# Computed Tomography vs. films & light meters



## NER (Dec 4, 2019)

fyi.  Some of you may have read about the new CT machines being installed in airports -  Beware: New 3D Airport Scanners Will Wipe Unprocessed Camera Film.  This development should be of great concern to those trying to get film through airport security checkpoints because the new machines will unequivocally ruin photographic films of all kinds whereas the older machines used to scan carry-on items were relatively safe, certainly for slower films (I can report from personal experience that on my travels abroad, I put film thought carry-on x-ray inspection as many as 8 times without adverse effects).   Everyone knows the machines used to scan checked luggage are far more intense and that films will not survive that examination without sustaining some serious damage - which is why we always carry film through vs. having it checked through. Immediately after the first of these stories about the new, higher-energy machines for scanning carry-on items came out, I contacted both Analog, the maker of the new machines, and TSA to ask what effect, if any, these new x-ray machines might have on *light meters*.  Below is the response from TSA that I received today.  (As an aside, for those who may think sending film home via mail is a sure-fire way around this problem, I would urge you to do some research first, because everything I have read on that topic indicates that USPS packages are also subjected to x-ray scanning.  I do not know whether those scans are yet strong enough to ruin film.)

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com

Here is the reply fromTSA: 

"Good Afternoon,
We appreciate your recent inquiry through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Contact Center (TCC) regarding Computed Tomography (CT) scanners and photographic film. 
TSA does not have information on the effects that CT scanners have on the calibration or function of light meters in photographic film.  Due to high sensitivity of undeveloped film and possible camera light meter issues, TSA recommends having film and cameras with light meters hand-inspected by a Transportation Security Officer to prevent possible damage.
If you require further information, please contact the TCC for assistance.

Thank you,
APM Communications Team
Contractor, E3 Federal Solutions"


----------



## NER (Dec 10, 2019)

Maybe I posted this in the wrong section.  If not, I'm surprised no one seems interested enough in the issue to comment.  Oh well.   C'est la vie. 

N. Riley
http://normarnrileyphotography.com


----------



## tirediron (Dec 10, 2019)

Moved to 'Articles of Interest' for hopefully better traction.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 10, 2019)

I'll translate their response for you:  "We don't care".


----------



## NER (Dec 10, 2019)

_"Moved to 'Articles of Interest' for hopefully better traction."_

Thank you.

_"We don't care"._

I assume you're referring to either TSA or the forum community, but I can't really tell which, so I will close with this: if and when I encounter one of these new machines I will ask for hand inspection of my films because it is not disputed that the CT scanners will ruin any and all film passed through them.  I personally do know know whether these machines will damage the calibration and/or functioning of light meters, but it seemed prudent ask this question (there is nothing wrong with asking a question) and that is why I wrote to both TSA and Analogic.  TSA replied that they have no information about this, and Analogic, the maker of scanner, never responded to my question - maybe because they don't care, though one would think they should care given the possibility of myriad claims against them for damaged equipment if the CT scanners are capable of inflicting such damage.  In the face of this uncertainty, TSA recommends hand inspection of light meters (or cameras with light meters).  Given that recommendation, I intend to ask for my spot meters and my iPhone to be hand-inspected until we have confirmation that these items will not be damaged by CT scanning.  If forum readers don't care about this issue as you may be suggesting, that's fine.  They may know something I don't ... probably they do.  However, whether out of ignorance or caution, because I care about my film and light meters, I will follow the recommendation provided by TSA when I encounter one of these new machines.  

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 10, 2019)

NER said:


> _"Moved to 'Articles of Interest' for hopefully better traction."_
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> ...



The TSA.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Dec 10, 2019)

With the trademarks of:
_
anal_ogic  ???

_conne_CT  ???

Don't let the scientists name the product...  

I remember similar scare stories about the original scanning machines. I'm also wary of articles that polarise things into stark B&W choices like it's either fine or completely destroyed in less than a second. (_This habit distorting truth to fit an *ultimate jeopardy* narrative combined with a social media that has few journalistic standards is worrying because so many people just accept these *articles* as fact from start to finish_).

I also don't like it when they report that photographer *A* only saved their film by refusing to comply to the new rules when one of the rules is that hand inspection of photographic film is allowed on request. Though I don't doubt that CT scanners can damage film, the last thing you want is for passengers to start being aggressive towards security personnel when all they really have to do is ask politely...


----------



## Soocom1 (Dec 11, 2019)

Bit of clarification: 

X-ray scanners have ALWAYS been detrimental to film regardless of when employed. 
In the late 1980's there was instituted a form of x-ray that used a pulse system that left a highly specific and very damaging sine-wave shape on film depending on the canister's orientation in the machine as it was scanned. Typically leaving behind a greenish tint that could not be removed and in some cases recovered at all. 
after 9-11 I saw ALOT of processed film coming through the shop I was working in that had some extremely serious damage. This was because of a new system put in and also that some of the TSA robots loved to double-triple and even quadruple scan the film. 

When lead lined bags came about and you had to open the bags for security (pre TSA) there were instances of film being burned by residual that were never scanned. (Makes you wonder about the machines.) 

ANY device or mechanical material like film WILL be (not possible,) WILL BE affected by the scanners. 

As for USPS there were many multiple articles on their highly aggressive and quite frankly unnessecery need to x-ray packages. 
Irradiation of packages was started because of the Anthrax scares and to this day the single digit IQ folks running our government thinks they know better than you because they are in DC. 

Work with the TSA and the USPS at your own detriment.


----------



## Designer (Dec 11, 2019)

480sparky said:


> I'll translate their response for you:  "We don't care".


"We don't know, and we don't care."  

So be sure to bug one of the nincompoops at the checkpoint and try to explain the issue to him/her in a way that does not pi$$ him/her off so much that he/she places the camera in the ultra-high-power x-ray machine, swabs your bag, swabs your hands, makes you wait for a supervisor, all the while giving their fellow agents the eye-roll look.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Dec 11, 2019)

Yea, right... And because of the tone of the original article we have the polarized opinions creeping out of the woodwork. It's not the security services taking personal pleasure over persecuting you individually boys, there is no deep state. The system was not developed to inconvenience you or seek out and destroy your personal property. It's not *you against the security services* who really are only doing their job of trying to keep you and your fellow passengers safe, it's not their fault that the foe tries to be invisible.



Soocom1 said:


> Bit of clarification:
> 
> TSA robots loved to double-triple and even quadruple scan the film.
> 
> ...the single digit IQ folks running our government thinks they know better than you because they are in DC.





Designer said:


> So be sure to bug one of the nincompoops at the checkpoint and try to explain the issue to him/her in a way that does not pi$$ him/her off so much that he/she places the camera in the ultra-high-power x-ray machine, swabs your bag, swabs your hands, makes you wait for a supervisor, all the while giving their fellow agents the eye-roll look.



Perhaps if you just ask politely to have the film inspected by hand as is allowed? Perhaps you could help them? The sort of comments I see above just make me want to scream!!!  Honestly if you can't see past your own personal inconvenience or see beyond those right in front of you to blame for that inconvenience. So @Designer how many times has that happened to you, all the swabs and the wait with the eye rolls? Are you just playing the *ultimate jeopardy* card and presenting your fears and phobias as fact, going for the emotive, trying to get people angry to support your own opinion as to why you shouldn't be inconvenienced?

Time to lock the thread...


----------



## Soocom1 (Dec 11, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> Yea, right... And because of the tone of the original article we have the polarized opinions creeping out of the woodwork. It's not the security services taking personal pleasure over persecuting you individually boys, there is no deep state. The system was not developed to inconvenience you or seek out and destroy your personal property. It's not *you against the security services* who really are only doing their job of trying to keep you and your fellow passengers safe, it's not their fault that the foe tries to be invisible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With respect to you....

I have been in many screening areas of airports. My honest opinion has been that most of those folks are fine people, but they have not the time or inclination to understand, nor the responsibility to know how their system affects every level of society.
As for the single digit IQ comment.....

I am *IN *government.   I deal with the lower level folks daily and they are fine, but I also know many politicos.

They leave much to be desired. So my comment stands.


----------



## Designer (Dec 11, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> So @Designer how many times has that happened to you, all the swabs and the wait with the eye rolls? Are you just playing the *ultimate jeopardy* card and presenting your fears and phobias as fact, going for the emotive, trying to get people angry to support your own opinion as to why you shouldn't be inconvenienced?


I see that you have failed to read and comprehend that I wrote; to "try not to p*** him/her off.." 

Facts, son, facts gathered from personal experience.

The question that is NOT being addressed is; why are ANY of us being inconvenienced, considering that the entire protocol and the agency itself is nothing but a political "solution" to a practical problem.  As I understand it from several reports, the number of actual terrorists that the TSA has intercepted and apprehended is about.. lessee.. ZERO. 

And the number of travelers who are unnecessarily detained, hassled, and embarrassed is about...  lessee...  MILLIONS !!!!   DAILY!!!! 

And the number of TSA agents who are working toward a fat government pension?   Lessee....   Thousands! 

Is it any wonder that I would rather drive across country three days (each way) rather than fly?


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Dec 11, 2019)

I can't find the other particular *article* I glanced at otherwise I would link to it. But it started with a semi-factual report of how these 3D CAT scanners were being brought in and the effect they will possibly have on unprocessed film. But instead of explaining that the scanners are there to increase security and decrease inconvenience to the general public it suggested that a photographer only got his film through by disobeying the law. But the linked article in the OP clearly says:

_Instead of putting your film onto the convener belt, you can simply pack it in a clear plastic bag, explain the situation to the security personnel, and request a hand inspection.


“The nice TSA agents at LAX had no problem with a handcheck and seemed to be informed that this is no joke,” Freestyle says_.

So who benefits by creating tension and disobedience at these security checkpoints? How is this misinformation spread? By people on social media glancing, jumping to assumption and sharing it because it suits their own narrative.

But this was not the article linked to by the OP.

So @Designer, curious about the lack of planes that have been hi-jacked lately? About how global terrorism has shifted from organised cells with clear objectives and training to disorganised lone activists? It would indicate to me that perhaps the tactics being employed have been somewhat successful (_perhaps there are things going on that haven't been reported to you_). And so they have legislated the implementation of technology that will allow faster and more accurate identification of possible threats while reducing the disruption to passengers.

And yet you spread a narrative of almost the exact opposite based on little information or fact, that these machines are a further hindrance introduced by idiots who have no idea. You're trying my patience, so little wonder you have trouble at airports. Can you not see that your misinformation and polarizing the argument into *us against the very people sworn to protect us* is exactly the sort that's designed to create the chaos and disruption that makes security less effective. It's about time you woke up to the real threat and exactly who is fighting it and who is helping it.

In the meantime hand check film with a smile and a thank you.


----------



## NER (Dec 11, 2019)

I would like to clear up a few points.  The maker of the new CT scanners now being tested in some USA airports is "Analogic," not "Analog" as I mistyped in my original post.  I did not post this information to stimulate arguments, and I regret that some of the exchanges here have gone beyond spirited discussion.  No one disputes that these new machines, which are comparable to those that have long been used to survey checked bags, will damage film.  I believe requests for hand inspection of roll film will likely be honored at all airports in the USA (I don't know that hand inspection will be granted at all airports worldwide) and I don't think a request for hand inspection of roll film will create much of a stir anywhere mainly because most every adult remembers or knows what roll film looks like.  The problem that concerns me very much is hand inspection of sheet film.  I shoot large format, not medium or small format.  I have never had anyone question me about factory-sealed boxes of sheet film despite the fact that not many people are familiar with sheet film.  But what about about exposed sheet film?  I transport my exposed sheet film home in the original film boxes, except that the seals have been broken and the boxes are taped shut to prevent them from opening up accidentally  (see the attached image).  While I take care to assure that the boxes are labelled in all relevant languages as containing exposed photographic film, my worry is that a security person may suspect that the boxes contain some kind of contraband vs. what the label claims they contain and will therefore insist that the boxes be CT scanned or opened.  That is my greatest concern insofar as my film goes.  For now, my solution to this hypothetical problem is to continue arranging flights only through airports that still use the old scanners for carry-on for as long as that is possible.   Mailing boxes of film home for development is not necessarily a safe option - my online reading indicates that mailed packages are also x-rayed, and developing negatives abroad is plainly out of the question for a variety of obvious reasons.  With regard to light meters, the answer from TSA advises caution where these new CT machines are used.  If I unexpectedly encounter one of these machines, I will therefore explain that the items I'm handing the agent along with my boxes of exposed film are photographic light meters and I will politely ask for hand inspection.  I assume the security people will gladly do that, just as they would for cameras with TTL meters.  I suspect they would have no hesitation about examining cameras because everyone knows more or less what a proper film and digital cameras look like, not that I have anything to do with the latter.  A digital spot meter might look like a pistol to some people and that resemblance might give some agent reason to pause, but I would rather endure questioning and eye-rolling than chance ruining my meters.

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Dec 12, 2019)

NER said:


> my worry is that a security person may suspect that the boxes contain some kind of contraband vs. what the label claims they contain and will therefore insist that the boxes be CT scanned or opened



I think you worry too much. The machines are not for contraband, nor are the security staff seeking to identify everything that passes through for there will be many things that will be *new* to them.

All they seek to do is identify threats, and all they need to do is satisfy themselves that your sheet film isn't liquid explosive and doesn't contain a firearm. Take a wasted sheet with you so you can show them the contents if you wish.

I have never heard anything about x-ray machines damaging light meters, not even selenium cell ones.


----------



## terri (Dec 12, 2019)

Before any of the above posts get reported further, let’s keep the tone conversational and on topic, please.    Thanks!


----------



## Original katomi (Dec 12, 2019)

If it’s poss one could allow extra time  find security at the airport and explain  concerns about film that one does not want to slow the boarding  ok it’s been a long time since I went throu customs, and I may be talking out of my avi port.
Just asking is it an option


----------



## Soocom1 (Dec 12, 2019)

The hypothetical situation is actually a very real problem for those who travel and shoot film of any format size.  The scanners as I pointed out are in fact detrimental to photographic material. 

The main point I have tried to make is that the TSA folks in large part are not educated on the finer points of film sensitivity nor on photography in general. 
The TSA (and speaking as one who have friends who are TSA agents BTW) are more concerned over playing their Game Boys, their kids, buying food and doing their general day to day ritual like so many others. Many are there to have a paycheck whilst they attend school and unless they are shutterbugs themselves, look at photography through the lens of their iPhones. 

Most do not have the desire nor the incling to learn about the effects of CT scanners on the lives of others, they are there to do a job. 

The TSA does have a specific part in their training dealing with film and photographic material and do train to a small degree the effects the scanners have on film. 
Film

The main point on that page is at the bottom: 

*"The final decision rests with the TSA officer on whether an item is allowed through the checkpoint."
*
Many I know inside the TSA have expressed angst over the over-bearing attitude that they are required by their jobs to project, and as I stated, most are not versed in the finer points of silver halide sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation in the 0.03 to 3 nanometer range. 

The effects on light meters may or may not be an issue but IMO this is a question best figured by contacting the manufacturers of said light meters and as I always point out.... 

If you don't like the situation, 
Move to change it!   Contact your members of congress and all powers that be to address the issue.


----------



## NER (Dec 12, 2019)

Tim Tucker 2 said:


> NER said:
> 
> 
> > my worry is that a security person may suspect that the boxes contain some kind of contraband vs. what the label claims they contain and will therefore insist that the boxes be CT scanned or opened
> ...



You may be right that I worry too much, but believe it or not, last month in Italy I was given a hard time over the holders in my checked baggage.  Yes, holders!  The screeners didn't know what they were (though I included a slip of paper in each baggie identifying what they were), and they questioned me at length about my occupation, my reason for traveling to Italy, and why I had "so many" holders (I had 24).  They couldn't seem to get their heads around the fact that each holder is good for only 2 shots at a time.  Eventually they let me go.  On most occasions here in the US  I am questioned about the contents of  my carry on even after x-ray.  I've been made to open my carry on and to then unwrap the lenses for inspection, open the camera, and have my film boxes swiped for forbidden residues.  (And all of this, by the way, despite the fact that I have a trusted traveller card from TSA which is supposed to simplify my life when it comes to TSA pre-check and clearing US customs.)  Like you, I haven't read or heard that x-ray machines damage photosensitive cells , and I have put my meters through the old-styled machines many times without any problems, but these CT scanners aren't ordinary x-ray machines - so it seemed prudent to ask about this concern and it seems prudent to go with hand inspection until we know for sure that these new machines won't damage light meters.  If there is a problem, I assume we'll hear about it soon enough as people begin to report that their cameras misbehave after passing through one or more of these new CT scanners.  

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Dec 12, 2019)

NER said:


> If there is a problem, I assume we'll hear about it soon enough as people begin to report that their cameras misbehave after passing through one or more of these new CT scanners.



A rash of poorly exposed images turning up on photo forums?



Your experiences are certainly useful though, I would travel with empty dark slides and load at destination, unload before return. It would certainly allow them to be inspected and fears eased.

@Soocom1, I do understand your point, and this could get so political so quickly, and so treading lightly on eggshells... The answer must be tolerance and understanding as the opposite hasn't exactly helped us avoid this mess. It is true that we all see the world from our own understanding and experience, how it affects us. We rarely see beyond our own experience and understanding. It's an immutable understanding of art that we are expressing our own viewpoints through shared experience otherwise there can be little understanding. The more obscure and personal the message the smaller the audience. It's also fact that minority groups are so because they are the least commonly understood. It appears film photographers now fall into a minority group...  

Being one step ahead is expensive, it requires technology and education. It's far safer and cheaper just to limit what's permissible to what you can easily check and easily understand.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 12, 2019)

I used to know a guy who worked for Alaska Airlines in Portland and he told me that TSA stands for thousands standing around. According to him , Airline employees have a pretty low opinion of TSA.


----------



## daveo228i (Dec 19, 2019)

During the early 2000’s I did a great deal of flying to Europe, out of Atlanta. I always had one or two cameras, several lenses, and rolls of transparency film, E-6 processing. I would take the individual canisters, out of box, place in a plastic bags. Prior to any scanning I would pull out the bag(s) and request a hand search. Never had a problem going or coming back into the country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NGH (Dec 19, 2019)

I have traveled through many airports over the last few years both in the US and internationally.  I have often carried film and much to my wife's annoyance I have requested hand inspections.  Sometimes I get one but most of the time I am told that only high ASA films need that and they are very reluctant to understand my concern.  I always have to wait for a supervisor to eventually give me their attention and 8 times out of 10 the film ends up going through the X-ray machine.
I have always been polite and had the film out and ready to make it as easy as possible.
One time I had pushed the film into the so called higher ratings and labelled the films accordingly but they refused to understand what I had done and the films again went through the machines.  On one trip I passed through multiple airports and the film would (over teh entire trip) pass through 8 security checks; some places were accommodating but the least helpful to the point of being aggressive was Heathrow (technically my home airport).

If these new machines are really as bad as suggested I really do hope that TSA staff have been fully educated and are willing to help us photographers out.


----------

