dark room just to be doubly sure no one flutzes it up.

 

 

Anyway, with regards to tricking airport security, I'm sure they won't mind. They mind when you try to trick them into thinking your liquid explosives or your box cutters are 1600 EI film, not your 400EI film. . .

[John Sprung]

Seems like by far the easiest thing to do would be to process the film here and transport the processed negative. Why isn't that an option?

 

It's a very good option, provided you're working in a country that has a lab. It may take an extra day if you're doing your telecine or workprint in your home country lab.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Robert Lewis]

Slapping "E.I. 1600 speed" labels on all of your film cans is not only undetectable, it can be entirely truthful, in that you can rate 100 speed film at 1600. There are no ASA/ISO values assigned to motion picture film, only recommended EIs.

 

Say you were shooting at night and needed to underexpose the film to get an image and need some high speed pushes.

 

 

There is absolutely no way they can prove otherwise. Just make sure they hand-inspect the film without ruining it in the changing bag or a darkened room. I'd recommend you handle film with an inspector in an changing bag AND in a dark room just to be doubly sure no one flutzes it up.

 

 

Anyway, with regards to tricking airport security, I'm sure they won't mind. They mind when you try to trick them into thinking your liquid explosives or your box cutters are 1600 EI film, not your 400EI film. . .

 

 

I was under the impression that you had earlier said that you have never taken film through customs, so perhaps you are under the impression that travellers have a right to have film inspected by hand. Perhaps that is so in the USA, but if you look at other postings you will see that that it is not so in other Countries. So if you cannot persuade customs officers to examine film by hand, you either take the film through X-ray or you abandon it. Sometimes you cannot have film processed in the Country in question simply because there is no processing lab there. As for film speed markings, all of the filmstock I buy and use carries the manufacturer's rating, and I appreciate that one can expose the film at a different setting for particular reasons, However, whilst you may think that customs officers are fools, rest assured that in the UK they are quite capable of noticing that the packaging has been changed. Sticking a patch over the manufacturer's labelling would be something else to explain away and, if they will not inspect by hand, it will do nothing to get them to do so.

 

None of this, however, changes things. So far there seems to be little evidence that taking film through X-ray as cabin luggage, whilst not entirely free of risk, is a great risk. We are not overwhelmed with complaints that those who have done this have found their film ruined, and even Kodak says the risk is a "may be" at lower exposure rates rather than a "will be". My experience supports this.

[K Borowski]

Did you read the Kodak literature?

 

 

It doesn't get much clearer than saying that the Eastman Kodak company recommends that no motion picture film of ANY SPEED be subjected to X-ray scans.

 

Click on the links and you can see how X-ray fog that is irregular will be far more of an issue with motion picture film than with still photos. Without extensive digital manipulation (expensive) I would say that footage with such patterns on it, even faint, weak exposures, would be completely ruined.

 

 

I don't understand how pulling off the peelable label on the can, and slapping a hand-written or printed up label saying 800 or 1600 could be detected (or putting a real roll in with the batch). I'm not saying that customs in the UK are idiots, merely that there is no possible way for them to be able to prove otherwise.

 

Of course, you have to remember to take these labels off afterwards.

 

 

You can always bring the Kodak publication on X-rays (would help to have an offset-printed official version probably) with you.

 

 

 

If you want examples about how X-rays can and do ruin film, check this out: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/television/2003564825_weblostfilm09.html

Edited December 20, 2010 by K Borowski

[Robert Lewis]

Did you read the Kodak literature?

 

 

It doesn't get much clearer than saying that the Eastman Kodak company recommends that no motion picture film of ANY SPEED be subjected to X-ray scans.

... ...

 

You can always bring the Kodak publication on X-rays (would help to have an offset-printed official version probably) with you.

 

I do not wish to be monopolising this discussion in any way, but yes I have seen the Kodak advice. I said that I had had regard to what Kodak have said on the subject of X-raying in an earlier posting.

 

The need to thoroughly inspect all parcels is understood in light of recent terrorist activities. International travel is especially taxing because international airports are becoming less and less receptive to permitting hand inspection, primarily because of the volume of people that pass through these airports on a daily basis.

 

This quote from the Kodak web page appears to recognise that it is becoming difficult to get hand inspections of film at international airports.

 

Any checked baggage may be subject to high-intensity x-ray scanning in a machine that is out of sight of travelers. Airline check-in agents rarely, if ever, warn travelers of this. Kodak is pressing for warning notices to be posted at check-in desks and for verbal warnings to be given to travelers. Never pack unprocessed film in baggage that will be checked.

 

This quote warns against shipping film in "checked-in" luggage.

 

Carry-on baggage inspection conveyors using low intensity x-rays, used at security checkpoints in US airports, usually do not affect film. However, these machines may now be supplemented in some cases by high intensity machines that will fog all unprocessed film. Travelers should be wary of all scanners at foreign airports.

 

Travelers should politely insist on hand-inspection of their film. Carry a changing bag for use by the inspector. Demonstrate how it is used, with a can of fogged film as an example. However, there is no guarantee that your request will be granted by local inspectors, who may insist on x-ray inspection. Hand inspection may not be permitted in some airports outside the US.

 

This quote draws the distinction between X-ray machines used for "checked-in" luggage and those generally used for "carry-on" luggage; acknowledges that the weaker machines "usually do not affect film", although this may not be the case with machines installed in some airports; and it again recognises the difficulty of getting hand checking in airports in countries other than the USA.

 

I am not sure how these publications would therefore assist in getting hand checks undertaken if customs officers are being difficult, and it might be wise to have regard to the fact that carelessly undertaken hand inspection of film could pose a greater risk.

 

At the end of the day, I guess one has to strike a balance on taking what generally seems to be regarded by Kodak as a limited risk and the need to ship film, and there seems to be not much more one can say.