I agree with your comments about not putting sensitized material in checked luggage. In addition to the concern about exposure to x-ray is the significant risk that it will go to Outer Kushna even though your destination is Cleveland. There has been significant testing in recent years that has determined that x-ray screening of ordinary film in carry-on bags does not do perceptable harm. Granted, the assumption is that the screening equipment is maintained within standards. That's a good assumption in North America and at major airports in other places. But if you are in an exotic location, you may find that either older and less well maintained scanning equipment, much looser scanning standards, or both. By the way - the notion that the inspectors can "turn up the intensity of the x-ray" is pure urban legend. Giving inspectors that ability would create enormous safety issue. They do have theh ability to adjust the intensity and contrast of the image on their CRT, but not the x-ray energy level. Paper is much less sensitive than film, and therefore should be even more safe. My experience is that allowing the inspectors to pass the film through their x-ray system is faster and less likely to result in damage than requesting a hand inspection. If nothing in the x-ray excites their interest, the inspectors will let the carryon proceed without any further bother. One of the things in our favor is that most airports have been redesigned to allow passengers to make most connections without having to leave the secured area, thereby minimizing the number of inspections required. For many years, I traveled (extensively) with a camera and film in a lead bag. I just sent my carryon through the x-ray, and the extra density of the lead bag excited the inspectors attention less than 10% of the time. You have the right to request that service in the US - but not necessarily in other locations. If you expect to ask for hand inspection, be reasonable and plan to arrive earlier to allow for the extra time. TSA inspectors are much better trained that the minimum-wage types who did screening prior to 9/11. Their training exposes them to things like sheet film, and the use of changing bags to inspect film manually rather than visibly. And in most instances, the procedure will be to swab the enclosure to detect explosive residues - that's faster and accomplishes what is required better than a visual inspection. It is advisable to take 35mm film out of its plastic canister and put it in a clear plastic bag that the inspectors can see through. The folks I know who travel frequently with LF equipment suggest taking along an empty three-part film box to show the inspectors how film is packaged, and a changing bag in case they want to check your boxes. Actually, I have heard (but can't confirm) that the inspection stations at major US airports are equipped with changing bags. If you are truly paranoid, the choices are to either purchase and process the film along the way, or else ship it separately via a carrier who understands that it is sensitized material and who will guarantee not to put it through x-ray scanning. Louie -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Schenken Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 10:52 AM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: Silly question time Trevor: Checked luggage with photographic film and / or paper will most certainly be affected by the scanners that work on checked luggage. The x-ray machines for this process have an extremely high power to allow looking at dense objects and they are sometimes rolled back a forth several times before the inspector decides. For carry-on luggage, hand inspection is the way to go with film. I've not heard of any experiences with packaged photo paper. It is much less sensitive than even the lowest speed film, on the order of ISO 1 or 2 for example. However, the inspectors will have familiarity with roll film but not with packaged paper. I'm guessing that they may require you * your friend ) to open the package so they can see inside. A couple of years ago, a friend here in town went on a photo trip with his 4x5 outfit and came back with many film holders containing exposed but undeveloped film. The inspector made him open both sides of each one before allowing him on the airplane. No amount of explanation sufficed to make the inspector understand what would happen to the film. You might have your friend drop down to the airport with a sample and inquire about what their procedures might be in that specific case and ask for suggestions about handling photo papers. But I wouldn't have very high hopes of getting it through. After all how different would a slab or something nasty look if it were packaged in a photo paper box and re-sealed carefully? James At 03:02 AM 9/21/2006 -0700, you wrote: >Ok, I've had many rolls of film destroyed by both checked and >carry-on x-ray machines. Hand inspections are the only way to avoid >this. This is plenty ok for film...but what about paper? Is the >less sensitive emulsion less susceptable? Any >thoughts/experience? I can't get monochrome paper here and a friend >is coming to visit...just looking for advice. James Schenken
