Is it true that scanners in airports fucks with film? I'm

File: rjwk2suil7kbyts9ho0j.jpg (947KB, 1400x934px) Image search: [Google]

947KB, 1400x934px

>>3037711
Well the X-ray machines say film under iso400 is ok. But apparently x-ray can damage film

I kept a roll of Delta 3200 in my checked luggage for several trips before shooting it.
It was fine.

Maybe I was just lucky but I think the machines just aren't as damaging as people think.

I've never had a problem even with checked bags. I've used those lead protective x-ray bags but I didn't see a difference so I stoped using them.

Pushed HP5 to 1600 was not a problem.

Scanning doesn't fuck with film, but long flights absolutely fuck with digital sensors. It's kind of ironic, really.

>>3037725

Err, x-ray scans, I mean.

File: A4z75mm.jpg (1MB, 1000x2800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x2800px

Carry-on xrays are fine. Checked baggage xrays may fuck your film. pic related: Portra 160 and Agfa 160 that was in my checked bag. Had rolls of Kodak e100vs that also got fucked.

>>3037725
>but long flights absolutely fuck with digital sensors
Why is that?

>>3037730

Radiation exposure. Fun fact: all of those cameras that come from Japan and the rest of Asia are still shipped by boat, rather than by plane, for this very reason.

>>3037731
>Radiation exposure.
lmaooooo

so even sensitive film comes unharmed from heavy xray exposure, but cucked tiny silicon parts get fried by a minute amount of radiation? feels good to be in the right side of history.

>>3037711
If you're concerned about it, it's pretty easy to get around. You can specifically request the TSA agents to hand check the camera because you don't want the film to possibly be ruined by the xray machine. It takes like 2 minutes, and it's worth it if you're afraid of the film getting destroyed

>>3037731
Uh, no. Nearly EVERYTHING is shipped by boat from Asia.

It's cheaper and far more cost effective.

>>3037731

Quoting Hummel again?

Not the greatest source when it comes to radiation exposure. In the same presentation he also stated gamma radiation is harmless.

You need like 2000 times the average exposure for a flight attendant to actually cause damage. Simply traveling abroad wont fuck your sensor.

>>3037731
>Radiation exposure
????
So you can't have any eletronics in a nuclear power plant?

You can only "damage" the sensor if you are one of those fags that do long exposures directly towards the sun.

>>3037711
OP i'll use this as a phone wallpaper, it's so comfy

>>3037711
There are two potential problems with airport x-ray machines.

The first is the strength of the scan is determined by the operator. most of the time this shouldn't be a problem since the recommended strength of the blast is safe for all but very fast film. Problems may occur when the guy in front of you has some dense shit in his bag and the operator ramps up the dose in order to see it and then doesn't turn it down again before you film goes through.

The second is that x-ray hits are cumulative. Whilst going through one or two machines shouldn't be a problem going through half a dozen or so increases the exposure significantly.

The solution; always ask for film to be hand checked.

Source: I travelled with a lot of film back in the day

>>3037849

>ask TSA negroid erectus to hand check my film bag
>negro erecutus opens my box of 4x5, exposing all my shot film ready for process
>negro erectus: INEEDTACHECKYOASSHOLE

File: cosmic-rays.jpg (181KB, 993x1509px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 993x1509px

>>3037792
Gamma particles cause a cascade of other stuff when they basically explode on impact. Pic related, a cosmic ray is a gamma equivalent. Imagine many of these per square inch basically. It's not like your one component is in the chance for being hit, the whole electronic is cooked.

>>3037919
Well... sure but the astronauts are using nikon cameras just fine in the ISS. Traveling in a plane can't be worse than that.

>>3037932
t. american education.

>>3037932
Shielding eliminates almost all of it though . Try imagining the core of a reactor, you could say space would have so few cosmic rays as to be as cold and vacuumed when it compares to a reactor, which is hot, and dense with them as the air in there would be. Opposite of a vacuum.

>>3037914
ahhahahah you bought that on yourself, neger

>>3037964
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look?

>>3038055
Lugna dig.