Kodak Alaris warns the TSA's new airport CT scanners can damage undeveloped film

I don't know how paranoid the warning is, but that seems like it could be pretty bad.

Remember we call one of the chemicals 'bleach'. It's a bad name. This effluent tank usually gets dumped out in a sink near the lab when it's full or at the end of the day. I say that bleach is a bad name because C-41 process contains ammonium ferric PDTA, which I believe is pretty close to ammonium iron sulfate. (not a chemist)

Anyways, the store I mentioned had a mess that needed cleaning at the end of the day, so the kids got out cleaners containing bleach and mopped up the floor... then proceeded to dump the cleaner down the same sink as the effluent. This readily produced noxious fumes (possibly mustard gas) that forced a store evacuation. Store was closed for around 2 days as hazmat crews made sure the place was safe to go into.

Nobody was hurt but not a great look....

The only way you could pull this off is mixing up the chemistry during a dump-and-fill (chemistry restart).

Tri-X is still in production to this day, and still very popular. Same with the Ilford films I mentioned.

Yes, but they're pushing the the technology so far to get higher densities that error correction is required for normal operation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_cell

> The primary benefit of MLC flash memory is its lower cost per unit of storage due to the higher data density, and memory-reading software can compensate for a larger bit error rate.[5] The higher error rate necessitates an error correcting code (ECC) that can correct multiple bit errors; for example, the SandForce SF-2500 Flash Controller can correct up to 55 bits per 512-byte sector with an unrecoverable read error rate of less than one sector per 1017 bits read.

Making the cells smaller and cramming more bits per cell reduces the amount of energy/radiation required to trigger a bit flip, making the data more vulnerable. It sounds like they may also be increasing the energy put out by the scanners. Not a very good combination if you care about your data. Maybe they'll push the fraction of storage reserved for error-correction data even higher to compensate.

IIRC, radiation-hard chips often used processes with larger feature sizes and different materials in order to be more resistant to the effects of radiation.

The statistics get more complicated when multiple bits are flipped (either by a single event, or over time) before an error correcting pass can look at the bits in question. In those cases, the particular flipped bits and where they are spatially will matter a lot more.

For a lot of photography, especially basic journalist event stuff, I find the fact that I can go to about 3200 without even thinking about it a huge benefit of digital.

Jokes aside, I'll take care from now on, film goes at least two two four times through the scanner on a plane trip...

With a line-scan X-ray, the bag is well out of the beam path by the time the operator sees the image. But it's probably coming in through a 12 or 16-bit ADC, so there's a lot more range than can be effectively displayed on screen (at least with a simple linear+gamma mapping). It's a matter of adjusting the display mapping to see inside denser objects.

The X-ray source power needs to be high enough to deal with the worst case scenario of large/dense luggage. If you can give your film a 10x lower dose while still allowing enough X-rays through that the operator can clear it, that sounds like a good idea.

It just has to be traded off against the fact that deliberate shielding is likely to be frowned upon, and they may take the film out and run it through "naked" anyway. Seems worth a try, but I'd definitely use a commercial product marked for the purpose and resist the temptation to DIY it.

It's actually a fairly good way to test if your lab sucks ass. B/W is not forgiving to poorly calibrated equipment or chain stores that are cheaping out on replenishment.

small nitpick: RA-4 is a Kodak process. The Noritsu minilab I ran used Kodak chemicals. Fujitsu labs typically use a 'compatible' version of their own that can't be called RA-4. While the two systems work, we always found C-41 Fujifilm looked inferior printed on the Kodak processes and vice-versa.

The big problem with Frontiers was it was near impossible to fully eliminate the colour cast on B&W prints. You can kick the machine into B&W mode manually, but there are still limitations the RGB laser exposure engine and process puts on you. Practically that means you can't get a true black like you can with silver-halide processes.

They are still fabulous machines though. Awful user interface, but the technology behind them is pretty incredible.

It looks like they may use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightJet for the bigger prints

They seem to use a specific type of paper for the machine too - https://www.harmantechnology.com/amfile/file/download/file/1...

Hasselblad makes some nice ones.

https://www.hasselblad.com/h-system/

That's why Nolan still screens his films with 70mm IMAX projectors. He might use digital for effects, but I believe he preserves the analog film in the final prints instead of using a digital intermediate.

That forces you to think your composition through, take an extra second or two to ensure the exposure is good - it basically enforces self discipline.

(Which reminds me I've got a few rolls to develop after my latest outing with the Texas Leica - a Fuji G690BL; the 6*9 format gives me eight exposures on a roll of 120 film.

Besides the enforced self discipline, I spend all of my working time in front of a computer, so I find it a bonus to have a hobby which does not (necessarily) involve one; I do shoot digital, too, though - I just mostly prefer the analog workflow for recreation.

The Negative is absolutely indispensable and should be read by every shooter, film or digital. The Zone System conceptually works the same for everything, whether B+W or color, film or digital. It's a generalized system for placing an exposure level onto the sensor's available range.

I suspect The Print is probably not entirely relevant anymore to most people who are doing hybrid-digital workflows (scanning their negatives), but may be of interest if you want to do wet printing. Which you should, it's super fun and rewarding and I can more easily deliver a better print than I can digitally.

One thing it doesn't cover is split-grade printing, which is very easy to produce high-quality results, but requires "modern" variable-contrast emulsions which didn't exist in his day.

That analogy breaks down a bit because in the former case, there are very many circumstances where the small unpowered tool is the best fit for a job (touching up an area, finishing off a mortise, trimming off something by hand where a power tool would not be able to give the proper feedback).

In photography, the preference is a lot more subjective, at least when it comes to 35mm formats.

Most carpenters will carry hand saws and chisels with them even if they have all the top of the line power tools because they remain relevant and immensely useful.

You can make a scanner back out of a normal CCD film scanner. It comes with a lot of downsides since you have a giant "rolling shutter" that works on the scale of 10s+ but it does give you an image.

Because you're being pedantic i.e, if there's one person left shooting with film, then "people" are. Look past the literal words and understand the sentiment "What advantages do people see with film over digital?"

> there are things [...] not necessarily be a technical discussion [...] others may disagree [...] artistic choices

Things like what? Artistic choices such as?

I don't think this is a genuine answer. Certainly there must be good reasons people shoot film. But nobody can disagree with you here because in so many words, you said nothing to answer the question.

edit:

It's frustrating to see gp's question downmodded because we reserve that for "Doesn't add to the discussion". It was not impolite and it allowed many of you to surface your passions about shooting with film. How was it unhelpful? Don't interpret gp's inquiry as a dig on your choices; no one need be insecure about sentimentality.

Kodak Alaris != Kodak (ie. the original Eastman Kodak)

The later went into bankruptcy in 2012, selling off most of its remaining assets (though I think it still makes film for movie production). The reason for the bankruptcy is that the market for film died off in the 2000's. That, incidentally, had a huge impact on Kodak's (and my) home town of Rochester, NY. So yeah, I can see why people would be quite surprised that there's still this much interest in using film in 2020.

Of course to get better resolution, you need to go up to medium format. (where those niceties become harder to come by)

By "MF", I take it you mean medium format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format

That a very excellent point that emphasizes how technology is often about trade-offs, not linear advancement. With film, it's far cheaper to increase the sensor size because the sensor is literally a consumable item. With digital, the sensor is an sophisticated electronic component that it's much harder and expensive to fabricate the larger you make them.

edit: I seem to have responded to the wrong comment here, but it's too late to delete.

(While I shoot negative much more often, it doesn't have the same visceral impact as positives.)

Lossless audio formats still have a sample rate and a bit depth that limits the maximum fidelity, while vinyl is always improving, or I should say record players are still improving. For instance, records made in the e.g. 1940s sound much better on modern equipment than they did when they were new, and in the future might sound even better. On the other hand, digital formats (audio and visual) have a fixed resolution and will never supply more detail than they do now.

So, it's not "for its own sake," but because it does actually sound different. Sure there's a little bit of "for its own sake" in the acts of handling a record and operating the equipment, which I think is what connects with NES: sometimes you just want to sit on a couch with a little controller. But at the same time, there are games that don't exist outside of NES, or are emulated in distasteful way, or something else that makes playing the actual device the best way to enjoy a game. Vinyl has this also, there is lots and lots and lots of music that has not been digitized, neither for CD nor File, and having a turntable is the only way to experience it.

Film protection bags are to protect against fogging from radiation at higher altitudes, not the scanners.

Film's initial cost may be cheaper than digital, but after 10-20 rolls of film, digital comes out to be cheaper when accounting for film + development costs.

A used Canon 5D MkII kit can be had for under $800 these days.

Consider, too, with CCD and the lens systems, there are shifts toward certain hues, and further post-processing (e.g. photoshop) is used to distort the color balance.

Of course they probably said the same about Kodachrome's vibrant, but unnatural colors "back when..."

But why? It's done, because we can. And it's noticeably different. And it's sometimes not a matter of being better, just different, since in a saturated world of media (no pun intended) differentiating one's work from the millions of others is often enough of a deciding factor to trigger a choice. Which brings me to the topic of the fashion industry...

But that said, hopefully all filesystems have some sort of error to show the file has been damaged.

https://twitter.com/CaughtCctv/status/1212381004591255553