Film is less complicated than digital for travel?

The ONLY time I shoot digital is when I travel mostly because I generally don't care about vacation photos and my wife wants to see them and make a photobook with them and doesn't have the patience for me to develop and scan.

I've traveled with my Leica and with a Mamiya 6 and a Rolleicord (not at the same time) before but honestly besides glaciers in Patagonia with the Mamiya 6, nothing I've shot particularly excites me. I do better work with film at home.

I can basically go a couple of weeks with a GRD III and an 8 gig card and rarely charge the battery or fill the card. Don't bring anything to view the photos with and just batch edit when I get home.

That or a Yashica t4 and that's all.
 
nightfly said:
I can basically go a couple of weeks with a GRD III and an 8 gig card and rarely charge the battery or fill the card. Don't bring anything to view the photos with and just batch edit when I get home.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of that. Last time i did a longer trip (1 month) with a laptop i found myself sitting in a hotel room for an hour or two every night editing. It would be different if it was a photog trip.
 
I've done both, in overseas trips to Asia.

Film is less complications.

With digital you need currency converters, storage, backup storage, and of course forget about anything magnetic.

Film - well, you pick up and go.

I'm not taking sides, I like both. But I know which one I like better.
 
Travelling around the U.S. digital is certainly more convenient. Travelling overseas, film may be a hair more convenient due to not having to recharge batteries - but it also depends on what film you may be able to find. I'm not one to pack dozens of rolls when travelling.
 
For France, I took two Barnacks--IIIcs--for black & white. 50mm Collapsible SUmmicron; 35/2.5 CV; 28mm CV; 25mm CV. Plus an M7 with 40/1.4 CV, and adapters to let me use the other lenses on the M7 if desired.

For Color: one D-Lux 3 and one D-Lux 4.

It all worked out so well, I will go with pretty close to the same outfit next time. You can't get the sensors dirty on the D-lux cameras, because the lenses don't come off. Mostly I left the M7 in the apartment and went out with one Barnack around my neck, the other one in my vest pocket. I might have one D-Lux in hand, the other in a vest pocket. Or both in the pocket, taking one out as needed. Or both Barnacks in the vest, and one D-Lux out, in use. Very flexible and versatile!

I agree, film is not all that much of a bother. And I can print in the darkroom, and not on my noisy, ink-eating printer!
 
raid said:
...It may be more enjoyful to use an old Barnack for the old streets is Tuscany. I could leave behind the laptop and drive and cards and charger and batteries.

I would then carry film with me.
What do you think?
Click to expand...

It sounds peaceful and relaxing! Where's the fun in that?
 
Much of it depends where you will be traveling. You should not need to worry about dust if you are not changing lenses. Why do you need a laptop to back up you images? With a film camera there is not back up. I look at it this way: Traveling/Vacation is for enjoyment and unless you are being paid to take photographs then photography is secondary to the enjoyment of the entire vacation. Not everything needs to be photographed.
 
I never have a problem carrying digital and film. The charger goes into the checked bag and the rest carried on, no laptop, in a small bag. Really the idea is to buy enough cards. As far as carries, I'm becoming more a 1 body 2 lens guy when out shooting. My D is a Panasonic w/zoom, with an adapter for the 2 Nikon lenses I carry with a Nikon body and 2 filters, 2lb tripod . 2-3 rolls of film usually do it but I can always buy more. I'm becoming more discriminating in shots so I don't have to sit behind a computer forever; Bad back.
 
raid said:
I like using my M8 and M9 when I am close to home. I was planning to take with me the SWC with its fixed 38mm lens, plus the M9 with a 35mm or 50mm lens.

Then I learned about the need to have a laptop and external drive for back-up, plus several memory cards. I also learned that dust spots may require the cleaning of the sensor, done preferably in a dustless room.

This all sounds rather complicated for overseas travel with a wife and two kids. I am now in Washington DC, and my only camera is a Tower 35 with a 50/2 Nikkor and a CV meter II. It is such a pleasure to take photos with this camera.

It may be more enjoyful to use an old Barnack for the old streets is Tuscany. I could leave behind the laptop and drive and cards and charger and batteries.

I would then carry film with me.
What do you think?
Click to expand...

Someone much smarter than I said that on vacation you should take intimate portraits of your family in cafes and parks and narrow shady streets. For the rest, buy a big coffee table book; the photography will be better than anything you'll ever do.

Seventeen days in Italy looked pretty good to me through a Nikon F full of Tri-X. A Barnack in Tuscany? I think you would get some fantastic photographs (a lot will be in focus) that you will cherish always. That counts, doesn't it?
 
Steve Bellayr said:
With a film camera there is not back up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a lot of this cons for digital aren't valid because of this. Digital gives you the opportunity to back up your photos.

And think of spare batteries as rolls of films, and as long as you're rotating three, you can generally survive a week without needing a charger (unless you're shooting video).
 
The thought of not being able to back up film had not yet occured to me.

Im not sure if this is something to thing about but shooting with family being fast i would assume is a good thing? Shooting a more modern camera in that case (something with metering and Apature priority) might save the family giving you the move along.

A lot of time tavel for me is about visiting places and relaxing. Taking photos is something i find relaxing hence it becomes a big part of my trips.
 
with film you never know how many you'll need. so you end up taking way more than you think you'll need, gets a bit bulky. bulkier than a charger and 3 batteries and 2 spare memory cards, for sure.

to me a big advantage of digital on trips is that it's less likely losing photos due to user error or lousy lab. i've done trips both shooting film only and digital only. had 8 rolls scratched by a lousy lab, frustrating. in another trip i shot everything with film, and while changing film one day i opened the camera before rewinding, i just wasnt paying much attention to what i was doing. lost all my photos from genova and some others from cinqueterre, i could save some that weren't too badly damaged by the light leak, but it was again frustrating. also there are photos that i took on film that i was hoping for the best but came out just not so good. like one from a lava pit inside a full moon lit volcano crater in hawaii, long exposure, well metered but all 4 frames came out shaky... the ones i took with the x100 were fine.

ive done trips taking only a digital and it was a walk in the park in that sense. less volume to lug around, having instant review is great because you know you won't be going back there so soon, so you are sure you got the picture (you can be sure with film, but then you might be stupid like i was and screw up your film or have the lab do it for you). also the autonomy is much bigger, since you can take many more shots, have more raw material to then select and edit back home. i take a charger and 3 spare batteries usually, taking a laptop along with an external hd is just nonsense, it adds unnecessary bulk and it's a waste of trip time to edit photos while travelling, while you can be enjoying your time wherever you are. film has no backup anyway.

i love film, but for trips i think digital just suits best.
 
somewhat related question, how much film do you shoot on a trip ?
this somewhat affects the number of rolls to carry. on 2 recent trips,
i shot around 2 - 3 rolls a day. i decided to get those small "egg-cases"
to store the film to make the formfactor smaller.
The last 2 days are the worst, I agonize how much to shoot vs reserve.

raytoei
 
Don't sweat it. Everyone seems to pack way more than they really need, especially in this battery dependent, digital world of ours. Take the Tower 3 (or Leica III), a 35 and a 50mm lens (both collapsible of course), 10 rolls of Tri-X (or your favorite color 400), and your favorite little light meter (a Sekonic L208 works great.) You will find more film to buy along the way. Mail the exposed stuff to yourself or to Adorama every now and then. If that is too much of a hassle then wrap it in a (clean) sock and stuff into the bottom of your backpack.

You can easily pack the camera, the spare lens and several spare rolls of film into one of those silly looking little fanny packs and it won't even count as carry on. It works, and everything is there at hand when you need it.

Your images may not look quite as good as that coffee table book, but there is no reason they can't. The equipment is certainly capable.
 
raytoei@gmail.com said:
somewhat related question, how much film do you shoot on a trip ?
this somewhat affects the number of rolls to carry. on 2 recent trips,
i shot around 2 - 3 rolls a day. i decided to get those small "egg-cases"
to store the film to make the formfactor smaller.
The last 2 days are the worst, I agonize how much to shoot vs reserve.

raytoei
Click to expand...

I always bring more film than necessary. The worse is to run out of film in a strange city. I got introduced to color Era film this way 🙂
 
umcelinho said:
i take a charger and 3 spare batteries usually, taking a laptop along with an external hd is just nonsense, it adds unnecessary bulk and it's a waste of trip time to edit photos while travelling, while you can be enjoying your time wherever you are. film has no backup anyway.

i love film, but for trips i think digital just suits best.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just because you can bring a boatload of digital accessories doesn't mean you have to. No need to overcomplicate things.

My lightweight digital kit is now an RX100 + a few extra batteries + small charger. I could basically put the camera in one jeans pocket and the rest in the other. Certainly less bulky than my lightweight film kit (GR1 + a dozen or so rolls).

I only ever use one memory card. A fast 32 GB SDHC card is like $20 these days. That's 1400-1500 RAW shots for me. If you're really trigger happy, 128 GB SDXC cards are $100. I've carried an extra card for years but never used it. Stamp-sized and 1/13 the weight of one roll of film, so I can manage. 🙂

No need to worry about anything magnetic, by the way:

""There's nothing magnetic in flash memory, so [a magnet] won't do anything," says Bill Frank, executive director of the CompactFlash Association. "A magnet powerful enough to disturb the electrons in flash would be powerful enough to suck the iron out of your blood cells," says Frank.

The same goes for hard drives. The only magnets powerful enough to scrub data from a drive platter are laboratory degaussers or those used by government agencies to wipe bits off media."

(Busting the Biggest PC Myths)
 
Digital really isn't difficult at all. Take a couple of batteries.

Threads like this always make me think people are trying to kid themselves that there's a place for film in their workflow, rather than just accepting that they're choosing film because they want to. Why the need to rationalise it like this?
 
On holidays my wife shoots a digital compact and I shoot colour film. We like to make an album of each trip.

After we get back, it takes her weeks to sort through her hundreds of images and then another three days to receive the prints in the mail.

While I just drop off my film and collect the prints next day, do a quick first selection of the prints and then could start making the album. On longer trips I have even had prints made locally, so my final edit was ready by the time we got home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom