Introduction: Tips for the Traveling Photographer

Picture of Tips for the Traveling Photographer

As a semi-pro photographer who has flown on over 50 flights and has visited more than 15 countries and over 20states, I know that photography is difficult enough without having to manage equipment, and looking like a tourist will make you miss out on the local culture, making you miss out on even more great pictures.

Step 1: Choose a Camera

Picture of Choose a Camera

When choosing a camera consider it's main function. Will it be for professional shots that will be sold in a gallery? If so choose a film SLR (or digital if you must). Are you snapping a few shots for friends and family to look at? Buy a slim point and shoot digital. Will you be taking lots of pictures, but don't want to sacrifice quality. Use a larger point and shoot.

This short paragraph won't be enough to decide for you. Do some research before dropping $200 on a camera.

I'm doing general family pictures as well as artistic shots I'm trying to sell.

I use a Minolta XG-A film SLR with a 135mm CPC telephoto lens and a 50mm Minolta lens. I also carry a Canon Powershot A75.

Step 2: Choose a Bag

Picture of Choose a Bag

The type of camera(s) and lenses you have will determine your bag.
There are three main types I will go over. They are:
Belt clip, compact bag with strap, and full sized/ camcorder bags.

Each has it advantages and disadvantages, but no matter what you need to chose one.

Another option is to use a diaper bag. It has plenty of compartments and is less likely to be stolen.

Step 3: Belt Clip

Picture of Belt Clip

As the name implies these clip on your belt and hold your camera and nothing else. These are great for slim cameras like Casios or Samsungs. Remember, these don't hold batteries or cards, so don't be disappointed if you run out.

Pros: Small, lightweight, cheap
Cons: Small, easily stolen, no storage

Another alternative to these is to use a foam can cooler (aka "koozie").

Step 4: Compact Bag With Strap

Picture of Compact Bag With Strap

These are better for higher end thick cameras like my Canon. These will hold your camera, cards, batteries, and any other small accessories you might need. These are the best for most people.

Pros: Can hold larger cameras, lightweight, cheap, can hold accessories
Cons: Not big enough for SLR, easy to steal

Step 5: Full Sized/ Camcorder Bags

Picture of Full Sized/ Camcorder Bags

These are best for SLRs with multiple lenses or for carrying multiple cameras. They are durable and can hold way more accessories. They can even hold chargers and large lenses.

Pros: Large, durable, lots of carrying capacity.
Cons: Heavy, bulky, can't be concealed

Step 6: Belt Clip Holster

Picture of Belt Clip Holster

These are pretty obvious. Only space for the camera. They are great for protecting your camera from falls and scratches.

Step 7: What to Pack in a Small Bag

Picture of What to Pack in a Small Bag

In one of these bags you can pack more, but you'll still have to leave chargers and lenses behind. I pack:
Digital camera, 3 memory cards, 2 sets of batteries, a lens cloth (or small disposable pack), and a short usb cable

Step 8: Packing a Large Bag

Picture of Packing a Large Bag

Right now my main bag is a Kodak camcorder bag. It is big enough for everything I'll ever need, and is very durable. I use it to carry:

-Film SLR (Minolta XG-A)
-CPC 135mm telephoto lens (I keep my 50mm on the camera)
-Digital Camera (Canon A-75)
-Flash for Minolta
-Extra film. I usually take 2 extra rolls for a week long trip or 4-5 for a month. I only end up using around 1 a month
-Extra memory cards
-Extra batteries. 2 sets for the digital, 1 set for flash, and 3 sets for film
-Cable shutter release
-Lens cleaning cloth
-If possible my leatherman
-Robot patch. Just because I can
-Battery charger and car cable for charger
-USB cable

Step 9: Carrying a Tripod

Picture of Carrying a Tripod

There are many different options out there for tripods. I have a Sakar Tr-2l. It is relatively light and folds down nicely. When looking for a tripod consider it's weight, folded size. You want a tripod that folds small, but comes up to at least your elbows if not your shoulder. Another thin to consider are the arms that open when you unfold it. These arms keep the tripod even. My dad has a tripod without these and it is impossible to get it level.
To carry your tripod you can strap it to your bag or use a hook to keep it on your belt. I use a Bigg Lugg cordless tool hook. I also use a fabric strap to keep it from opening. One end is tied to the head and the other end has a slipknot that goes around the bottom of the legs.
If you are hiking consider a monopod.

