I am going thru a mental wrestling match now. i have an upcoming trip to london, paris and munich in nov. I usually always take film with me, but for some resason im thinking of bringing dig for color and then film for b&w. I know I am over thinking this, but traveling with film can be difficult at times for me. I do love old school slide shows much better then slide shows on a tv. I know I will most likely shoot all film, but over the last year ive shot less and less film. life is full of difficult, (sometimes meaningless) decisions.
Yeah MF + film + travel makes an interesting cocktail, see my threads in the MF section of the forum. Yet I came to realize that while it is a nice performance, many aspects of reality were against me.
I gave up on film for travel and vacations. Too inconvenient with security, theft, Xrays, customs inspections, etc. Too much to carry. Wife complains. So now I take a small digital camera that fits in my pocket and create video sldie shows of the vacation trying not to spend too much time on special shots. I save those for when I'm home and have the time and ease of transporting in my car.
So today, using a R body, some vintage R lens and something like the Orwo I recently tried is a nice, relaxing, un-performative variant of using colour film. Yet I have it developed and scanned by an artisan lab, my core (in)competency is making photos.
When William Henry Jackson was young, he hauled mules up mountains in Wyoming
Somehow, I have a feeling that the mules probably hauled him up the mountain, not the other way around.
But yes, things were tougher back then!
Now I probably should Report myself - but I'm afraid I just couldn't resist!
+1. I have a Fuji X just for travel. Even that is at risk of being replaced by the smartphone.
Too much to see and do when travelling to spend time with an eye glued to a viewfinder.
When William Henry Jackson was young, he hauled mules up mountains in Wyoming -- in the late 1800's, to take pictures on 20x24" GLASS plates. Think about that for a moment. No trails, No darkroom, No nothing.
In his later years, he preferred a Kodak Pocket camera.
+1. I have a Fuji X just for travel. Even that is at risk of being replaced by the smartphone.
Too much to see and do when travelling to spend time with an eye glued to a viewfinder.
Yes shooting film is so much more fun and satisfying then shooting digital. But digital has far surpassed film in terms of quality.
I don't find it particularly more difficult to travel with film in 2025 than it was in 1982, the first time I took a flight with film. There's one extra step... ask for a hand inspection. And nearly all airports in the world with the new CT scanners will action this now. I usually travel with *at least* three film cameras and a ziploc bag of film. It's actually no more difficult than travelling with lip balm in your cabin bag was with the X-ray machines. I simply accept that the new CT scanners are in place because they benefit the 95% or whatever it is who travel with tablets, laptops and lip balm and not film. It's not a big imposition on us though. It's not like film is banned or frowned upon. Thus far perhaps I've been lucky but I've had nothing but positive experiences with airports in London (Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow), Helsinki, Lanzarote, Mallorca, Tokyo Narita, Kansai International, O'Hare, Dallas Fort Worth, NW Arkansas. In fact I find things are better now than a few years ago because younger staff seem to have received info/training about film. Before all this, I'd get bemused looks, extra security checks, questions as to why I had 7 cameras in my cabin bag (I couldn't fit 8). And even those weren't a huge deal. Maybe an extra five minutes. When I'm about to fly for anything from 3 to 13 hours is any of that really an imposition? I don't think so. Obviously YMMV and people generally don't like changes. But certainly my experience is that flying with cameras and film as actually a little less unpleasant than 6 years ago. Off to Crete in a few weeks, probably taking at least four film cameras including super 8.
Why do I do it? Because I enjoy the choice of digital, colour negative, B&W negative, cine, and often one MF camera. I find it fun. And I don't find the airport security much of an imposition. I was a little anxious the first couple of times I had to ask for a hand inspection but it's second nature now. I know I would enjoy the photography aspect of travelling less if I limited myself to digital. And I would be imposing that limit on myself, because there's absolutely no restrictions on flying with film.
Wow, I thought I was being adventurous with 3 film cameras + one digital on my trips! I agree with you, it really is no problem at airport security, I think with the introduction of CT scanners all the staff are more aware of exceptions that need hand-inspection.
I would urge anyone in two minds about taking film cameras on holiday/photo trips to do so.
7 cameras in my cabin bag (I couldn't fit 8)
4:56AMTo carry my own millstone
Out of the trees
But digital has far surpassed film in terms of quality.
I'd question if a smaller digital camera could compete with that film file?
'Quality' is a difficult concept as it can mean so many things and there's the likelihood of subjective factors playing a role. I will only speak for myself and based on my own experience, which involves comparing 35mm and small-format (APS-C & FF) digital with final output being print (optical or inkjet). In terms of technical quality (resolving power, acutance, color fidelity, defect rate etc.) digital has a very big edge in my own experience. Anecdotal reports from others involve similar experiences, with FF digital rivaling what they could previously achieve with MF or LF film, in particular for color. But the preference can easily flip the other way if the particular charm of film and analog materials is given emphasis.That certainly is NEWS to me!
I do note that it's hard to find people without a strong bias to either side of the equation and willing to assess the question in as neutral a way as humanly possible. Emotion creeps into it very readily and muddies the water - which is one reason why (and I'm speaking as a moderator for a moment now) we have a 'no X vs Y debates' rule here on Photrio, as these tend to quickly get out of hand. In principle we're very much OK with a dispassionate exchange on the merits of different media in relation to each other, as long as it doesn't involve ridicule, rejection or scolding of those with opposing views.
Quality and accuracy.....I can certainly take very good photos with my DSLRs and even my compact digital, but how does one quantify quality? Or even accuracy? The cameras can all automatically select white balance or allow me some (or total) freedom to set my own. Even my phone does that. But then so can a little filtering making colour prints, or 30 seconds in the editing software of your choice. Even if the native WB is locked into your film. Same with digital too, it's not uncommon to tweak the colour balance in post.
Quality.....digital photos at low ISO are likely to be less grainy but that's not really an indicator of quality. It's all rather subjective. In the end, I shoot both but find the film to be more fun.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?