On Photography - Film and Travel

Unsure if this is the right place but I wanted to discuss the nature of travel and film cameras, what you find works for you, and your general thoughts on planning and preparing for traveling. For all of my personal work, I tend to make most of my pictures on 8x10 and that will likely not change. However, when it comes to travel I am less convinced of where film lies in terms of its use and significance. I suppose it is philosophical in nature but it begs the question of how we define what travel pictures are and are they "work". It's probably a little confusing as we all define work in different ways... amateur vs "professional" vs professional aspirations vs fine art etc etc etc.

I just returned from a 12 day trip in China with 15 students and I brought along two cameras (Pentax 67 with 55mm and a Rolleiflex 3.5F) along with 50 rolls of film. The weight did not bother me but I found it quite challenging to have to continually load / unload while on someone else's time frame. As a chaperone the nature of the trip was not photography but more of a cultural experience and so I did not have the time to really spend as much making pictures as I would if I were traveling alone. I found the same issue last year when I traveled to France with students.

I'm torn because the convenience of digital is appealing but the beauty of silver prints surpasses that convenience.

Curious how you all feel... are moments abroad "worth" capturing on silver?

It sounds like you've answered your own question; at least for you and the type of trip you were on.

Simple and light is my solution - in my case sacrificing either image quality, or interchangeable lenses. For example, in January I spent two weeks in Europe and brought only a Leica M3 and four lenses (sacrificing some image quality compared to larger formats). On another trip this month I spent a week in DC and brought only a Rolleiflex with a few accessories (sacrificing interchangeable lenses). Both systems are about the same bulk and weight, the Leica kit weighing slightly more.

Beautiful gallery quality images resulted from both trips. My work is fine art to sell in the gallery - all silver monochrome.

Of course I no longer go where I'm on someone else's schedule, so plenty of time to change film, see the sights, enjoy the trip, etc.

At home or when driving I make use of more options, such as view cameras and medium format SLRs.

You may not like this but I understand that on these trips your primary responsibility is the students, so yes, the time for film photography, other than point and shoot 35mm, is not while you are looking out for 15 other people. Having said that, my personal choice is a medium format zoom auto focus, as a compromise between my time and the groups time. With a tripod if needed or a bean bag if not allowed. I just accept that I will fall behind and have to skip ahead to catch up.

I'm going overseas to visit my daughter in Geneva, and it looks like I'll have an opportunity to shoot privately in a very kickass location. Pretty much demands wide angle for the prints I want.

So, what to bring? I'd love to do it all 4x5, but not taking my monorail! I have a Busch Pressman, but when I put a 90 on it, you can't see a thing and movements are almost nothing.

So, looked at Mamiya 6/7 with the widest glass - nope, just can't drop $2k on this. Looked at Fuji 6x9 wides, that could get me under a grand. Possibly, but man, I'd blow through some film.

My conclusion: take my RB, a 65 and a 50 and two backs - yeah, that'll be a heavy carry-on but... F it, I know the system blind and switchable backs will give me control, and the IQ will be fabulous. I have no idea how much light will be available, so I'm buying up Acros on eBay. Maybe some HP5+ as well, that pushes to 800 or even 1200 in DDX remarkably well. I'm going to try to sacrifice a roll of Acros and see how it does with SLIMT processing. I have a 6x6 folder converted to pinhole, might throw that in as well? Maybe do the HP5 in the pinhole, could work well for me. Might even bring an Isolette III for a normal FOV.

But zero interest in shooting this digital. I want big-ass lith prints damn it!!!

Now I just have to find a light and affordable tripod that will fit in the max carry-on size, maybe 22" folded. I can wear the same pair of boxer shorts for a week, right?

take a rolleiflex tlr, medium format, 6x6... it's light, (although weight isn't an issue for you), it's versatile and quick, or methodical - as needed! yes, it has a great FIXED lens but it just requires you to up the ante on creativity..

there will always be shots you'll miss, but you missing them now with your with a compressed travel schedule and student responsibilities. you'll end up concentrating on "getting the image" rather than, what lens to use, where to setup, etc. the more effective time usage will allow you to fully handle your fun and your duties!

dodphotography said:

..... <snip>.....Curious how you all feel... are moments abroad "worth" capturing on silver?

Click to expand...

YES, Absolutely!

I used to travel with a 4x5 Crown Graphic and I still do occasionally. Lately however, I mostly just carry a pair of 35mm SLRs with the same lens mount and a couple of lenses. Most often a pair of Nikons - a 28mm on one and a 105mm on the other....and keep both cameras loaded with the same film .

For me, this keeps things simple, easy and relatively light and compact.
As a very wise friend pointed out, nothing you do photographically should in anyway detract from the experience of being there.

35mm if I will not have the luxury of taking time searching for great compositions and composing'

Hasselblad 6x6 if I want to make prints in the darkroom and bring back great photographs, so most of the time.

Ah yes, it was viewing the results on my return from a second trip to Italy, shot with electrocuted bits, that inspired me to rekindle my old interest in B&W film photography and acquire some medium format gear at dime on the dollar prices. But I certainly understand the OP's deliberations. I have since found, while traveling with an assortment of four relatives, that it was difficult trying to do too many things at once. In 2008, in a brief trek to London, I compromised and took a DSLR and my Perkeo II folder. I did get some cool film shots, but barely enough to justify taking the latter. So here I am again, heading for a river cruise on the Rhine soon, tied into some slight extensions at either end. My Faire Spouse and I will be traveling with another couple who appreciate my photography, but don't do much of it themselves.

As best I can tell, a great deal of the tour will be fairly scripted, definitely more so than my previous travels across the pond. That in itself may add to the operational complexities. I've stocked up some 120 film, but am still wrestling with what camera it's going to be. I consider it a given that the Bronica gear is just way too much "stuff" to deal with, so I think it's now between the Yashica 124G TLR and the Perkeo II 6x6 folder. I also own an Ercona II 6x9 folder, but that's bigger, heavier and only gets eight shots on a roll, so I'm not sure the extra film real estate is worth it. Depending on which day it is, I'm leaning toward the TLR, as I just had a CLA on it a year ago, so it should theoretically be the most reliable, and I've gotten some very pleasing results from it over the last five or six years. The documentary workhorse will be a recently acquired Canon EOS M5 mirror-less DSLR, I'm quite ecumenical about photographic technology. I acquired a small shoulder bag (Domke F-X5B) which will fit the M5 with 2 lenses and miscellany and leave room for the folder and some film. If I go with the TLR, I'll go with carting it around in it's leather (n)ever-ready case. The latter is a PITA for changing film but otherwise manageable.

When traveling by auto here in the states I tend to throw a pile of stuff in so as to have lots of choices, and backup in case of breakdowns. For the upcoming excursion the goal is to stay lean & mean. (And I expect to have my iPhone as some semblance of backup.) I'm still in reasonably good physical shape, but coming up on 78, I have no desire to play pack mule.

Decisions, decisions ...

cowanw said:

You may not like this but I understand that on these trips your primary responsibility is the students, so yes, the time for film photography, other than point and shoot 35mm, is not while you are looking out for 15 other people. Having said that, my personal choice is a medium format zoom auto focus, as a compromise between my time and the groups time. With a tripod if needed or a bean bag if not allowed. I just accept that I will fall behind and have to skip ahead to catch up.

Click to expand...

Totally get that, however, the same argument can be applied to traveling with close friends, spouses, families etc where it's not a solo "I'm going to photograph" vacation.

Complaints aside, it's a fun perk of the job!

Last trip I agonized over what to bring the exercise had me pack, unpack, pack, unpack multiple combinations of equipment into varying sized bags. I planned to do some moderate hiking, I had a car, but only had one afternoon where hiking was possible. Hiking deserves medium format at least but I was worried about weight so I just went with 35mm Leica M with 50 and 35 lens, which I can carry without using a bag. However, I ended-up using the bag on the hike anyway due to the icy conditions and probability of falling and damaging the camera around my neck (I have $ome experience with that). So, a Rollei or Hassy would have been fine in a small billingham on a icy hike. Yep, hard to predict these things.

jvo said:

take a rolleiflex tlr, medium format, 6x6... it's light, (although weight isn't an issue for you), it's versatile and quick, or methodical - as needed! yes, it has a great FIXED lens but it just requires you to up the ante on creativity..

Click to expand...

Yes! The TLR is the perfect minimalist kit for travel, in fact for anything to do with film photography.

In nine days I'll be off to Brunei and Sawarak with my Rolleicord Vb. I plan to take the 'cord, a 16 exposure kit, a lens hood, three filters (yellow, orange, UV), a close-up set (I'll most likely not use this, but it's small, so why not?), a Gossen meter I bought in 1970, and 25 rolls of film (20 Ilford B&W, five Fuji color neg) in a clear plastic container.

