Kodak Warns Users: New CT Scanners at Airports Will Ruin Your Film

[rick_reno]

https://petapixel.com/2020/01/27/kodak-warns-users-new-ct-scanners-at-airports-will-ruin-your-film/

 

[socrdude]

interesting but dont know anyone whom uses film any longer. a lost art and very expensive vs digital.

 

[7006]

I do !
Medium format, 35, 110 and instant.

 

[Palouse]

interesting but dont know anyone whom uses film any longer. a lost art and very expensive vs digital.

Lots of people here use and post film images.

 

[pictureted]

I used to use those little bags that were supposed to protect film. Now we just need to worry about our digital sensors exposure to air travel and radiation.

 

[Bart]

Another film user here. Very limited though, just a small number of film rolls per year.
Still have 3 active film cameras, all 35mm.

 

[ac12]

Airport security sped up my switch to digital.

I had a TSA agent at SFO rip open my 120 film boxes, then rip open the film pouches and pulled out the rolls of film.
Then I saw what she was doing and yelled STOP !!!
The way she was going, she would have probably unrolled the film, to make sure it was film

I hate to think what she would have done with a box of 4x5 sheet film.

I also recall airports where the TSA agents would NOT do hand searches. EVERYTHING went through the X-Ray machine.
Arguing with them was futile, they are not going to back down.
They are in a position of power, and they know it. Submit to their process, or don't board the plane.

And all bets are off if you travel internationally, because laws, procedures and X-Ray equipment in other countries are different.

In the end, I gave up on film when I travel by air, and switched to digital for air travel.
It was just not worth the hassle and aggrevation.

BTW, they even have X-Ray machines in some public buildings. And those guys are not subject to the FAA regs, so they call the shots. X-Ray your stuff, or turn around and leave.

I still shoot film 35mm, 120 and 4x5. But only at home where I don't have to go through any security station.

 

[Panther]

interesting but dont know anyone whom uses film any longer. a lost art and very expensive vs digital.

Actually, film is gaining momentum....especially amongst the younger shooters...

 

[bpdougd]

I used to use those little bags that were supposed to protect film. Now we just need to worry about our digital sensors exposure to air travel and radiation.

If the radiation from the airport scanners is potent enough to damage the sensors in our cameras it is time to start worrying about more important stuff like what it's doing to our DNA.

 

[ac12]

Actually, film is gaining momentum....especially amongst the younger shooters...

Yup
Last year one of my students wanted to try shooting "film" with her father's old film camera, a Minolta SRT-102.
My BiL just emailed me, his daughter wants a small RF or P&S 35mm camera.
What is old, is new again.

 

[RonS]

Film user here also. My 60 year old Minolta SR1 gave up so I recently got a new (to me) Nikon FM.

 

[Panther]

Addendum:
If one is very deliberate with their shots, then I don't think film is really *that* expensive.

That being said, I am blessed with at least 2 labs here in SATX where developing, scanning, and printing costs are very reasonable.

 

[Ronald M]

Digital is only cheap for people who shoot thousands of pics. For a roll a week , film is cheaper. No doubt digital has convenience. A roll a week is generousness you can not visualize a picture before taking it.

 

[Palouse]

Digital is only cheap for people who shoot thousands of pics. For a roll a week , film is cheaper. No doubt digital has convenience. A roll a week is generousness you can not visualize a picture before taking it.

Digital rewards the impatient!

 

[pictureted]

Digital rewards the impatient!

Immediate feedback, more dynamic range (at least with my D810), higher resolution and I don't have to develop and then scan to get a digital file. A $15/roll/week is $780/year, much more than I spend on camera bodies.

 

[Palouse]

Immediate feedback, more dynamic range (at least with my D810), higher resolution and I don't have to develop and then scan to get a digital file. A $15/roll/week is $780/year, much more than I spend on camera bodies.

Besides it was good for the postal service.

 

[pictureted]

Besides it was good for the postal service.

Kodak had a processing plant nearby so I just dropped it off. On the other hand, I do support the USP, having worked for them years ago. They were really brilliantly organized back in'66 and '67.

 

[SteveK]

I used to use those little bags that were supposed to protect film. Now we just need to worry about our digital sensors exposure to air travel and radiation.

I used to shoot about 600-1000 rolls/year. I went in to security when they were not busy in Anchorage,, and asked them if I could test those lead bags in their machine. I put my keys in the bag, folded it over twice, and my keys were easy to see on their monitor. I concluded that they did not protect film. I did have some film fogged by the scanners.

 

[7006]

Just finished a roll of 36 Kodak UltraMax on my Minox 35GT.
Sending to development and print.
I know I will love most of them.
Next week my challenge will be 1 roll on F90X, black and white and will develop at home, then scan and print digitally.
All great fun.

 

[Panther]

One of our local labs prices if you're interested...
https://www.digitalprolab.com/pdf/fullservice/FS-Film-Services1.pdf