Hersch wrote:
> My understanding is that it is true. The x-ray levels
> used on checked luggage would be excessive exposure
> for the gate staff. I would still be hesitant with
> 800+ speed film, but 'normal' film should be OK, if
> they won't accept a hand search.
The problem I experienced when travelling in the USA is the number of transfers
it takes to get anywhere. Direct flights in the US are few and far between
with the airlines all hubbing through somewhere.
Anthony wrote:
> Why not just get the film developed in Athens and Rome?
On my travels in the States I did process my films along the way because
processing was cheap and of reasonable quality in the USA. It was also
possible to find places to do E6. In a lot of countries the processing
quality isn't as good, and if they screw up the film, you've lost the images.
More to the point, a lot of people are on tight schedules when travelling
and can't afford the time to take films to be processed let alone wait for
it to be done.
Next time I fly internationally I might try putting the rolls into a ziplock
bag so they can be hand inspected easily. I've never put unprocessed film
in check-in luggage, but even the gate machines are a worry. If you buy
the film at home, it has to go through as many as 4 machines, and you might
add two passes for every connecting flight. The X-ray damage is cumulative.
In most places the gate staff were happy to hand inspect the films. They
were more concerned about ensuring that my camera worked and wasn't packed
with semtex.
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