The Xenar lens on my Vb gives crisp, very sharp negatives. Working with 16 on 120 suits me. I can easily make my standard 5 x 7" prints, or gift 3.5 x 4.5" prints for my family and friends who see anything I print in B&W as Fine Art.

The entire lot will fit easily into my travel backpack. To save on space and a little weight, I could I suppose put the film container into my checked bag, but I've heard horror stories about films an Xray machines in Asia, so best not.

Now if I could only do without the extra bulk and weight of my Nikon D700 and three lenses (28, 60 macro and 85),my travels would be just about perfect.

Eventually (I'm 71 now, so in a few more years when I'm really old) I may grow wiser and get around and about with a small digital mirrorless kit. Not yet. Film is still too much fun.

I didn't explain myself well. I was thinking that you would be relieved of the anxiety of missing the shot if you could predetermine that you weren't going to try. I need to make myself accept photographic limits depending on how we travel so I don't get mad I am missing the perfect shot.

Once I have decided what type of images I want to make on a trip, the camera choice is rather simple. I really have no interest in making color digital prints as an art form. I have a small Sony digital for snap shots, memory shots, and it is good enough to make a decent print, I suppose. The camera is smaller than my light meter so it can hide in the big boy's pack.

For a month in Japan in Dec 2017, I chose two 120 cameras (6x6 and 6x10); light traveling on buses, etc. not a lot of time spent in one place, and I wanted the end results to be small platium/palladium prints direct from the negatives. Small images concentrating more on form than detail.

For a month in Chile in Dec 2018, I chose the 5x7; car-camping, possibility of staying multiple nights, and platinum/palladium prints of the landscape which I wanted to be larger than 120/4x5s so that details of the landscape could be better appreciated.

For me, my number one rule is travel on my own clock. I enjoy travel, but only when I am going where I want to go on the timeline I want to go. Obviously, if you can’t do that you have to work through other people’s requirements, but I wouldn’t fully subsume your desires for the group. People will find something to do while you’re loading film.

Also, I don’t travel to photograph, instead I photograph because I’m traveling, so the needs of my travel dictate to a large extent the photo gear I bring. Last summer I did a 10 day motorcycle trip through Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. Because most of the time was spent on a motorcycle, and walking trips from the bike never exceeded 1/2 mile, I was fine taking my Bronica ETRSi, 5 lenses, 3 backs, light meter, and 30 or so rolls of film.

In a few months I’m going to be visiting Moscow and St. Petersburg. Since all day every day will be spent on my feet walking around, I’m probably going to take a 35mm camera, a couple good zooms, and a good prime or two. The bag will weigh less than half what the ETRSi bag weighed, but it will be easier to carry while providing enough flexibility. It’s not medium format, but if I leave the camera in the apartment because my shoulder is in pain, it does me no good.

I travel a lot, usually because I can mix business and pleasure. I'm currently at the end of month-long trip in Europe (Greece, Poland, Ukraine, and now Rome) and I've been lugging around virtually the same system for the past 15 years - my Nikon FE with 28 and 50mm lenses, a TLR - currently using a Rolleiflex, and a Holga (which weighs virtually nothing). I've shifted from mostly shooting 35mm to mostly shooting 120, which means I have to carry around a lot more film for the same amount of shots. That's the only real difficulty for me - making sure I've got enough room in my carry-on baggage for cameras and film without going over the weight limit. If and when I am travelling primarily for work and have limited time for photography, I'll bring either the Rolleiflex or the Nikon and am pretty happy with that. For longer personal trips I always carry two cameras in case one stops working (has happened more than once), plus it allows me to shoot different film stocks/speeds when I am out and about. Of course, I don't carry everything with me on a daily basis - just take what I need for the day.

When traveling by air I take a Minolta 600SI classic and a Sony A900 full frame. Film, Ultra Fine 400 or Tmax 400 and few rolls of Ultra Fine 100 and I buy a few rolls as needed. Lens, 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and 70 to 200 F4. I take a small flash for the Sony and use the 600s flip up flash. Other kit is Pentax SF1N with AA battery insert and K2000 which uses AA batteries as well. If shooting with the Pentax need to bring a 17 to 50 lens for the K2000 and 28 to 100 for the SF1N along with a 50 F2 and 100 to 300. No matter which Kit I also include a Pentax IQ weather restraint point and shoot in case it rains. Road trip, I carry both a MF kit, Kowa 66 or Mamyia Universal with 3 lens and a Crown Graphic 4X5 with 2 lens. Film, 4X5 Foma 400, MF Ultra Fine 400. I also carry a digital body with 3 lens.

dodphotography said:

Curious how you all feel... are moments abroad "worth" capturing on silver?

Click to expand...

I absolutely think that they're worth capturing in silver.

I started traveling in October expecting to be a travel writer. I was going to use my iPhone as my camera. No writing happened while I was in Thailand, though I took a fair amount of pictures with my iPhone.

After Thailand, I flew to Ho Chi Minh City. Still no writing, and I continued taking more pictures. Before long I retired the iPhone as a camera and picked up an Olympus Pen F digital. It was a wonderful camera, and I shot the heck out of it for months while I got my photographic chops back. But it wasn't the right tool for me.

Now I'm using a Mamiya C220 and a Bronica S2A. Both are wonderful cameras and they scratch my itch. Sure, they're slower than the Oly, but that's why I like them. I used to shoot 8x10, so medium format feels pretty fast.

Shooting film around others’ schedules along with all the other adversities of travel is tough, but if you like the look of silver then the juice is worth the squeeze.

Honestly, if the speed of reload and the size are issues, AF 35mm SLRs are the solution for me. Last summer I travelled with other people and my camera of choice was an EOS 300 with a kit zoom and the 50 1.8. Perfectly metered slides, light, easy to carry, easy to load but still being able to change lenses. A good compromise I think.

Flying with film is becoming harder given it's almost impossible to avoid it going through the X-ray scanner (at least in the UK and probably Europe too). Shouldn't be too much of an issue if you're only flying out and back with slow speed (although it might be for fine art work), but it's not ideal. 35mm is much easier and convenient than larger formats but I'd rather just shoot digital in these circumstances (I might find space for my M4 and some HP5+). Some cheaper UK airlines are restricting carry-on to small bag sizes and weights (or charging extra for carry-on). MF gear is likely to stretch these to the limit - many no longer permit the option of a camera round your neck not counting towards your carry-on limits.

When travelling on family holidays, they get annoyed by gear changes and can't understand why I'd need two 35mm bodies and several lenses - I thought I'd solved this by using two identical chrome MXs (one in the bag with one lens/film, the other in hand with a different lens/film). Surreptitiously putting the camera away and getting it out again... worked a few times until my carry-on got pulled at security and everything had to come out...

My preferred medium format system for carry-ability is my Pentax 6x7 with a 45, 55 or 75 lens - with a meter prism you don't need anything else and I sling it over my shoulder and don't worry about it. However, I haven't really flown with it (mostly due carry-on weight & size restrictions). I considered a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder, but the ones with the fixed lenses seem particularly bulky (I can separate the body & lens on the P6x7 which can make packing it easier) and they're not really smaller/lighter than the Pentax (and need a meter) so I couldn't justify another system. Ideally a Fuji 645 rangefinder would work well, but most are fairly automated and I have reservations about buying such an old/expensive/automated camera. A 645 SLR with changeable backs or inserts would help reduce film loading - although these are very deep/boxy cameras and I prefer the P6x7 form factor as easier to carry. The ideal cameras are probably a Mamiya 7 or GF670/Bessa III (but they're way beyond my budget).

I keep thinking I'd travel with my Lubitel or Holga 12x6 pinhole (both compact & light) but these are limited in their usefulness and capability. Instead I'm planning on taking an Instax SQ6 - it should keep the family amused and happy (it's small & light and above all 'trendy'). I just hope the ISO 800 film goes through the X-ray scanner OK!

James Bleifus said:

Now I'm using a Mamiya C220 and a Bronica S2A. Both are wonderful cameras and they scratch my itch. Sure, they're slower than the Oly, but that's why I like them.

Click to expand...

The Bronica S2(a) must be one of the most compact 6x6 SLRs with interchangeable backs - the 75mm hardly protrudes from the front of the camera at all (heavy though).

James Bleifus said:

I started traveling in October expecting to be a travel writer. I was going to use my iPhone as my camera. No writing happened while I was in Thailand, though I took a fair amount of pictures with my iPhone. (...) but if you like the look of silver then the juice is worth the squeeze.

Click to expand...

If you intend to write and sell from your travel experiences, you are causing yourself no end of grief by concentrating on film at the expense of digital. Think processing and scanning.

I did this in the 1970s,1980s and 1990s when the going was really good - not primarily as a writer but as a stock photographer. As a result I now have around 50,000 negatives and color slides of Asian places to be scanned,enough for several cats' lifetimes. I doubt I will get through the lot in this avatar and I'm having to be very, very selective to scan the most important of my work. even then, I'm fast getting to the point of absolutely hating my scanner. Fortunately, I'm able to lock in blocks of free time when I'm at home in Australia, and I can do other related things while the scanner processes the image. But oh, it all takes so much time.

