Taking digital camera/cards through airports?

[LastLight]

Suprising as this might sound, I've not yet carried SD cards or a digital camera through airport security. We take the kids away on Tuesday and I've found that, in her wisdom, my wife has not paid (extra, wth?) for in-hold luggage and we only have a 12kg allowance each, to be carried with us. So probably one bag each and then anything that can be hand held.

What is the safest way to carry SD cards and a camera through the airport scanning systems and will I have any trouble trying to pass things through outside of X-Ray scanners etc.? This is Heathrow to Paris and return.

[Simpo Two]

I don't think X-rays do anything to memory cards. I wanted all my kit with me so took my gadget bag through as hand-held luggage on a little blue tray. One officer wanted to open the bag because the lenses were too dense to confirm, that's all.

It was film that had issues with X-rays.

[knotweed]

I've taken mine through several times and never had any problems.

[Tiggsy]

never given it a moments thought - taken gopros, digi cameras, etc, etc through airport scanning and never had an issue (apart from a selfie stick looking like an AK47 on a scan!)

[Mr Will]

Simpo Two said:

I don't think X-rays do anything to memory cards. I wanted all my kit with me so took my gadget bag through as hand-held luggage on a little blue tray. One officer wanted to open the bag because the lenses were too dense to confirm, that's all.

It was film that had issues with X-rays.

Simpo is correct. No need to worry about memory cards, X-rays don't affect them. If they did then all the ipads, phones and laptops going through would have some pretty serious problems too as they work on the same technology.

In fact, you can even get away with sending film through the modern machines. They use MUCH lower power levels than they used to and anything up to 1600 should not suffer noticeably. I've travelled with film quite a bit and the only time I've ever had any problems with fogging was after sending them through a knackered old machine in the dodgy parts of Africa.

[LastLight]

Brilliant news, thanks chaps. My worry came from my use of film over the years - just wondered if cards and sensors were vulnerable without some protection - like the X-Ray packs I used to have to take.

[arch stant0n]

They'll be fine - my SD cards and camera have been through dozens of airport scanners.

Don't pack any spare lithium batteries in hold baggage, they have to be with you in the cabin.

[LastLight]

Cheers - will be carrying the 2 spares in my pocket => hand through checking.

[Simpo Two]

Of course you do realise that when they X-ray a memory card and zoom in they can see all the images as little b/w thumbnails...?

[Salesy]

Samsung make some that are waterproof and something else....

[LastLight]

Simpo Two said:

Of course you do realise that when they X-ray a memory card and zoom in they can see all the images as little b/w thumbnails...?

Don't worry - the kids will stay clothed for the duration.

[chrismarr]

Simpo Two said:

Of course you do realise that when they X-ray a memory card and zoom in they can see all the images as little b/w thumbnails...?

Not only that but if RAW we can edit them too

[LastLight]

chrismarr said:

Simpo Two said:

Of course you do realise that when they X-ray a memory card and zoom in they can see all the images as little b/w thumbnails...?

Not only that but if RAW we can edit them too

If GCHQ can't do that yet, then I'm disappointed with them.

[LongQ]

LastLight said:

...like the X-Ray packs I used to have to take.

I used have one of those.

Now being able to see onside the operators would turn up the power - even if presented as "special treatment" if you got the wrong people.

So I gave up trying ... end ended up with the last batch of films I took abroad attracting a neat image of a zip as they went through the scanner in my photo bag.

[chrismarr]

LongQ said:

I used have one of those.

Now being able to see onside the operators would turn up the power - even if presented as "special treatment" if you got the wrong people.

So I gave up trying ... end ended up with the last batch of films I took abroad attracting a neat image of a zip as they went through the scanner in my photo bag.

Turn the power up ? I've worked with X-Ray machines in Airports for a long time and never known of a system the operator can turn up, everything gets X-rayed the same and if the X-Rays don't penetrate it as is the case for these films bags then we get it searched .

[LastLight]

LongQ said:

LastLight said:

...like the X-Ray packs I used to have to take.

I used have one of those.

Now being able to see onside the operators would turn up the power - even if presented as "special treatment" if you got the wrong people.

So I gave up trying ... end ended up with the last batch of films I took abroad attracting a neat image of a zip as they went through the scanner in my photo bag.

Do they have the label G.I.T. sewn onto their uniforms?

[LongQ]

chrismarr said:

LongQ said:

I used have one of those.

Now being able to see onside the operators would turn up the power - even if presented as "special treatment" if you got the wrong people.

So I gave up trying ... end ended up with the last batch of films I took abroad attracting a neat image of a zip as they went through the scanner in my photo bag.

Turn the power up ? I've worked with X-Ray machines in Airports for a long time and never known of a system the operator can turn up, everything gets X-rayed the same and if the X-Rays don't penetrate it as is the case for these films bags then we get it searched .

Well, it was some time ago and they put the stuff through twice as I recall. Only one zip outline though.

Maybe it was just a dodgy machine or a machine using a stronger output than most. Whatever the reason it was extremely annoying once I got the films back and realised what had happened.

Still, at least back then one didn't have to get half undressed to go through the checks and carrying liquids was not seen as a huge risk. The whole process was almost civilised even travelling package tourist standard.

[chrismarr]

LongQ said:

Still, at least back then one didn't have to get half undressed to go through the checks and carrying liquids was not seen as a huge risk. The whole process was almost civilised even travelling package tourist standard.

Sorry for being such an inconvenience to one, most of us are only trying to make your life a little less scary.

[LongQ]

chrismarr said:

LongQ said:

Still, at least back then one didn't have to get half undressed to go through the checks and carrying liquids was not seen as a huge risk. The whole process was almost civilised even travelling package tourist standard.

Sorry for being such an inconvenience to one, most of us are only trying to make your life a little less scary.

Irrespective of the operators almost all of the legislation that is imposed these days (often at the alleged behest of the "the public" of course ....) is to do with reacting to being scared. That is what legislators do.

Those who interpret and apply the rules may have different approaches in their application and the related instructions they pass down the chain. Some places are more logical (an no less effective) than others in the way they treat people.

I used to fly quite regularly for a few years so I remember the times when there was at least some pleasure to be had from the travel experience.

It was mostly business so after a while the planes, the airports, the taxis and the hotels all began to look the same and the joy of travelling would sometimes turn into a chore despite living next to what was then a rather well connected airport for business purposes.

These days I would rather avoid travel, especially by air, unless it is unavoidable for some reason. Or perhaps a long haul in business class. That ought to be OK. And of course it also means that I rarely need to trouble anyone to assess me as a potential travel risk.

I can still look back I can still look back at times when the process was, for those experiencing it at the time, more enjoyable as people seem to agree when I discuss it with them.

Interestingly the timing of additional security constraints happens, by chance more than likely, to coincide broadly with the rise of digital cameras and similar gadgets. So as a traveller keen on photography one's fears about needing to take films on a trip (knowing that some things you could only buy in the spec you wanted in the UK) was disappearing at around the same time that other previously unknown fears were being developed. Nowadays I suppose it must be the best part of a generation of travellers who understand today's passenger checks as "normal".

Interestingly it seems, based on the evidence of the past year or so, that the greatest risk to airtravellers in large passenger aircraft probably does not currently arise from the people queuing to be checked before a flight.

[budfox]

chrismarr said:

LongQ said:

Still, at least back then one didn't have to get half undressed to go through the checks and carrying liquids was not seen as a huge risk. The whole process was almost civilised even travelling package tourist standard.

Sorry for being such an inconvenience to one, most of us are only trying to make your life a little less scary.

You speak for "most" airport security staff do you?

What scares me is not terrorism, but what goes on under the guise of pretending to protect people from it.

The chances of someone dying through an act of terrorism on Brotish soil is very very small, yet what we have to endure at airports suggests that every other plane would be blown from the sky if it wasn't for the security procedures.

Of course the usual reply is "yes but that shows it works..." I have some anti-elephant butter that keeps the blighters out of my garden. Works a treat.