Given the current situation with the airline industry, it seems that it is much more difficult to pass film around the X-Ray machine and have technicians inspect it. They want to just have you put it through the machine and not manually inspect. This becomes a problem when one is using 400 speed film and it must pass through five or six machines. I had to argue hard with the people in charge to get my film inspected VS put through the machine. Putting your film in a lead bag does not sound like the answer because they will take it out in most cases so that the machine can SEE what you have. Anyone have any recent experiences to share on this subject?

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), October 31, 2001

Answers

Tony: They wanted to check my film via X-Ray machine only and were not frisking people. But, if I tried to carry 15 rolls in my pockets, that might attract attention on their part. They instructed people to empty their pockets but I doubt they would notice if I only had a few rolls in them.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), November 01, 2001.

Tony: They are allowing cameras as hand baggage in the US. But, my latest thinking is that it may be better to put the film in a lead bag and put it in regular baggage. The days of hand inspected carry on film are coming to an end.

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), November 05, 2001.

I was traveling through Bufallo, NY the day we started bombing Afgahnistan. I ran into the same resistance you did Steve. I had to apologetically argue for hand inspection.

-- Rolf Strasheim (rolfs@thelunatech.com), October 31, 2001.

Steve - this is more a question than an answer I think because I have not flown since 11th Sept. How were they checking your film? Is frisking normal now as well as the metal detectors?

My normal procedure when travelling by air is to take only medium format equipment and thus only 120 film. I go through the metal detectors with no metal on my person. No belt, coins, pens, watch, shoe fastenings etc, but with all available pockets full of film. This has always worked for me. If I am accompanied, the unfortunate person is usually persuaded to do the same. There is of course a limit as to how many films you can carry this way! The compromise is to let the Velvia and 100F go through the x-ray machine and hand carry the faster film.

Unlike 35 mm, 120 film has no metal on it and the foil covering is too thin to trigger anything. Obviously this will not work if everyone is being frisked.

My preferred alternative is to purchase film and have it processed at the location of the shoot, but this is not always practical. I sometimes use the MFD forum to locate suitable sources of film and processing in the locations I will be visiting.

-- Tony Cunningham (cmserv@wxs.nl), November 01, 2001.

I wear loose clothes when travelling and have never had problems with up to 16 films spread around. More than that would be a problem of course.

Policies in European airports do not seem to have changed much. Hand baggage is still allowed by British airports and airlines. The strength of x-ray machines had already been increased by many countries.

In the US there is some doubt as to whether hand inspection of film will continue to be allowed. Kodak are advising air passengers not to carry unexposed or unprocessed film.

Not very encouraging really - except for those switching to digital!

Are they allowing cameras as hand baggage when flying within or leaving the USA now?

-- Tony Cunningham (cmserv@wxs.nl), November 05, 2001.

Are you sure about the Kodak warning to outlined? There are sections of the Kodak website which have been revised more than once since Sept. 11th, and none that I find indicate "Kodak are advising air passengers not to carry unexposed or unprocessed film". Kodak spells out why you don't want to check baggage with unexposed and unprocessed film (new machines used for checked baggage will "kill" it). But, the kodak website explicitly states that conveyor belt x- ray inspection for film carry-on baggage is not in danger (http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/aboutKodak/xRayScanner.shtml). However, they do point out the possibility of random checks using a higher-power machine; this appears to be the inspection to be concerned about.

-- Carl Tower (cjtowerman@yahoo.com), November 05, 2001.

Carl - thanks, no I'm not sure. I read it in a usually reliable photo mag and will check out with them where that info about Kodak came from.

-- Tony Cunningham (cmserv@wxs.nl), November 07, 2001.

I just returned 11/4 from a week in Arizona. They had just juiced up security in the Western states due to the so-called bridges threat. Given the long lines at the airport in Phoenix, even at 6:00am on a Sunday I'd have to say that asking for a hand inspection could have been problematic. I suppose if you allowed plenty of time, you could have insisted on it. They were making us take our shoes off and put them through the X-ray. Also, departure times were getting tight, and they were at least trying to expedite the passengers through with the ealier departure times. The staff already seemed pushed to the max, so I'm not confident that they'd give film checking a high priority. I've talked with other people who haven't had any trouble at other airports though. Also keep in mind they are doing random checks at the boarding gate by calling 10 or so passengers and having them 'step behind the curtain' where the carry-on baggage is re- searched and can be put through the checked bagggage X-ray... meaning you'd have to ask for yet another hand inspection. Fujifilm has issued a warning about film fogging and X-ray. It implied that although currently things are OK with the carry-on X-ray system, future plans may include higher doses that may approach the checked luggage screening. I chose to Fedex my film there and back and had no problem whatsoever. I also checked my camera equipment (Tamrac 787 backpack fitted in a Pelican 1650) with no problems. Actually it was a bit of a relief not to be hauling that stuff around anyway. Short answer... it looks like things vary from airport to airport and may not be predictable. I'd plan for the worst.

-- Cowan Stark (cowan1@mediaone.net), November 07, 2001.

I've flown out west twice since Sept. 11. I placed approx 50 rolls of velvia/provia in a lead bag and placed it in my checked bag. When I checked in at the airport I asked the agent if my baggage had been selected for the high-intensity X-ray treatment. In all cases I had not been selected. (shouldn't they keep that a secret for security reasons?)

Had no problem at all but don't know what I would have done if my bag had been targetted.

As I was leaving for a trip to Yellowstone I told a security agent I was a professional photographer and was having problems transporting film. His answer was simple "no problem - just buy your film at your destination!" What an idiot! (FYI: a single roll of Provia at a Yellowstone camera shop was $18.95!)

All the best,

- Jim G.

-- Jim Gorman (bigjim@clevelandnet.com), November 10, 2001.

FYI for travelers to European countries - some of the airports (Heathrow for one) are beginning to install millimeter wave imaging machines. These are the ones that look through your clothing as you pass in front of the machine. Carrying 120 film dispersed throughout your clothing will be meaningless with these machines as the security personnel will be able to see them. I'd be interested in anyone who has had experience with these machines and security personnel reaction to film carried in clothing.

-- steve (s.swinehart@worldnet.att.net), November 12, 2001.

I recently went through Miami en route to europe, carrying a lot of film, and was absolutely told by a supervisor that NOTHING that wasnt very high speed film would be allowed past without xray. the amoutn of film i was carrying exceeded my lead bags capacity, so some was xrayed, though i cannot detect any effect from test rolls i shot of it. In some countries they are willing to pass it around, others they simply will not, others it seems to vary on how busy they are, etc...though none have sent film removed from lead bags back through. they have dumped a lead bag full of exposed 120 rolls out into a plastic tray.

I think in the future my new plan for foreign travel is going to be source the film in the destination country (if it is first world) and order it there for pickup or shipment to hotel (ordered in advance)....in more remote/poorer countries where i cannot source film i haven't come up with a plan yet, and may end up having to go the lead bag route if requesting inspection by hand fails.

-- randall thomas (dogfooddog@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

On a recent trip to London from Brussels by Eurostar train all my film was subjected to X-ray examination. It was "Put them through the machine or don't travel". I only had ISO 50 and 100 films with me and could discern no damage after processing.

Curiously I returned through the tunnel a by car and experienced no type of security check.

Tony C

-- Tony Cunningham (cmserv@wxs.nl), January 22, 2002.

The cooperation of the security people varies from airport to airport. Be aware that these security checks are under the control of the airlines until the Feds take over. In two occasions this year I boarded the plane in Norfolk, VA. where the security for both NW and Delta are the responsibility of Delta. On January 1, while traveling for two weeks to Peru with 30 rolls of film (ISO 100 to 400) I was totally refused a hand check of the film in Norfolk. I carry the film out of the plastic canisters in a Zip-Loc bag. It was either put it through the X-ray machine or don't board the plane. In the return from Lima, Peru, the authorities complied with my request for hand inspection (Delta) but when I got to Atlanta coming out of customs, I encountered another security check and the question of the film check again came up. The security officer finally agreed to a hand check. I communicated with Delta after my trip to Peru about the situation in Norfolk and they just don't care and blame everything on the Feds.

On February 8, I faced again the Delta/NW security check in Norfolk with 80 rolls of film in my way to Tanzania. The security people again refused to hand check the film since it was slower than ISO 1000. This time I was prepared (I though), I had a copy of the FAA regulations that permitted me to have a hand check with me. They agreed to a hand check with a twist. They insisted in having all the 80 rolls of film swabed with filter pads to check that they did not contain explosives. A very tedious and slow process. I questioned this practice since not all passengers get their shoes tested in the same method and suggested to take some rolls of film at random for testing. No success.

On the return from Tanzania at the airport, the authorities were cooperative and readily inspected my film by hand. When boarding the NW flight to Amsterdam, again secury refused to hand check my film stating that any film below ISO 1300 is safe. Upon arriving at the new NW terminal in Detroit, first I had to face the Agriculture Inspectors who wanted my suitcase and camera bag go through their large X-ray machine. I refused since these machines are using higher radiation energies; they finally agreed to a hand check. But as soon as I passed Agriculture I faced another security check. Here they refused again but I suceesfully argued about the FAA rule. They relented but sugjected me to retaliatory actions. First, I had to go through a new whole body detector and stand there for about 4 minutes, then to a hand body check and subsequently taken to have my film swabed for explosives. There I was told that since I requested a hand check of my film, I had to submit my shoes for inspection. I complied, my shoes tested positive for explosives so they swabed them again with another machine and again they were positive. Then my shoes were X-rayed and declared safe. When it came to the 80 rolls of film, the security appeared more intelligent than in Norfolk, instead of testing every roll of film, the technician swabbed the inner wall of the plastic bag with negative results. They took my passport number and other information and registered it on a form. As a consequence I lost my connection to Norfolk so courtesy of NW I stayed the night in Detroit to face another security check the next morning. As to my film, it is probably OK but I will know for sure in a week or so. I communicated with Delta about the ordeals but they blame the Feds. I just sent a message on the subject to NW but I have receive not response, nor expect one.

I am aware that a few passes through the X-rays machines at airports may not cause noticeable effects to the film, but when the film is subjected to various passes the risk of visible damage increases. Also there is no assurance that these X-ray machines are properly calibrated and usually overseas the equpiment usee is more powerful. Photography and travel are my diversions, if the airline industry wants people to fly, they most accomodate the particular needs of the photographers. I am willing to cooperate with all security measurements but it comes to the film checks, the airlines are not complying with the FAA rules.

-- Jose E. Hernandez (Joseeher@aol.com), March 03, 2002.

I have a friend who is a security consultant (moslty Canada, U.S., Israel, Japan). He claims the "hand check" is a joke, and he always recommends places stop doing it altogether. The reason is that you cant tell anything from a hand check. Would you bet a large sum of money that people couldn't enclose something other than film inside 120/200 rolled film spools, or a 35mm canister? If you would like to make the bet, he would like to take you up on it (this is now part of the demonstration he does as a consultant). If you wouldn't bet money on it, that says something about the situation. I am not a stock shooter, but know others who are. In some cases, within North America where they work, they now have the film sent to their hotel or destination via UPS. They do the same on the return, or have the E6 done at the shoot end. Others ship it UPS to their agent or normal lab. It is unrealistic to think the airlines will, with the current circumstances what they are, go out of their way to accomodate special demands for photographers. The rationale, at least among security people, is that the film companies say the machines are safe - and who are they to question it. Also within the security framework, there is little sympathy for a people with $3-10k in camera equipment and 50-150 rolls of 120/220 film. If it is a "job", then find another way to do it and pass the expenses on to the client - or so I have heard people say (though I dont necessarily buy the argument). If it is a hobby, then you arent any different than the guy who takes his family to Hawaii coming back with pictures, and if the security system is good enough for him, then it is good enough for you - or so I have heard the same people say (again, not sure I buy it). Short of Kodak/Fuji taking some stance on the matter (and putting "pics" above security right now might not be a great move, publicity wise), it might be more and more common to have to process on the shoot end or some stop in between.

-- Miles Stoddard (p67shooter@yahoo.co.uk), March 03, 2002.

Be careful. I have heard stories of spiteful security people wanting to teach us plebians a lesson about requesting special treatment. Not only do they refuse the hand check, they then tell the x-ray operator to "fry" the film.

-- rac (rcorrea@us.ibm.com), March 19, 2002.

The airport screeners are not able to "fry" the film. Film safe scanners are limited to 1 mR/scan by FAA regulation. Most new carry- on baggage scanners installed in the last year or so only emit .1 mR/scan, and the operator can only control whether the conveyor is going forwards or backwards. It takes more than 10 mR to significantly damage film, so if the operator wants to "fry" your film, they're going to have to hold up traffic to do it.

-- philip goerling (herman341@ameritech.net), April 03, 2002.