"Why don’t you just go digital?"

[Sparrow]

... not on the interweb I fear, radiation is much more powerful on the interweb

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by redisburning

I don't understand the need to justify film use.

Given the worsening economics of film consumption, justification is absolutely necessary or manufacturing will end, just like the mass manufacture of film cameras has ended.

[brbo]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

If film were damaged by USPS radiation, that would also be common knowledge, yet it isn't.

Of course!

But x-raying (which is done regularly) causing film fogging IS a common knowledge. And I provided at least two sources saying x-raying memory cards having no effect on data.

And I apologize for obviously () wrong usage of "if any" instead of "none" and "obviously" vs. "apparently". Not a native speaker, I don't have a better excuse...

On topic, I shoot mostly film and I can come up with just as lousy pictures as with digital. Even more as I can screw it up in developing or scanning. Or inverting the negative. Some screw up are even irreversible with film. I just shoot film because I like it. I like that they come in different flavours, it's like every roll of film comes with it's own "jpg engine" and I don't have to buy a new camera to try it out. I even enjoy developing and scanning that comes with film, it a hobby within a hobby.

But I've seen many many digital shots that I really liked...

[loquax ludens]

I'm adept at screwing up images, be they film-based or digital. I do prefer the film work flow though, as there are so many more interesting ways to screw up the image.

[sevo]

Originally Posted by brbo

Of course!

But x-raying (which is done regularly) causing film fogging IS a common knowledge.

Is it? Except for checked-in baggage scanners, x-ray damage to film in recent years seems to be quite a mythical beast - the anecdotal evidence presented in threads here on the forum boiled down to urban legend class stuff, and the few first hand experiences dated back several decades.

[brbo]

Statement issued less than a few decades ago (2007):

Film
More care is needed for cameras with film, by comparison, as the X-ray scanners for both checked and carry-on luggage can fog both developed and undeveloped film. ITIP has found that the X-ray scanners used for screening carry-on bags will damage high-speed film (greater than ISO 800). For lower-speed film, problems appear to be cumulative: the majority of damage has been reported on film undergoing more than five passes through X-ray machines.

Accordingly, I3A advises travelers to request hand inspection of their high-speed (greater than ISO 800) film products, which is explicitly permitted by law. Hand inspection of lower-speed film is recommended only when the film has already been subjected to five trips through X-ray scanners. Additionally, black-and-white film and motion picture film, of any speed, are vulnerable to damage even on their very first scans, so travelers with these items should always ask for hand inspection.

Note that the screening machines used to screen checked baggage and some cargo will damage all film, regardless of speed or type. Therefore, I3A and the TSA both advise travelers to carry their film with them and never to put it in checked bags.

(source)

And yes, I know they like to err on the safe side, but still... It would seem that film is not totally immune to security x-rays scanners (and memory cards pretty much are). And I really don't understand what's so "mythical" or "anecdotal" about the findings presented in the document I linked before? Any link to a document (on a similar level) saying the opposite would be very welcome in this debate, wouldn't you think?

[ChrisPlatt]

USPS does not X-ray packages.

Chris
USPS employee