5 Reasons to Shoot Film When Traveling

Got a trip coming up? Are you the kind of person who shoots both film and digital cameras? Then let me make a suggestion; the next time you’re traveling, leave the DSLR at home and only shoot film.

I know what you’re thinking – “But how will I upload my photos mid-trip? How will I make my friends jealous of my adventures? What about x-rays!?” Calm down and trust me. As both a photographer and traveler, leaving your digital camera at home and shooting nothing but film will be one of the most rewarding choices you’ll ever make.

Not convinced? Here are five reasons to pack film and forget hi-tech (for just a little while).


Reason 1: Film cameras are less distracting.

Digital cameras are distracting. They’re complicated, intense, and have giant display screens, and all of these things suck our attention away from where it should be. With a digital camera, we’re adjusting ISO, selecting shooting modes, and twiddling through menus while we should be spending time enjoying and exploring the people and environments around us.

And what happens after we take the shot? No matter our self control, we’re reviewing the photos, with our necks craned and eyes glued to the back of a camera. Zooming in to see if the gondola oarsman is in sharp focus. Checking the fifty frames we shot of the sprinting cheetah to find the one that’s the most exciting. Deleting extraneous photos to free up space on our memory card.

Worse than this chimping is what happens when we get a moment of down time. We’re using our technical marvel’s Wi-Fi mode, transferring our photos to our iPads, tweaking our exposures in VSCO, and sharing to FacebookInstagram, and everywhere else our envious friends’ eyeballs may fall by day’s end.

This is exhausting, so give it a break. Or rather, give yourself a break. Use your vacation to disconnect from the social rat race. Instead, take some time to look around you. Wind the advance lever. Shoot a shot on film. Lower the camera, and move on to the next experience of your trip.

Reason 2: You’ve got a phone, don’t you?

Reason number two is a compromise position, but I feel it makes the case for shooting film even stronger. Chances are, on your next vacation you’re going to bring your cell phone. And chances are even greater that that cell phone has a pretty decent digital camera built into it.

Now, I’m not saying you should use only your phone to take photos on vacation. As in my previous point, I think you should detach as much as possible from social media and technology. That said, there’s no denying the fun and excitement of sharing with people back home what you’ve been up to during your trip. So, for those few moments when you want to share an experience across your social networks, or send a photo via text to your best friend, use your phone.

But remember to quickly put it away, dig into that authentic creme brulee, and take the majority of your vacation photos on film.

Reason 3: Less economic risk.

If you’re shooting film, that means you’re shooting a film camera. And unless you’re sporting some kind of Plaubel or Hasselblad, film cameras are typically less expensive than their digital counterparts. That means you can fumble it into the Blue Lagoon, drag it along the Road to Hana, or bounce it down the steps of Machu Picchu without stressing that you’re out a couple thousand bucks. Pick up a fifty dollar Pentax K1000, load it with film, and worry not that you’re photographic investment is going to take a beating.

And if you’re the kind of tourist who likes to hoof it through the dangerous side of town, carrying a beat down Minolta could make you less conspicuous than someone whose face is aglow from a brightly lit LCD display. Yes, shooting film could keep you from being robbed at knife point, which, for most tourists, is something to avoid.

Reason 4: Safer storage of memories.

Here’s another purely practical reason to shoot film when traveling. The number of times I’ve lost, damaged, or accidentally formatted (yep) my memory card can’t be counted on two hands. They’re tiny, fragile, and easily lost. On the other hand, saving your precious memories on a number of rolls of film offers redundancy. Even if something happens to one roll of film, you’ve still got the others. Sure, there are hazards unique to film (such as the mentioned x-rays), but I’d rather store my memories in a number of rolls of film than put my proverbial eggs (photos) into a single basket (SD card). You get the idea.

Reason 5: Delayed gratification.

We all know digital is a better medium for taking photos. I’m not arguing that it isn’t. Shooting a DSLR gives us photos that are sharp, beautiful, and ready for viewing in an instant. But is that what we need when traveling? I don’t think so.

Imagine you’ve shot only film during the entire span of a recent trip. You’re traveling back home, by plane or car or bus, and you’re sitting there with that feeling of unique nostalgia that only comes when on the homeward leg of an amazing trip. You know you’ve taken a few hundred photos, and some of them you distinctly remember taking, but there are quite a large number that you simply can’t recall.

What’s on that film? Were the shots any good? Did you make anything worth keeping? Will they come out well? The anticipation is fantastic, and it only gets better from here.

A couple weeks later you’ve gotten your prints or scans back from the lab. You flip through, and frame after frame you’re rewarded with an awesome sense of discovery – or rather, rediscovery. A fleeting scene captured as you streaked by in a taxi. A meal you’d forgotten you ate. An unusual person who’d crossed your path only momentarily. All captured on film. You relive those moments, many of which you’d completely forgotten, as each frame brings its own unique memory. Small moments that you’d whimsically captured are gifted back to you weeks after the memories and tan lines have faded.

Sure, digital can do this too. But there’s something far less magical about it. Only film can give us that sense that we’ve frozen a moment in time, and that moment is now ours forever.


And that’s my take on it. From my own experience (I recently took nothing but Portra and a Rollei 6008 to New York City) I can tell you that shooting film on a trip is the best way to capture a time away. Give it a shot, and let me know if it worked out.

Do you need a film camera?

Find one at our own F Stop Cameras

Find one on eBay

Shop B&H Photo’s vintage gear

Casual Photophile is on ElloFacebookInstagram, and Youtube

You Might Also Like

26 Comments

  • Reply
    Mike Ricciuti
    November 13, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    I couldn’t agree more. When we recently went to Hawaii, I took nothing but a Nikonos (we planned on snorkeling) and 10 rolls of Velvia. I was not disappointed. Sure, I got the exposure wrong a few times, and focusing a Nikonos is a guessing game at best. But the best photos from that trip–everything from landscapes to portraits to underwater shots–are incredible, with the look and feel that only comes with film.

    • Reply
      James - Founder/Editor
      November 13, 2016 at 11:25 pm

      That’s fantastic. I love the Nikonos and wish the water was nicer around here.

  • Reply
    Merlin Marquardt
    November 14, 2016 at 12:25 am

    Those are five reasonable reasons to shoot film.

  • Reply
    Zerihun
    November 14, 2016 at 1:46 am

    I don’t know how many of us who shoot film will agree hear five reasons as a driving factors to shoot film. For me the one and only reason of shooting film is the asethic value.

  • Reply
    Huss
    November 14, 2016 at 5:26 am

    Excellent. The only time I shoot digital is if the client needs it right now. I can’t get enough of film.

  • Reply
    Bo Belvedere Christensen
    November 14, 2016 at 5:37 am

    So far I only shoot Black and White film as I want to develop myself and haven’t had the courage to delve into Colour film processing.
    Therefore, I still carry a digital compact camera (a Fujifilm XQ1) with me on travels. But for most important pictures like awesome landscapes and portraits I use either a Canon AE-1 program (35mm camera) or a Mamiya 645 (120 Roll film camera), so actually I couldn’t agree more to your views. But I do like the quality of the XQ1 compared to the camera in a camera phone.
    Another point is that afterwards I feel more like I have frozen the moment by looking at the negatives than by looking at the digital scans. And if i like to make a larger enlargement, I can always make a new scan in higher resolution. Especially from the 4,5×6 cm negatives there is just so much detail hidden to be recovered 🙂

  • Reply
    Wilson Laidlaw
    November 14, 2016 at 7:58 am

    I am afraid I will be shooting both digital and film on my trip to Myanmar (Burma) leaving later this week, to do a classic car rally up in the far north east of the country (Shan State) in a 1969 Mercedes 280SL, heavily modified for extreme/rough road rallies with air suspension, truck wheels and 8 ply tyres, etc. As well as my enormous digital Leica SL with 24-90/f2.8, I am going to take a Leica CL and either its original 40 Summicron C or a 35 ASPH Summicron. Why the CL? Well it is just about the smallest film camera I have, apart from two 8 x 11 mm cameras, a Minox C and a Sharan Rolleiflex and with those you are limited to either very slow film or small enlargements. The CL is easy to use with a coupled TTL meter.

    After reading about it on this Blog, I am taking 6 rolls of Fomapan 200 with me, which I am very impressed with. It has the detail of FP4 with another stop of speed and is I think a tad contrastier than FP4. It avoids the occasional grittiness of the 400ISO films or the over smoothness of the chromogenic films like XP400. I have searched around in various drawers and found an e39 yellow filter. From a boat trip in Myanmar earlier this year, I know the sky can often be quite flat and pale. Also there is often a combination of dust and low lying mist, which makes it quite hazy. A yellow filter helps a bit with both of these problems. Now I just have to decide on the 35 ASPH or 40 Summicron. The 35 is technically by some margin, the better lens but the 40 might just give the better feel with B&W film. Must remember to put a spare SR43 silver oxide button cell in my bag for the PX625 mercury battery replacer in the CL. Chances of finding an SR43 cell in Shan State are low. I am taking an inverter with me to charge our digital camera batteries in the rally car.

    Wilson

  • Reply
    the6millionpman
    November 14, 2016 at 8:16 am

    I’d disagree slightly, only slightly though, and say take digital at the same time but not a bulky DSLR. I did this when I went to Italy earlier in the year, my mirrorless Olympus EM5 at the same time as my film OM1, but then again the camera on my phone is a bit rubbish. The film shots were for a project, the digital ones a different project, this is what came out; https://the6millionpman.wordpress.com/category/projectsongoing-series/nine-days-in-italia/

    • Reply
      James - Founder/Editor
      November 14, 2016 at 1:04 pm

      You can bet I’ll be spending some time on this post of yours. Thanks for sharing, pal!

      • Reply
        the6millionpman
        November 14, 2016 at 3:53 pm

        hey no probs, what’s the point in making images if you don’t plan on sharing 🙂

  • Reply
    Randle P.McMurphy
    November 14, 2016 at 11:21 am

    If you get stuck in your photography process it sometimes could help changing gear or technics but there is no guarrantie for it allthough.
    I have been gone through this phase myself starting analoge photographie again because digital workflow get stuck in boring meaningless pictures.
    But to be honest all depends on the 15cm behind the viewfinder and cameras or systems dont matter.

  • Reply
    Jim Grey
    November 14, 2016 at 11:49 am

    I took a Nikon N2000 and 5 rolls of T-Max 400 with me to Ireland in September. I also took my usual digital point-and-shoot, a Canon S95. I took both because omg the processing costs of shooting only film. As it was, processing and scans of those 5 rolls was $42. I shudder to think about cost had I shot only film.

    • Reply
      James - Founder/Editor
      November 14, 2016 at 1:05 pm

      It’s true that it can get pricey- good point. But wait, T-max in Ireland?! What about all that green!? 😉

      • Reply
        Jim Grey
        November 14, 2016 at 1:21 pm

        The Canon S95 did color duty! Yet many of my best, best photos from Ireland were on that T-Max!

  • Reply
    Brett Rogers
    November 14, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    I was with you, all the way, until I got to this bit:

    “We all know digital is a better medium for taking photos. ”

    The best medium for taking photos is the one that suits the photographer and how they work, and delivers results they like/want/need (depending on their situation).

    That may be film with a $5 Praktica, a Hasselblad or even a Linhof, or it might be digital with a phone, a DSLR or a digital Hasselblad. Any of those will be, potentially, the best solution—depending on the photographer. You are entitled to your opinion about which medium is best but please don’t speak for me—I may not agree with your point of view.
    Regards,
    Brett

    • Reply
      James - Founder/Editor
      November 14, 2016 at 1:06 pm

      You’re right.

    • Reply
      philipwright801
      December 2, 2016 at 9:22 am

      Absolutely agree, Brett. Use of a blunt phrase like that is off-putting. “We” don’t all agree on any such thing!

  • Reply
    Amy Paterson
    November 14, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Yes! The only digital camera I own is on my phone. So I only ever take that and my film camera away with me. I love the fact you can’t remember all the pictures you took, you may remember some because you think they’ll work great but sometimes you look back at them all and find that the ones you forgot are the best 🙂

  • Reply
    Jeremy H. Greenberg
    November 15, 2016 at 7:50 am

    All legit reasons and I can concur that they are all valid. Film & Phone is the winning combo. !

    • Reply
      Randle P. McMurphy
      November 16, 2016 at 11:02 am

      Not sure if I get your Point – dont you edit your pictures ?
      Because this works best on a digital Workflow based on RAW Shot files
      Using Film the Scanner is the Limit
      Using a Phone the files are…

  • Reply
    Dan James
    November 15, 2016 at 10:53 am

    “We all know digital is a better medium for taking photos. I’m not arguing that it isn’t.”

    Huh?! This seems at odds with virtually everything I’ve read on this site previously and how much you love film and film cameras!

    • Reply
      James - Founder/Editor
      November 15, 2016 at 6:41 pm

      I knew this line would raise some eyebrows. I do love film and when I’m shooting for fun I will always shoot film. But most of my photography is digital – work, things for family and friends, events, product shots. I was just admitting that digital is a better way to take a picture so that I could hopefully avoid the article being written off as romantic and impractical.

      • Reply
        philipwright801
        December 2, 2016 at 9:25 am

        “I was just admitting that digital is a better way to take a picture”

        There you go again. Not an absolute at all. It might be for you, but you phrase it as if it is sacrosanct.

        It isn’t.

        • Reply
          James - Founder/Editor
          December 2, 2016 at 11:46 am

          Okay I hear you. How about reading any of the other hundred-something articles about how much we love film and we’ll call it even.

    Leave a Reply

    Facebook
    Facebook
    Instagram
    Follow by Email
    RSS