Film is less complicated than digital for travel?

[Snowbuzz]

In my own experience, I find traveling with digital to be so much less complicated. Nothing says you have to do your downloading, post-processing, etc. while on the trip. With a few tiny memory cards, you have the capacity to store far more images than you could on 100 rolls of film.
A digital camera with a few batteries, memory cards and a charger will take up less space than a film camera and the huge bag of film you will have to carry.
If you want to include a laptop, etc. in your digital kit, that's up to you. But it's hardly a necessity.

Exactly. Found this out myself too.

 

[Rogier]

Just returned from a long trip. Only shot 120.
Actually it was often a pain in the %&#... Changing film every 12 shots in the middle of the action. Hard with a Yashica Mat and Holga's that need to be taped...

Hope it was worth the effort.

 

[bulevardi]

Well, then there's the cost/time of processing the film, scanning it, etc.

They both have their strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion. But yes, if by less complicated, you mean while out and about shooting, then I would agree.

Shooting rolls can by complicated too, sometimes. Unless you have a good workflow.

Imagine you're shooting a roll of iso 3200 and you're in the half of it, and suddenly it gets sunny and you want to shoot a landscape at iso 100.

 

[kanzlr]

Shooting rolls can by complicated too, sometimes. Unless you have a good workflow.

Imagine you're shooting a roll of iso 3200 and you're in the half of it, and suddenly it gets sunny and you want to shoot a landscape at iso 100.

second body?

oh, and light suddenly changes by more than 5 stops (so you cannot compensate)? Maybe if you are out on a sunny day and enter a dark church, or something. But again, a second body takes care of this (or change rolls midway. That's easy on some bodies (Hexar RF for example) and doable on most others.

 

[Terry Christian]

Plus, hardly any film shooter would be casually shooting 3200 speed film unless for a special project. Vacillating between 100 and 400 because of lighting conditions would be more realistic.

 

[herry65]

Just my viewpoint. I think outcomes will always look better for film. I think the analog method is truly awesome. but you can carry out greater quality and clearer outcomes with digital and can impact a picture more with the application and resources available for digital these days.

 

[raid]

I will try using both film and digital on my next trip. Film is simply awesome, but it can get costly for reasonably good developing and scanning. I can also better control the rendition based on experience with film. I am sure that even more can be done with digital and post processing work.

I love Reala 100. How can I get such a rendition with digital?