I did have a bad experience with 35mm Fuji Reala film once (500asa) that
was fogged by an airport x-ray.  I suspect it was a more powerful x-ray
than the regular ones that scan your carry on, because it happened in Air
Canada Cargo while being shipped.  The fogging was quite evident throughout
a significant number of rolls, and it looked like light leaks from opening
a can.  We could not reshoot, but a brilliant VFX person in Halifax worked
on a digital fix for it, (he wrote an algorithm specifically for this fix),
and to this day I am one of the very few people who probably notice
anything.  All I see is very subtle fluctuations in the deepest blacks.

Anyway, the lesson is that the shippers and cargo areas probably use more
lethal xrays than the consumer ones in the normal security lines.

I still have a black lead-lined bag for film at home.  Not sure of the
legality of using those now, if you can even find them.  Maybe do a search
online.

Christopher

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Amanda Thomson <tea.ama...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> A couple of years ago I took a suitcase full of exposed, but unprocessed
> film (from print stock to Tri-X, including the Agfa stock previously
> mentioned) over the Atlantic to Europe as checked luggage where it crossed
> through roughly 8 x-rays before I processed it all at L'Abominable in Paris.
>
> I'm no expert in fogging/image quality and truth be told I did shoot a
> reasonable amount of clouds and smog from forest fires, but the the images
> showed no obvious signs of X-ray fog.  This includes the Agfa 200D which
> was shot in clear conditions.  There was another issue with some of it,
> that I later realized was bromide drag, but that's something else
> altogether (it has to do with agitation).
>
> All this lead me to believe that the fear of passing film through X-rays
> is a bit exaggerated.  But of course this is only my experience...
>
> Amanda
>
> --
>
> https://vimeo.com/amandat
> http://www.irisfilmcollective.com
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com>
> To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:01:34 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] 16mm questions
> The effect is cumulative.  One pass might not hurt... ten likely will.
> Measure fog density and you'll know, but of course by then it's too late.
> --scott
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: nemes gyula <ne...@absolutfilm.hu>
>> To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com
>> Cc:
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:57:18 +0100
>> Subject: [Frameworks] 16mm questions
>> Dear celluloid enthusiasts,
>>
>> I'm working on 16mm Bolex, travelling worldwide.
>> Can I ask you some advices?
>>
>> 1.Do you have any experiences in airport x-ray damages? Is x-ray
>> effective or not? Do lead-line bags protect the material or make even more
>> problems with security guards?
>> Airports say it's OK till 400 ISO, Kodak shows the damages caused by
>> x-ray.
>> Do you know any courier without x-ray checking?
>>
>> 2.Do you know any 16mm material produced presently besides Kodak?
>> The only one I know is Foma, a bad quality reversal material for same
>> prize as Kodak.
>>
>> Any advices highly appreciated.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gyula Nemes
>> Hungary
>>
>> --
>> Nemes Gyula
>> Playtime
>> Absolut Film Studio
>> Budapest 1025 Pusztaszeri Ășt 11-13.
>> +36 20 9856277 <+36%2020%20985%206277>
>> https://vimeo.com/user4774101
>> www.zerofilm.hu
>> fb: Zero - Nemes Gyula filmje
>> #zero_film_official
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Reply via email to