Film is less complicated than digital for travel?

jsrockit said:
May I ask why?
Click to expand...
Well Mexico is full of beautiful colors hues and i wish i caught them on film , i prefer that look film gives me , besides somehow i barely ever come back to photographs i shot on digi cam hence i want all important stuff photographed on film.
 
I've done both, and I don't really find one to be any more 'complicated' than the other. With film, there's the bulk of carrying many rolls of film, and potential for x-ray or other hazards (though I've never had any troubles). WIth digital, you have to worry about having enough charged batteries and a place in which to charge them, a dirty sensor, and I suppose some kind of electronic failure (though you could also have mechanical failure with a film camera). I know that many will disagree with what I personally do on vacation, but I do not worry about backing up on a laptop/hard drive etc while I'm on vacation (if I were doing it for paying work, it would be a different story). For our last trip to New Mexico and Arizona, I had my M9 and some 8GB SD cards, and a couple of 16GB SD cards, and never felt like I was short on memory. Last year we were in France, and I had enough cards for the M9 to do over 1600 RAW shots (imagine how much film that would be!), and they fit in a small pocket in my camera bag. Three years ago we were in Vienna for Christmas and I took my SWC and my Contaflex TLR -- stupid to bring both of them in the first place, as I then had to contend with carrying both 120 and 35mm film, making sure that I kept the exposed film protected and separate from the unexposed film, etc, so it was a bit to juggle (not to mention the fact that the camera bag weighed about 20 tonnes with those two camera kits). Not really a big deal, as it was something that I've been used to doing all these years, but compared to what I've gotten used to with digital on vacation, it was somewhat more cumbersome. But then again, I just did a short trip with my Canonflex and a few rolls of film, and it was quite satisfying!

Here again, as far as digital goes, I think backing up is a personal choice (for vacation, anyways). I tend not to worry about it (ignorance being bliss, perhaps?), but that's just me. And just like Godfrey, I just checked an SD card that I took to France last year, and yep, the shots are still there.

Other advantage to digital is that you can have much more versatility in your choice of ISO's. You could be shooting in bright sunlight one minute, and then in a darkened church the next. And of course the ease with which one can switch from colour to black and white -- unless you're using a Monochrom!
 
You do not back up film images, why do you find it necessary for digital. They there is the old x ray problem. Any exposure to it starts to degrade the image. Certainly people say they don`t see it, but it is there.
 
The only problem I see with digital is battery life. I usually travel with both film and digital. Film takes more place and has to be managed (I'm always afraid to put a used film back in the camera), but at least you don't have to charge the batteries every day or two.

Now that i'm almost 100% digital, i'll just buy a couple of spare batteries and a few more SD cards...

As others said : no need to backup (unless you can do it easily), since you did not backup your film.
 
Herjulfr said:
The only problem I see with digital is battery life. ...
Click to expand...

That's very camera and usage dependent. All of my digital cameras tend to get around 350-500 exposures per charge, which means that at my average shooting rate I run 3 to 4 days on a fully charged battery. Three batteries is ideal:

- one in the camera
- one, freshly charged, in the bag
- one either freshly charged and in the bag, or being recharged.

That leaves you with always having at least one battery in the camera and a fresh spare in your bag. If you run extended time away from power sources, just add another couple of batteries: they're small and easy to carry.
 
Shouldn't the choice what to take along on travel be based more on the type of photography that one expects and the ergonomy of the camera than on the film/digital distinction? For all practical purposes, there's no real convenience difference between the two if you don't want there to be. It only becomes an issue if you also want to do postprocessing on the go..
 
Once you are in Tuscany you will know that your SWC is the perfect camera for the setting.

If you should go without it, you will forever regret the lost opportunity of making truly beautiful images on film.
 
When I was in Iceland this summer I had a Hexar RF and a Ricoh GXR with me.
The first few days in Reykjavik where ok, but when we went to the countryside, the fine dust entered the GXR and with the tools I had with me I was unable to clean her sufficiently. I rescued a lot of images in Photoshop, but I was glad I had a film camera with me. The Hexar worked flawlessly 🙂
 
Film is many things, but simple for travel ain't one of 'em in my book. If you shoot sparely (and maybe the space film takes results in this), you have to make decisions about the window of time for shooting a roll. And you most likely want two bodies (B&W, Color), so there is that. The Hexar RF is king if you have to have only one body and have a film limit.

No, not convenient, but I still prefer it.
 
I suppose it depends on the circumstances. Next year we'll be going to Australia for the birth of the next grandchild; I'll take the LX3 for instantly available family snapshots, and the camera in Missus's little Nokia phone is a very decent back-up. In case I get an opportunity for a little 6x9 happiness with something scenic, I'll take a folder, probably the Agfa Record III which is a very decent, pocketable shooter that's not irreplaceably rare or valuable 🙂.
 
This discussion is making the choice of equipment easier for me as it pertains to using both film and digital. I am tending towards what Vince said above. I am not a pro, and my photography is driven 100% by having fun with it and by enjoying also a family trip. I will ask my two girls to bring along their small digital cameras, so if everything that I am carrying fails, I still have their cameras.

I will most likely leave behind the laptop for its size and weight, but will take along an IPad for internet use to find places and roads as we travel. I have enough memory cards, I think, but I can always order a few more for the summer trip.

I really want to use the SWC for carefully composed images of places with people, plus close-ups of people gatherings. The M9 would be perfect for everyday scenes. I would only need MF film to carry. I have many batteries for the M9, so this is not an issue.

I got yesterday in the mail two "survival kits" with swabs and cleaner, following the advice to me by some RFF members. I will maybe just use the RocketBlower each day in the hotel to clean the sensor.

RF lenses are so tiny, as long as you do not follow the need for 1.2 lenses. This will allow me to use maybe a 35mm or a 50mm lens as the main lens, plus a 25 or 28 and maybe a (tiny) 90/4 for portraits or maybe I will use a 50mm lens for such applications and then I do not to take along a 90mm lens.
 
Frankly, I can't concentrate if I mix film and digital: one medium always suffers to the detriment of the other on an outing.

I took all MF film and my Rollei 6008i2 system to Europe 2 years ago. The pictures were fantastic, but to develop 50 rolls after returning home? It took me almost two months to get through all of that. Also, the bulk and weight of the system was almost too much for me.

I find with film that I concentrate more and I tend to take better pictures with it. The downside to that is that I am too absorbed in the picture-taking process to actually enjoy and appreciate what I am seeing!

I must be getting old, but a digital camera on a trip is far easier to negotiate for me than film. As to backups: I carry a laptop anyway so I just stick the card in the laptop, wait 5 seconds, and done. Most of the hotels I stay at have internet access so my files get uploaded to my 'Crashplan' account automatically in the cloud. No worries, really.
 
A digital camera takes up more of your attention than a film camera. I was responding to the thread before I read your view, Snowbuzz.
 
Ranchu said:
There are only three controls, each with one way, and the other way. Unless I forgot something.
Click to expand...

Don't know what you're trying to say. Only three controls? On what camera? Even on my plain prism Nikon F I have:

Back release
Take up spool
Film advance lever
Lens mount catch/release
Shutter time selector
Flash synchronization selector
Self timer
Self timer release
Focusing ring
Aperture selector
Depth of field scale
Focus indicator
Focus scale
Prism release catch
Focusing screen
Film rewind clutch release
Film length reminder
Rewind knob
Folding rewind crank
Depth of field preview button
Mirror lock up latch control

To use the full capabilities of a Nikon F, you have to understand and use about 3/4 of those controls virtually every time you pick it up to make some photographs. And that is a relatively simple film camera ..there's only a couple of things there that are not also on my Rolei 35S. Or Leica M.

Film cameras seem simpler because every photographer who worked with film seriously learned all these controls and operated most of them without thinking about them much. The controls on digital cameras are similar in most ways, different in others. There's the added complexity of a complete image processing lab in every digital camera ... But for the most part you can ignore it, much the same way you normally ignore the flash sync setting and mirror lock up control on the old F once they're set for use.

On a digital camera you have to remember to turn it on, and maintain the battery every few hundred frames, and change the storage card when it's full.

On the old F, you have to rewind and reload film every 36 frames, set exposure when needed, wind on to the next frame as needed, etc.

Each camera takes up as much of your consciousness and attention to use as you allow it to. 🙂
 
You don't know what I'm trying to say? Aperture priority cameras have only two, program jobs have one. I guess I did forget the shutter button. This is not worth debating, film cameras don't have menu trees with exposure compensation, ISO, and all the etc associated bull****. I understand you have an opinion, but it's self evident film requires less attention to the device. Ok.
 
I guess you haven't done much shooting with a 1950s classic folder? Or a late model Nikon F100, for that matter...

They've got almost as many things to do for each exposure as the most complex digital camera. IMO.
 
For a big trip I'd say mix digital and film. Take the cameras you feel will get you the pics you would like.
The debate regarding digital being more complex re choices, menus, iso, exposure comp bla bla bla is a non starter. Most people who shoot a lot have their cameras set up the way they like anyway and also know how to change things quickly if needed. My Lx3 pocket digi gives me the biggest headache but only because I don't use it all the time. D700 on the other hand is simple with no menu searching. One button, one dial turn and I can change everything I might need. Battery life 3 days as someone else suggested. F5 a bit more hungry on batteries but easily capable of shooting more rolls than I need on a full charge.
It does help if you use the same system re digi/film.
In the past I've taken only film and also only digital and always seem to have the same amount of kit!
My last trips have been both. F5 for film and D700 for digital with an 85 and a 24-70. The 700 gets used more. I take the LX3 for nights out in clubs and bars etc.
I back up when I get home. Film can spoil, so can cards but it's rare. I read an article by a great wedding guy who shoots thousands weekly and in all the time he's shot digital has only lost a handfull of shots due card problems. Use good cards that have been tested well before you do anything important and if in the unlikely event a card fails use recovery software to retrieve your pics. A more likely scenario would be losing cards but that's the same with film. I usually take 30 rolls of film on a big trip. I don't necessarily use it all but even so, 3 blocks is still bigger than my charger set up for both Nikons.
Take fewest lenses possible. Some seem to take their lens collections with them and like clothes in a suitcase, some will go unused. I now limit to no extra lenses, body number equals lens number.
Lastly, take kit that you can forget about when it's wet, dusty, cold etc as you don't want to spoil your trips worrying about your gear.
I'm planning my next trip at the mo. Malaysia, NZ, Oz and back via Nepal and India. The F5 and D700 will be going with me plus the LX3 for the nights I want to go out 😀
 
Ranchu said:
You don't know what I'm trying to say? Aperture priority cameras have only two, program jobs have one. I guess I did forget the shutter button. This is not worth debating, film cameras don't have menu trees with exposure compensation, ISO, and all the etc associated bull****. I understand you have an opinion, but it's self evident film requires less attention to the device. Ok.
Click to expand...

It's okay, we get you. 🙂 I use Canon DSLRs with manual focus lenses and all automated functions turned off so I'm not distracted. I tried the Fujis but the automation drives me to distraction. Also, with negative film I don't worry about metering too much at all. I worry more about that with digital.

I understand where you're coming from and I understand Godfrey's points as well. A good digital camera will allow you to simplify the process if it's your preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom