Film or digital for travel photography?

[Spanik]

Just recently, I've moved from mostly photographing in digital to mostly photographing in film. The biggest change is a move towards medium format travel photography. It's clearly not the best route for people who want to take a great many photographs. At this point, I'd rather not take very many pictures when travelling. A few well chosen ones tell the story of trip more effectively to me, and I like the aesthetic consistency that comes with working with one or two film stocks. I've now made some other changes to my kit, and I'll bring along a 35mm analogue SLR and a fixed lens APS-C compact to provide a little versatility and capacity, if needed. But, I've lately found myself mostly working with MF.

I took the same way you did: went from digital to MF and never looked back. I take far less photo's but at least when I come back I have actually seen my trip instead of the viewfinder.

 

[Kamph]

I have been travelling quite a lot, and before any big trip I always try to convince myself to bring along one of my medium format film cameras, but always end up deciding against it due to weight concerns. I do, however, regret it every time! Digital pictures really do lack character compared to film IMO.

 

[EastNeuk]

I took the same way you did: went from digital to MF and never looked back. I take far less photo's but at least when I come back I have actually seen my trip instead of the viewfinder.

It's really a pleasure to work with medium format equipment in general, and in some ways especially while travelling. On my most recent trip, I would say that I used the MF camera that I brought (a GF670) almost 90% of the time. It wouldn't have been much of a loss to have used it 100% of the time. Five rolls of film proved sufficient. I might have shot six rolls, had I only had a medium format camera along for the trip.

 

[Bruno Gracia]

With thw OP permission; Interesting.. And if You want to make some good images and sell them later to a publication or exhibition?

I'm planning to try luck in this photography world, don't like editing too much and don't like fashion job.

So if You are considering become a freelance, will I have enough with my trusty M2 40cron, Minilux and maybe buy a x100s/t?

I've sold my fancy summilux and summicron asph lenses to feel free and with some money to travel. There is people who says: the better equipment the better images but I don't think so, so with a reasonable good equipment You can start to work.

What I don't lile to mix are formats: 35 with 120 and so.

In the future I will move towards MF and keep one leica camera/lens combo. Meaning a 6x6 hassy or Mamiya 7, documentary and portrait my favourite photography type.

 

[HHPhoto]

I am wondering which others would choose for an international photographic tour or workshop - film or digital? If you would choose film, would it be C-41, E-6 or B&W? Or would it be a combination of more than one emulsion?

I did a lot of experiments over the years on travels with my photo equipment: BW and color negative film, color and BW reversal film, digital. In different combinations.

My best experiences were with a combination of color and BW reversal film. Color for the subjects which look best in color, and BW for the subjects which look best in BW.

Reversal film because
- slide projection is unsurpassed in its quality, with no other media you get such a brillant quality at big enlargements
- it is the option with the lowest costs: Slide projection has the lowest costs of all alternatives at that enlargements factors
- versatility: with slides I can enjoy them on a lighttable with a loupe, in a slideviewer, in projection, and I can make also prints of them in excellent quality.

So the cost of E-6 film and developing comes out to $15/roll (135/36 Velvia 50) and C-41 is $10.95/roll (135/36 Pro 400H). Multiply those prices by 50 (or more) rolls for an international photo tour or workshop and shooting film gets to be "a little" ( ) on the burdensome side.

Sorry, but wrong calculation. Because:
1. There are options for lower prices for both the films and the development.
2. A 'developed only' C41 film is worthless. You need prints.
And with prints C41 do cost more than E6.

In further detail:
1. With a transparency / slide you already have a finished picture you can look at.
With negative film (and digital, too, if you want the best quality) you need prints. And prints in really good quality do cost, which add up in the end to more than the reversal / tranparency film and development.
And the slides can be viewed enlarged in excellent quality with an excellent slide loupe (e.g. the ones from Schneider-Kreuznach or Rodenstock), delivering even better quality in comparison to the prints.

Some may say you can scan and look at it at a computer monitor.
Why using a high-tec medium like film (no matter whether reversal or negative film), and then using by far the viewing medium with the absolut lowest quality?
That does not make sense.
LCD monitors are unable to show real halftones, the colours cannot really match the real, natural colours.
And the resolution is ridiculous low with only 1 - 1,5 MP.

The same is valid for DSLRs: It does not make any sense to spend huge amounts of money for a 16, 24, 35 MP camera, and then only using the tiny fraction 1 - 1,5 MP of it using the computer monitor for looking at the pictures.
Complete waste of money.
(spending so much money would make sense making bigger prints).

2. If you project your slides, you get pictures as big as you want, as big as your projection screen is.
To make such a big, brillant picture of e.g. 1 meter x 1,50 meter cost you the film and development, and a slide mount.
In Germany e.g. that is depending on film and mounts in the 50 Cent to 1,20€ region per shot.
Cost for projector and screen are negligible per shot, especially over a longer period.
So you get a 1m x 1,5m brillant picture for such an extremely low amount of money.
A print from a negative (or a digital file) of the same size do cost more than 150€ in good quality. And you did not get the brillance and sharpness from the print you get with an excellent projection lens.
So the difference in cost is extreme in favour of slides. Slides are ridiculous cheap in comparison.

3. For a real valid economic assessment price is only one factor: The other, more important factor ist the value you get for that price.
And the value you get with reversal film is significantly higher compared to negative film.
Because:
a) Reversal film is much more versatile than negative film. It is more flexible and has higher versatility. You have more using options:
- you can just hold a slide to the light and have a picture you can look at
- you cant put it in a slide viewer to enjoy
- you can put it on a lighttable for a view with an excellent slide loupe for highest quality at lower magnification
- you can project it with a projector on a screen for big enlargements: best quality at extremely tiny costs
- you can make direct optical prints on Ilfochrome (some professional labs are still offering it) and on Harman and Imago direct positive BW paper
- you can scan it and make excellent prints on RA-4 silver-halide paper, BW silver-halide paper or on inkjet
- you can scan it and expose it on display film for making lovely big slides as big as you want.

With negative film you have much less options:
You can make prints from it, either optical or via scan.

b) With reversal film and projection you have by far the best quality (sharpness, resolution, colour brillance) for big enlargements at negligible costs. No other medium, neither negative film nor digital, can offer that.

c) Provia 100F, Velvia 50 and 100 offer the finest grain, best sharpness and highest resolution in this speed class.
No negative film with comparable speed can compete:
http://www.aphog.de/?p=364 "

So there's my question in a nutshell: For serious work that requires a fairly large volume of film, is it just too damn costly to stick with film for color photography?

No, not at all. Especially not if you are using reversal film (color and BW) and projection. Highest quality at lowest costs.
See above.

Cheers, Jan

 

[RattyMouse]

Simple really:

- if you want "the usual holiday" shots: digital
- if you want "timeless" travel shots: film

I've shot many of my travels in digital and it's SOOO easy+convenient, but when I see the final edited results of zillion pictures I want to punch myself into face later on why I didn't take film instead! Editing those endless digital shots I almost feel like I am another boring tourist with a digital camera bragging about how good the modern digital cameras are :bang: Too many times I've felt the digital shots are just too sterile, dry, gutless and alike looking plus I really do not like excessive digital post-processing to bring out that "difference" within & between digital shots. Film is way more work and care, but when you load the film into camera and every button push is like a separate artwork in itself, there's no excessive editing required to bring out the artistic beauty in photographic terms - it's all there in film structure and it's fine nuances. There's that "timeless" factor in analog workflow that the digital lacks, each film shot comes with it's own unique signature.

JMHO of course.

This. Could not have said it better.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I've boxes of A4 prints, meaning almost 8" x 12" and going through them long after the event I cannot tell which camera I used. Some were SLR's, some RF's and some P&S's. Worse still, some were digital in tiny sensors, some on large sensors, some 120 film and some 35mm film.

Realising this enabled me to sell the Bron and not regret it, and stop worrying about which camera I took out because I figure the weak spot in the system is the nut holding the camera...

BTW, digital B&W vs film is when film wins and is obvious but I've managed to improve my B&W digital these last few years. And I wish I had a printer adapted just for B&W prints.

Regards, David

 

[airfrogusmc]

My travel kit. I also take a battery charger, filters, extra batteries and cards. I like to keep it simple.

 

[easyrider]

My kind of guy! 1 camera, 1 lens, a meter and a bag. I went several years when my kids were small shooting only with a Rollei 35. All the pix stood the test of time.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Thanks and I love it. For years I had a very small bag of cloths and a huge bag with a lot of equipment. I am getting stronger images now than when I carried all that other stuff. Go figure LoL....

 

[noisycheese]

My travel kit. I also take a battery charger, filters, extra batteries and cards. I like to keep it simple.

That's a Filson small field bag, isn't it?

 

[airfrogusmc]

Yes it is. I put some foam in it and I had a padded hard bottom I cut down from an old no longer used bag.

Here.
Cut a hole in the foam for the lens to go down in

Camera sits in like this

 

[noisycheese]

That's a great bag for a one camera, one lens setup. I am currently using the Filson rucksack ( http://www.filson.com/products/ruck...ge/rucksacks-and-backpacks&fmetaProduct=1019/ ) with a Billingham Hadley Pro padded insert in it. These two pieces fit together like a hand in a glove; it's as if they were made for each other.

This combination is good for carrying a fair amount of kit as long as I do not need to bring everything but the kitchen sink.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah I love it...I have that same backpack in tan. i have had it for YEARS.

The field bag in fairly new.