Flash memory cards such as those used in digital cameras are pretty much immune to X-ray damage, unless it's extremely high intensity. X-ray airport scanners certainly shouldn't affect them.

Mozzie - how do you know that it was the airport scanner which damaged your film and not, say, a manufacturing fault on the film, or an error during processing? Airport scanners say that they are "film safe" and millions upon millions of people take film through multiple scanners with no problems at all. If the X-rays don't have sufficient energy to "activate" the light-sensitive chemicals on the film, it really shouldn't matter if you put your film through the scanner once or 1000 times!

Chris Marriott- At JFK- there are SIGNS POSTED at the security scanners than warn passengers than ANY UNDEVELOPED FILM above 400 speed cannot be scanned without causing damage to film.

Hi Liz,

Yes, I know. I was referring to the scanners at European airports, which specifically say that they ARE safe for film. Mozzie reckons it was those scanners which damaged his film!

Considering the untold millions of people who go through these scanners every year, I'd have thought that the airports would be letting themselves in for horrendous legal liabilities if they made false claims about the safety of scanners.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Chris Marriott,

Possibly the reason is the percentage of people who use above 400 speed film and the airports they travel through. I had a hard time finding film above 200 speed when I ran out of film purchased back in the US.

Good point. I just reckon, I guess, that the scanner manufacturers are the "experts" and they're unlikely to say that something is safe unless it really is safe. The important thing, going back to the original question, is that airport scanners are completely safe for "digital" media.

I wonder if the huge boom in digital photography is making film more difficult to buy? I've used a digital camera exclusively for about 5 years now myself, but in the days when I used a film camera pretty much everywhere sold 100, 200, and 400 speed film. Possibly fewer places sell 400 film now everyone's gone digital, I wonder?

Thanks to Sandra and Chris for your information. Yes, Sandra, the batteries die at the wrong time or people do not bring enough memory so they either have to delete some photographs or wait to buy more memory. That was the case with some of my fellow traveler's on my last trip.
To answer your question Chris, the film processor told me that the last picture of each of my cameras has a reddish colour in the background due to me not winding upon completion all the way causing the last picture to be damaged when it when through the x-ray scanner. Whether she was totally honest who knows.
Regards,
Mozzie

Just a comment that may be of interest - I have never personally had any film damage.

I take my film to be developed at a very well respected place - caters for professional photographers etc (ie not your little shopping mall photo shop) and when I took my last lot in at the end of June this year they commented that I was lucky to have got through my European trip without any 'scanner' damage - they said that they were seeing a lot of film damage due to scanners over the last twelve months.

I've never had any problem buying 400 film. It is readily available here. I purchased a great little 35mm camera a couple of years ago (not ready for digital yet - still waiting for prices to come down). On my last tour, I took pictures with my camera and my sister took pictures with her digital. Everyone raved over my pictures, not hers. For some reason, hers came out all fuzzy or out of focus. Mine were great.

I have never have a problem buying 400 speed film in the USA; it was just when I ran out on my last trip overseas. I have taken some pretty out of the ordinary photos with my 35 mm- including a moving emu while I was in a horse drawn surrey that was also moving- opposite direction - it is a great, completely in focus picture. It shocks everyone I have ever shown it to.

Jeannie . . . maybe your sister's pictures were out of focus because she held the camera out in front of her while shooting. Most people seem to do that with a digital, but it can cause camera shake resulting in blurred shots. I always look through the viewfinder while I steady the camera against my face. I rarely get a blurry shot.

Thanks, Rarogirl. I'll mention it to her although almost everyone I see using a digital camera holds it out in front of them. Would the fact that the camera is only 2 pixels have anything to do with it?

I would think 2 megapixels would be adequate for a sharp 4x6, though I'm hardly an expert on the subject. I'm sure one of our resident photography experts will weigh in with some good opinions.

Jeannie118 - a 2 Megapixel camera should give perfectly acceptable results. One thing to remember is that the camera needs time to do an auto focus, so the button needs to be gently depressed whilst keeping the subject towards the centre of the frame, until some sort of indication message is given on or in the viewfinder that the process is complete. The subject should then be reframed, and the button depressed completely.

Sometimes in poor light conditions, or if the subject matter has insufficient fine detail for the auto-focus mechanism to make a decision, then the camera will not focus, but a warning should appear in the viewfinder.

Another possibility is that the camera is switched to 'manual focus', not 'auto-focus' - obviously in manual focus mode, the operator will need to focus the camera.

If none of this is a problem, (assuming the lens is clean0, then the camera might well have a fault!

quote:

Originally posted by Jeannie118:
Would the fact that the camera is only 2 pixels
have anything to do with it?

No. Low resolution won't give you a blurry picture, and should be just fine for, say, a 4x6 print. If you were to blow it up to, say, A4 size, you'd start to see the individual pixels in the image, though. If you want larger prints, it's best to use 3+MPixels.

I always use the (electronic) viewfinder in my camera, never the LCD screen. As others have said, holding a camera out in front of you is a recipe for "camera shake" which <i>will</i> give you a blurry picture!

Most people seem to hold the camera out in front and look through screen, my daughter did this and the pictures were blurry with 5 Megapixel Canon.
I am not a good photographer but have the most experience in my family and preferred to look through the viewfinder and I also steady my arms and elbows by holding them close to my body to prevent any shake or vibration. I used to do this with my really old SLR in low light conditions.