Step 10: Day Trips With a SLR

Picture of Day Trips With a SLR

When going on short trips I usually just carry my camera by its strap. I also take it's other lens in a binocular bag. If I have space I throw in an extra roll of film.

Step 11: Tips for Taking Pictures

Picture of Tips for Taking Pictures

Sometimes taking pictures can make you stand out in a crowd, and that is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Here's what you can do to make it better:

-Avoid using a tripod. Its harder, carrying is easier and you don't stick out.
-Stand off to the side. This is also good because you don't get bumped and jostled and you don't end up with the standard "postcard picture".
-Take side routes. Don't just go to the main attractions. You end up with a better view of the local culture.
-Ask people if you can take their picture. If you don't speak the language point and most people will understand what you want.
-Try to blend in. I've found that khakis and a button down or polo shirt blend in almost anywhere, and light gray or brown t-shirts look good even after a few days. They blend in even better if they are wrinkled or already worn.
-Avoid using flash. It draws attention to you.
-Make friends. Locals can help you out, especially if you aren't fluent in their language (watch out, some will rip you off for the same reason). They also know where all the hidden attractions are.

Step 12: Thats All

Picture of Thats All

Well, thats all I can think of right now. If you have any questions feel free to comment.

Comments

BecomingTheOldGuy (author)2010-02-11

I realize this thread is a bit old, but it is also brimming with false statements, so I'm going to toss my 2¢ in the ring.  Take it or leave it, it's what I go by.

There are some digital vs. film arguments.  I'd like to address a couple points.  At this point, film is still capable of producing a higher-quality image.  That said, the RESOLUTION of quality 35mm film of ISO 400 or lower is about 6-8 mp.  Sure, you can scan it at a higher res, but all you're going to get is a bigger file.  High end slide film is probably more in the 8-10 mp range.  That said, film has a much more broad dynamic range and is much more forgiving of the user choosing poor exposures.  120 print film at 6x6 cm is going to be in the 25 mp ballpark.  You get the idea.  You can always use something like Genuine Fractals (better than simply stepping the image in Photoshop or GIMP) to resample the image to a higher resolution.  The problem is the actual analog nature of film (Extra depth to the images, continuous tonal range, far superior dynamic range).  So, get something around 10mp and you'll be matching or exceeding the resolution.  Start doing HDR if you find you're not getting the dynamic range you want/need.  Point and shoot digital cameras aren't even coming close to film at this point, regardless of the resolution.  There are a few exceptions, but they are very, very few.  Most P&S cameras are crap.  I have one for when I don't care enough to carry a real camera.  The images are intelligible, but I got better tonal range out of the 110 cameras I had 20+ years ago than I do out of my little Olympus 7mp indestructible thing.  The 110 didn't shoot video though.  Or double as an alarm clock.

Next is the durability issue.  The average consumer digital SLR goes for 25,000-50,000 frames.  Pro ones are 100,000 and higher.  50,000 frames is a LOT.  That's more 35mm film than I've ever shot in my entire life and I've done probably 200,000 out of a DSLR over the past five years.  A typical wedding 10 years ago would have been shot on 10-20 rolls of 24 exposure film - 250-500 frames.  When I shoot a wedding with a second photographer, it's not unusual with digital to hit 3,000-5,000 for the day.  A $200 Canon or Nikon film camera is roughly built the same as a $500-800 DSLR.  Apples to apples.  My Nikon D2H is built like the old F5.  It's got about 110,000 frames and counting.  Digitals cost more on the outset to get comparable quality, but when I worked at a camera store a few years ago, we still had the F5 priced at over $2,000.  It's digital counterparts are typically $3,000-6,000.  I'd say that's reasonable.

Print longevity and quality is another factor.  Dye inks are more vibrant than pigment.  Pigment inks typically last longer.  Where does silver-halide come in?  Epson's archival inks on EPSON archival paper (it's important to match the papers and inks that are actually engineered to work with one another!) go for about 100 years on a wall, 200 years in storage on average.  Some are only good for 30-50 years on display and others go beyond 300 years in storage.  Check with the Wilhelm people and read their independent test results.  Fuji Crystal Archive color, silver, wet-process paper is rated for about 60 years, about double what the comparable Kodak is rated for (b.  Epson for the win.  Fuji and Kodak both have pro papers that last longer, but the cold truth is that all photos are temporary.  You've got to go to the really, really old print techniques if you want prints that will last lifetimes.  Stuff like platinum printing.  And, none of you are talking about that.  You can do those from digital too, by the way, if you happen to have a good process to make a negative from a digital file.  I've done it as a project, not as anything too serious - fun stuff.

Archivability . . .  Yup.  With digi, you've got to upgrade with the times, but there are also lots of film types that aren't readable or developable anymore without going to a low-quality, one-size-fits-all solution like a flatbed scanner that does transparencies.  You can't take those disc films and do much with them.  Or, 110, etc.  A lot of pro labs don't even have a darkroom anymore.  They do digital because that's what people ask for.  So, just keep changing with the times.  Film is susceptible to damage too.

Tripods are like little magic fairies.  They'll make nearly all your photographs better.  If you can bring one, bring one.  Use it often.  Flash sync speeds on modern cameras are usually around 1/250th of a second.  That's slow enough that a tripod makes a difference.  It also can help you pace your work better and take more care in composing your shots.  Even if I'm moving fast, I'll fold my legs in and use it as I would a monopod.  Not ideal, but it's better than hand-holding on it's own.  Carbon fiber will help you cut down on some weight and they absorb vibrations instead of magnify, which aluminum does (same design ideas as for a bicycle - long riders on a budget prefer steel frames because of the flex vs. lighter, more rigid materials like aluminum and the ones who can afford it go with something like carbon fiber because it's much lighter than steel but still has some flex to absorb more road shocks, etc.).  You can get one small enough that it will easily fit in your carry-on bag and even flying internationally, it's usually not going to be an issue.

The best answer to any of this stuff is to do your own research, conduct your own experiments and arrive at your own conclusions.  Don't believe everything you read, especially from some old codger like me.  If you like digital because you just like it, that's fine.  Just do your homework and make informed choices about cameras, lenses, media cards (premium brands cost more for good reason), archival media, non-damaging editing programs, etc.  Talk to people and find out what's working for them - but talk to people who actually know something and aren't just forming words and spitting them out.  Most people are going to try to convince you that they've made great decisions when all they are trying to do is to validate their own decisions by convincing someone else to make the same one.  If three people buy a piece of crap but are convinced it's marvelous, it's still a piece of crap.  The crowd isn't always right.

I'm just a guy with a little experience.  About 20 years in photography, lived all over the US and a couple times in Europe.  Been in a couple other North American countries, South America, Africa, Asia . . .  Been in something like 40 of the 50 states.  I use a Nikon D200, Nikon D2H, prime lenses, a few speedlights, Kiev (Hasselblad knockoff) 6x6 system, Graflex 4x5, pinhole, Holga, etc.  I've worked in photo labs, done darkroom work, maintain a solid digital darkroom with Apple, Adobe and Epson products, etc.  Not to get into a pissing competition with anyone, but just to validate (as much as can be done for a stranger) my claims.  I hope this helps.  I'm available for long conversations about the evolutions of photography and why Anne Geddes should be banned from ever holding a camera again :o)

Bartboy (author)2008-09-06

over 50 flights? lmao, I am 12 and at the 300 mark already!

LinuxH4x0r (author)Bartboy2008-09-06

Where?

Bartboy (author)LinuxH4x0r2008-09-06

all over canada, ive also been to about 10 other countrys.

LinuxH4x0r (author)Bartboy2008-09-07

Ha! I've been to about 15

Bartboy (author)LinuxH4x0r2008-09-08

and ur 12? (I know its your but i like ur)

LinuxH4x0r (author)Bartboy2008-09-08

16

Bartboy (author)LinuxH4x0r2008-09-09

well, then I guess thats impressive, but still, i was 3 weeks old on my first plane.

andrea0701 (author)Bartboy2008-12-11

that's nothing...i was -30 mins on my first helicopter ride :P lol

Bartboy (author)andrea07012008-12-11

-30? or 30 mins. Were you born in one, or born then flown to a hospital?

andrea0701 (author)Bartboy2008-12-11

-30 mins. I'm being cheeky -- my mom was air lifted to the hospital in a helicopter and I was born 30 mins later ;)

Bartboy (author)andrea07012008-12-11

Hmmm, lol. But I meant in the positives.....

andrea0701 (author)Bartboy2008-12-11

haha, I know You definitely have me beat there

fkuk (author)andrea07012009-05-21

ive been in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 places around the world

stncilr (author)Bartboy2009-01-15

yeah, but i have a girlfriend! try to beat that?

LinuxH4x0r (author)stncilr2009-01-15

Beat me there

mikeasaurus (author)Bartboy2008-09-09

spelling police: It's " you're "

owned

Bartboy (author)overcaffein8d2008-12-11

I was, wasn't I?

jakee117 (author)LinuxH4x0r2008-09-07

how as Iran?

LinuxH4x0r (author)jakee1172008-09-07

Not bad, how was your summer?

jakee117 (author)LinuxH4x0r2008-09-08

pretty good, did your mom tell you about my trip to Canada on northern tier? I made an instructable for a trail sauna and I learned it from my trip search for it!

countable (author)Bartboy2009-03-16

Cool story bro

standupclothing (author)Bartboy2008-10-21

no one cares bro

Bartboy (author)standupclothing2008-10-22

just saying that more than 50 is not a frequent flier.

No one cares about you either (JK, but we do have a be nice policy)

I am nice =) just seems like all yo comments on this guys 'ible are trying to out do him..... i guess what i am saying is we are so very impressed by what you have accomplished in your lifetime, just not right now

killerjackalope (author)2008-07-05

Hey I just noticed I have one of those sitting in my living room beside a Canon EOS and another EOS digital, my mum likes Minolta, we have a huge collection of lenses for them, including several zoom ones and god knows how many fixed lengths, same for the canons.... I really liked this one linux, as an addition, for a semi-pro photographer a creative compact can be a great option these days, I can get SLR quality prints in half the space, not to mention 18X zoom in a tiny package... For the serious stuff I usually revert to the Canon 20D or the Minolta, always has film in it...

Lucky! I only have 2 lenses and my dad's canon AE-1 got stolen. He has an EOS, but I'm not impressed by it. The AE-1 or my minolta is better. NO! I refuse to use digital for creative/artistic photography. Only for instructables or other computer stuff. Thanks!

Ah now digital has different qualities from film...

Always remember that I can scan my prints and negatives into higher resolution digital images when the technology comes around. My 3.2m will always be 3.2

Film has a finite resolution, though. No matter what resolution you scan it with, you can only get a certain amount of detail, because eventually you'll be enlarging silver crystals.

Still better than the best digitals

Not at all, if we look at the best digitals, those would be the cameras such as used on satellites...but because we're not exaggerating, let's look at medium format digital cameras, compared to your 35mm. The sensors in there are twice as large as a frame of film, and produce pictures light years ahead in quality. Now, even the medium format digital are out of reach for most professional photographers. The best "normal" digital cameras have sensors the size of a 35mm frame. These "full frame" cameras have similar detail and clarity, but they have none of the grain that film has.

Excuse me, but "normal" digital cameras do NOT have sensors the size of 35mm negatives. They are significantly smaller. That is why when you put a "film" lens on a digital SLR, you figure 3x the focal length in terms of angle of view. Also, last figures I saw rated the information available on 35mm negative at around 20mb. Digital has grain . . . they call them pixels.

Have you never heard of a full frame camera? Two very common ones are the Canon 5D and the Nikon D3. These camerams are standard DSLRs. Also, you cannot figure 3x for all cameras, or even all DSLRs, because many have varying sizes. A 14-bit uncompressed shot (raw) from a Nikon D3 is 24.8 mb, according to an owner. When I was talking about grain, it should have been obvious that I was referring to the graininess: the distance between grains that shows up when you print a larger photo. Digital cameras do have this, it's equivalents are noise (produced by higher ISOs) and the effect (sometimes referred to as grainy) that is produced by printing a photo larger than you should. The thing is, the "graininess" that shows up on digital photos when printing only appears when you're printing too big. My 6MP D50 has printed 20x30in with no problem, while most, if not all 35mm negative will start showing grain long before that.

Hmm good point, however, we have several EOS bodies and at least ten minolta bodies, we can convert a few down the line... On the other side 3.2mp gives a decent A4 at 8MP you can get a nice big print, along with the fact that I enjoy after processing aswell, most of my best images are from multiple photos, partly because stock photos are boring, I take my own for each project...

PKM (author)LinuxH4x0r2008-07-06

"I refuse to use digital for creative/artistic photography."

Why? A practical reason or an "ethical" one? I would never have got into creative photography without digital cameras and I see nothing wrong with the quality of pictures from a digital SLR.

LinuxH4x0r (author)PKM2008-07-06

The quality is way lower. I can blow my pictures up to the size of my desk and they would still look fine. Most digitals start to lose quality at the LTR or A4 size. Besides, silver is permanent. Digital media slowly degrades over time. Ever had a HDD that lasted 30 years? I have film from over 60 years ago. Also, my setup cost me $10 vs $1000 and up for a similar digital

Not true...

  • Quality all depends on the type of film and what digital camera you use. My Nikon D50 can easily print up to 20x30 photos without any loss. Even then, a few tweaks on photoshop and I could print larger.
  • Film and photo paper only last as long as they are preserved well in archival sleeves, etc. Even then, they still will fade.
  • They have certain CDs that are meant for archiving, they supposedly last upwards of 100 years, and aren't much more expensive.

I do need to address your last point. They may have archival CDs (there is considerable debate on the life of the standard CD-R), but data retrieval is the biggest problem. You can count on transcribing your photos about every 5 years as media is phased out. I mean, when was the last time you saw a 5-1/4" floppy drive? Most new computers today lack even a 3-1/2", and the CD is being replaced by the DVD. I have been an avid user of both computers and cameras for a long time. I have both digital and film cameras. I shoot digital for casual stuff, but for the pictures of the new grandbaby, or by son's wedding, I carried the Pentax SLR with a good selection of lenses. Those were pictures that mattered to me.

PKM (author)LinuxH4x0r2008-07-07

I had to address the "silver is permanent, digital media degrades" because it sounds like analog-audio talk. You can argue a lot of things about film on optical grounds, but for ease of storage, transmission, reproduction and editing digital wins hands down. Yes, hard disks don't last for ever but some of my photos have been stored on three different hard drives- you can reproduce digital photos 100% perfectly as many times as you like. I could store billions of photos on my computer, send perfect copies to friends over the net and retouch/edit them far more easily than film. I don't believe film can be stored for that long with absolutely no degradation.