As an example, I was recently in Melaka (Malaysia), shooting places and scenes I did in the mid-1970s. In three days I took just over 600 color shots, most of them usable. Two evenings of work (and not too much good Tasmanian wine) saw me download, post-process and do basic edits on the best of this work, 180 in all. In my film archive I have four rolls of Kodachrome slides I shot taken in Melaka in 1975 (that was all I could afford at the time) and a few rolls of B&W negatives. mostly shot in tropical light on the old Kodak TriX so probably not worth scanning. To scan the best of these old images will take me much longer than the work I did on the digital images. At my age time isn't just money, it's what's left of my life.

I still travel and shoot in the two mediums, film and digital. My travel kit is a Nikon D700 (hefty, but the results make it worthwhile) with 28 (occasionally I take a 24), 60 macro and 85 short tele. For film, on my next trip from March 31, I will be taking along a Rolleicord Vb with a 16 exposure kit, a pocketful of accessories and 20 rolls of film.

For future travels I have a Nikon Z6 on order with the kit 24-70. That will be it - in a Lowepro bag in my backpack. I have to bite the bullet on analog and accept that I'm now about at the close of my film shooting days, it's just too much work for me now.

Nikon pixels do the work just fine for me. I do my color work in digital and the black-and-white keepers for my archives with 120 film. If I had to go really small I would make do with Olympus or a small Fuji and two lenses or a small Fuji. I've used both and with a little care in shooting and post-processing, they are 95% as good as full frame Nikon. Truly so! . .

I reckon the iPhone is adequate for small (what we once called single-column and double-column) illustrations in letterpress-printed publications or for low res web. So adequate for most photo ops if you don't want big images for, say, fine art.

On the other hand you are moving around Asia and you obviously prefer to travel light, so you may have the kit that suits you. In that case, good one!

I thought for sure that with the title of this thread, it would be about the dreaded X-raying of film. Not one word (I did skim after the first dozen messages.)

I remember the "Hand check, please," days of pre-digital. Of course, they weren't near as paranoid about everything then. If your film looked real, fine. Now they might ask you to pull it out for examination! Kidding.........I hope.

A friend of mine who worked in "the business" as Hollywood is known in L.A., gave me a giant Sima lead bag. The kind 35mm reels would be transported in. I haven't moved film through security in years, but I would imagine that the bag would work for a least a couple of passages under the X-ray eye.

I also remember back then that the machines had gotten much better, far less power than older ones. And that the word among photographers was that machines in third world countries were often blasters. Of course, who really knew?

That bag is still in use, one duct taped rip. I store my frozen film in it, theoretically perhaps stopping a few cosmic rays.

ozmoose said:

If you intend to write and sell from your travel experiences, you are causing yourself no end of grief by concentrating on film at the expense of digital. Think processing and scanning.

Click to expand...

No truer words have ever been written! Lots of grief. Sourcing gear, film, chemicals.

In my case, I've chosen photography over writing (except for short vignettes on my blog), and am choosing to print in the darkroom to get the look that I want. I feel that that's the issue that goes back to the OP’s question - is it worth gutting it out to get the look that you like? For some, clearly the answer is no (or their digital camera fits their aesthetic, so there’s no compromise), but the OP shoots with 8x10 and a Rollei, which shows a preference and commitment to a certain aesthetic.

I remember being out in the field years ago with a photographer who kept choosing his 4x5 camera for convenience instead of his 8x10. Then he’d anguish over how he’d wished he hadn't cut corners by using the smaller camera (he made contact prints, no cropping). Photography happens in the moment. Better to do your best to get it right at the beginning than have regrets later.

ozmoose said:

On the other hand you are moving around Asia and you obviously prefer to travel light, so you may have the kit that suits you. In that case, good one!

Click to expand...

I hope! I'm always evaluating and reevaluating to see how I can go lighter and smaller. Setting up a darkroom is tying me down some, but I'm beginning to meet the very small analog community in Ho Chi Minh City.

johnha said:

The Bronica S2(a) must be one of the most compact 6x6 SLRs with interchangeable backs - the 75mm hardly protrudes from the front of the camera at all (heavy though).

Click to expand...

It’s heavy and loud! I'd heard recordings of the mirror slap online, but you don't really understand until you hear it in person. Geese take flight because of this mirror slap...