Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

dpreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 166 posts

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

#151

Post by yesimahuman »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #2

Genuine question: Why do people still use film anymore? I know some big movie studios do sometimes use it (The Hobbit comes to mind), but I don’t understand why anyone would use film when we have DSLRs that can have resolutions over 30 megapixels. EDIT: added “why” at beginning

I shoot photos for the memories and film just makes me feel more (the look, the grain, the process). Old lenses have a character I prefer. Old cameras feel great and are fun and low-risk (take it on the water w/o worrying about losing it, for example). I enjoy digital but just like cycling, the industry has gone mad equating technology with quality.

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

#152

Post by tgflynn »

octorian wrote: post #147
tgflynn wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kodak still produces and sells film 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…

Its my understanding that the company you think of as Eastman Kodak is still the one who is actually making the film. Meanwhile, Kodak Alaris is handling the marketing and distribution side of things for still photo film (while the Rochester company does still handle this for motion picture film.) Its an awkward split, and one I often see re-explained whenever one or the other makes a press announcement.

It's certainly confusing. My understanding was that Kodak had gotten out of the consumer film business entirely, so I was surprised to find out about this Kodak Alaris, which is based in the UK. I suppose that if Kodak is still making film for motion pictures here then they could still be making small quantities of film for still photography as well, but as far as I know most of their main production facility is being rented out to other companies/startups.

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

#154

Post by klodolph »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #146
klodolph wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not happy with it. YMMV. I don’t like Tri-X in general though.

Fair enough. I should mention that I use diluted Ilfosol 3 when pushing and get better results than DD-X/D76.

I use XTOL, which is the closest Kodak equivalent to Ilfosol 3. D-76 is a nice developer but it’s just not quite as good as the newer formulations like XTOL and Ilfosol 3.

You can call it “push” development, but ISO speed is actually measured with a specific developer, and you will get a different speed with different developers before you even push it. This is typically true for XTOL and Ilfosol 3. You basically get an extra half or two thirds of a stop just by using a better developer.

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

#155

Post by jrowley »

Seenso wrote: post #82
cm2187 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't SSD have some kind of cyclic redundancy check?

> Don't SSD have some kind of cyclic redundancy check? 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]…

Interesting! I had no idea there is increased need for error correction.

Regarding radiation, I just found this cool link about ICs in space: http://cpushack.com/space-craft-cpu.html

From my understanding they often use redundant CPUs computing the same instructions in lockstep and rollback when they disagree.

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

#156

Post by copperx »

klodolph wrote: post #72
modo_ wrote: post #45

I've never run into any trouble getting film hand checked while traveling within the US. Sadly it's a completely different story internationally. Indian security has been the strictest in my experience -- flat out refusal to do anything other than run the film through the X-Ray machine. I don't travel with fast film (800+ ISO) anymore. It's just not worth the stress.

I decided to switch to digital for anything where I want to go over 400 ISO. My personal feelings are that the image quality of 800 ISO film is just terrible. YMMV based on personal preference, I know people who really like the look of fast film.

Medium format 800 ISO film is beautiful and low noise. 35mm, in the other hand, sucks if not pushed 3 stops.

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

#157

Post by copperx »

jabroni_salad wrote: post #32
stevehawk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that hard to mail them off for digitization?

Depends on how sentimental you are. I personally would not mail my negatives. The $12 insurance payout would not be worth it if they were lost.

So insure them for $1000?

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

#158

Post by lb1lf »

paulmd wrote: post #118
lb1lf wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, this and this. I've consistently found my keeper ratio to be much higher when shooting film, as the memory cards are small and single-use only. 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…

I personally find the act of throwing away the garbage shots to be paralyzing with digital. If you have 8 nearly identical shots, which do you keep? And the act of examining and comparing to make a choice based on some minute detail drastically slows down the whole cataloging and editing process. It's the paralysis of choice. Less is literally more, and I personally don't find an evening of spending a couple hours pa…

-I had the same problem - too many cameras - as there was a time when you could buy film cameras for a song. I have since pared down a bit (not sufficiently, though - the collector gene is strong in this one) - Nikon F (various bodies both F and D, and more optics than I care to think about), Leica M (primary body being the camera Leica ought to have made - the Zeiss Ikon ZM, but also an M4 for the times when old school is the order of the day) - 35 and 50mm Summicrons, 90mm Elmarit) and Fuji G690BL (65mm f/8, 100mm f/3.5 and 150mm f/5.6 lenses)

The Pentax 67 is a beast, though - I had one for a couple of years and loved it to bits, but in the end it lost out to the 690 as I find myself preferring rangefinders more and more. Wonderful camera and optics, though.

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

#159

Post by philpem »

Finnucane wrote: post #99
joecool1029 wrote: post #97

My first job over a decade ago was managing a photo lab. The x-ray machines would often damage film that people traveled with. Amateur photographers just weren't aware. The damage typically looks like white fuzzy diagonal lines across the image. It's not enough to completely destroy a picture, but it'll ruin it. The most common widespread damage we saw were people that bought like 50 disposable cameras for their Cari…

Ever put the fixer in first? That's fun too.

C41 minilabs won't generally let you in normal use. The Fuji machines won't allow you to put the replenisher cartridge in backwards due to mechanical blocks (poka-yoke).

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

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

#160

Post by philpem »

aidenn0 wrote: post #139
joecool1029 wrote: post #97

My first job over a decade ago was managing a photo lab. The x-ray machines would often damage film that people traveled with. Amateur photographers just weren't aware. The damage typically looks like white fuzzy diagonal lines across the image. It's not enough to completely destroy a picture, but it'll ruin it. The most common widespread damage we saw were people that bought like 50 disposable cameras for their Cari…

Tri-X not T-MAX just a decade ago? [edit] Looked it up on wikipedia and TIL that the Tri-X chemistry was updated as recently as 2007.

Tri-X is a tab-grain silver halide film similar to Ilford HP5. T-MAX is delta-grain and more like Ilford Delta. They don't necessarily need different chemistry but it's possible to get better results if you do.

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

Post reply on HN