As for image quality- perhaps film does capture in a higher resolution than digital cameras, perhaps not, but remember resolution isn't everything. The ability to change between up to 7 different ISOs and white balance on digital makes things a lot easier for non-expert photographers like myself. The point about film enlarging better may just be because optical enlarging "degrades gracefully", ie greatly enlarged photos blur slightly rather than becoming pixelated, but a good bicubic interpolation can enlarge digital photos in a similarly graceful way.

Ultimately, all these points come down to convenience. I will happily sacrifice a little final image quality for ease of storage, the ability to take hundreds of photos and delete the ones I don't like, having an adaptable camera that can shoot under any circumstances at the press of a button (or six), and of course the GIMP.

LinuxH4x0r (author)PKM2008-07-07

Meh. For the experienced photographer film wins. (Oh, I also have a scanner, so gimp is still an option) Lets just agree that we don't agree, and that we both have valid points. Use what you like and I'll use what I like

gschoppe (author)LinuxH4x0r2008-07-06

"The quality is way lower" - that depends on the camera, true a $100 used Minolta auto reflex t series will get you a better picture than a 3mp Kodak at the same price, however, at the higher end, the difference is not so clear... with a 12mp DSLR with a full frame sensor, you will actually see better detail... There is a limit to the detail stored by film as well as digital, the only difference being that film blurs smoothly when blown up beyond acceptable detail, where digital has to be processed so as to not get "pixelated"... that processing is trivial and yields the same results. "silver is permanent." - if stored properly. you can easily destroy film with improper storage or usage, similarly, dvds stored in an opaque vacuum-bag at reasonable temperature will last just fine... if you don't want to deal with that, keep redundant backups, and copy to new media every decade or so... with digital that takes a matter of minutes. "Also, my setup cost me $10 vs $1000 and up for a similar digital" - if it was $10, you were given a HUGE deal on used equipment. That argument only holds water as why you USE analog, not why you're AGAINST digital... try buying a good Leica. In addition, although you only use a roll a month or so, consider that you don't have that recurring cost with digital, and it supports a much more prolific photographic style (a debatable merit, but if you have the skill, its a good thing) As to cost, your glass can easily outweigh the cost of an analog or digital camera really quickly, making the point rather moot. as for the pros and cons, digital cannot accurately reproduce certain aspects of certain films (although post processing can fake them passably), and there are some interesting processing tricks in darkrooms. On digital's side, are such things as RAW compression, Tonemapping, and HDR that require a digital original to fully benefit from. it is most definitely a matter of availability and taste, rather than quality, at this point in technology.

LinuxH4x0r (author)gschoppe2008-07-06

Ok, point taken. I prefer film. Actually you can get a brand new cannon for only $200 The camera itself will outlast digital equipment for sure (more durable) I'll never win this battle.......

Do you develop and print your own pictures?

not yet. When my house gets finished I plan on setting up a small darkroom

OldPhotog (author)2008-10-09

I have a bunch of film SLRs and lenses - Minoltas, Konicas and a Yashica, with a bunch of lenses and other goodies. I have a bunch of Russian and Japanese rangefinders too. I paid big bucks for some of it and more recently got several of them for a song. (Can you say Ebay?) :0) I also, however, have three digital cameras. Unfortunately, none of them are SLRs. I gave my daughter a digital SLR (A Rebel XTi) for one of her college classes and will a digital SLR myself when I can afford / justify it. Both types of cameras are great. I love my manual-focus SLRs for their craftsmanship, photographic precision and flexability, and the fact that it takes some photographic knowledge to use them as opposed to the point-and-shoot digitals. However, the high-end digital SLRs are awesome as well. I love processing and printing B&W; photos, but you can't deny the convenience of digital processing. Three years ago I took my digital camera with me when traveling across 5 countries. I think I took 1,800 photos with it, which more than paid for the camera in film and processing savings. It's funny. Thirty years ago, if you had an SLR, (film of course) people figured that you were a serious photographer. Now, with the proliferation of digital cameras and the increasing resolution and lower prices each year, everyone is a photographer. And I think that's a good thing. Everyone needs a creative outlet and more people than ever before can afford it.

alvincredible (author)2008-07-12

Hey I think you're wrong when you say "Avoid using a tripod. Its harder, carrying is easier and you don't stick out." I honestly think every photographer should use a tripod because you'll get the sharpest images that way. Tack sharp images are more attractive...unless the result was intended to be out of focus :-).

regarding that film vs digital argument below, i can honestly say...it's all a matter of opinion. I shoot both. I have a Canon EOS 40D and a Canon Elan IIE which i use to shoot b&w film (especially because it's fun to develop).

There ARE cameras that have higher resolution than film negatives...hasselblad just came out with a 50mp camera with a sensor thats freakin' huge!

I'd say unless you had a very good scanner, digital compostions will be of higher quality than the film negatives will be on a computer. Regarding resolution and the size of the prints, they have full frame digital slrs than can get as big as a 35mm film slr prints can and i'd say depending on the printer, then it could be just as good or even better than the film.
The sharper the image, the better it'll look blown up. There is definitely less grain on digital prints than the film prints.

but honestly, i love shooting both.

I can agree with you that shooting film can be better at times. It makes you think more because you don't just go shooting away then erase it if you don't like it. Plus, having to wait to see the prints forces you to want to make a great composition rather than shooting away then doing post processing like a lot of digital photographers do. Eh, but in the end it's all a matter of opinion.

I love my Canon 40D and i honestly think it does a way better job than my film slr and the film that it shoots. It's definitely not about the camera especially when it comes to film photography because all film is the same. The different cameras let you control things differently, but in the end it's all the same film. Digital slrs have a bunch of different sensors and thats key when it comes to the quality of the image. the better the sensor, the better the image. the better the film, the better the image.

Analogue definitely can be more fun to shoot than digital especially when you develop the photos. Dang, the developement process is fun. I'm taking a photography class at a local community college this summer just so i can use the darkroom for free (I just wished they had darkrooms at my high school :-( )!!!

Digital and Analogue shooting are both awesome. In the end, the quality of the print, to me, is going to depend on the photographer. sure the sensors and the film will effect the outcome, but a real photographer will know how to use that to their advantage to make the best possible compositions possible with that camera...i mean i've seen wonderful works of art made with camera phones!!

sorry for making this long, but photography is awesome. Film and Digital are equal to me. Both depend on the person behind the camera. You can argue the longevity of each, quality, or whatever, but in the end it's up to the photographer to preserve the picture and to take it.

So again, use a tripod for goodness sakes. Blurry images are not great images. And shoot with whatever kind of camera you want, analogue or digital. If you know how to use it, then that's all you need :-). Just shoot with whatever you enjoy most because really, photography shouldnt be a competition but it should be about doing something you love. Do it sucka.

Have fun capturing light,
- Alvincredible

LinuxH4x0r (author)alvincredible2008-07-13

About the tripod: Yes, it is better, but if I can lower the f and shoot at 1/1000 do I really need it? I can usually steady it enough on a tree or bench or something else. Besides, I'm talking about traveling overseas through airport security, not roadtrips. In the US I always carry my tripod, and I do agree it is a good thing to have. I agree with the rest of what you said. Its a matter of preference, and I prefer film. I suppose its partly because I can't afford a good DSLR and that even if I could I wouldn't waste my money on something that will be obsolete in a few years. It all comes down to personal preference. The tripod is great, but it is a hassle to pack it.

About This Instructable

21,599views

43favorites

License:

More by LinuxH4x0r:Upgrade the ram in your macbookMast-o-Khiar (Iranian cucumber and mint yougurt)Tips for the traveling photographer
Add instructable to: