Planning for a year in Asia-film or digital?

Hi all-

 

I'm in the process of planning for a year trip through Asia and I am hashing around the idea of shooting film instead of digital. Personally,

film is my preference for artistic reasons, I just love the look. Anyway, here is the dilemma:

 

I am primarily a digital shooter who shoots film occasionally, but I look at the work of someone like Bruce Percy or Steve McCurry and all

I ever want to shoot is film. Travel photography should be shot on film, in my opinion and personal vision. But when I started thinking out

the trip at the length that I am planning, I found some logistical problems with shooting film. First of all, what happens when you run out?!

If I go the film route, it will be medium format, and the camera will be a mamiya 7. I know that for sure. But at 10 shots a roll, that's a lot of

rolls of film to lug around through airport scanners, desert heat, etc. Is there a way to "reload" in places like China, India, Thailand, etc? I

guess mail order is an option but I'm curious to hear about your experiences with this.

 

Another issue is that I'm planning to do some "off the grid" work with like Tibetan nomads or live out in the boondocks in Thailand for a

month at a time. And lack of electricity comes into play here. I've seen the solar panel options out there for recharging batteries and stuff,

not too expensive either. Digital is not real well suited for this kind of thing on a longer than a week basis I feel though, as I will need to

recharge batteries and laptops, etc. and digital cameras are bit more fragile in these environments I feel unless you're swinging a pro dslr. but I would be curious to hear your perspective on this and any solutions you all have come up with.

 

Weight and size are also a problem, whether digital or film. I won't be lugging a pro dslr anywhere, I did that already through the

mountains of Peru, and never again. It will be a 5d mkiii or a fuji rangefinder. The mamiya is large I know, but not that much heavier, and

is still fairly unobtrusive for street shooting, although the slow apertures worry me. But the image quality!

 

My last and final dilemma is editing images. I want to be able to process images while abroad, as a way to show people at home where I

am and what I'm seeing. I've considered going the film route and adding in a Fuji x100s or something, but then I have to decided between

two mediums all the time and I would rather just commit to one. I'm interested to see if there are any effective solutions for mailing film

back and having it processed and scanned so that I can edit from abroad.

 

I'm really just looking for thoughts on traveling long term and into off the grid environments with film (or digital I guess) from people who

have done it and can address some of the concerns I have here. I realize that it's a personal choice, and I have no desire to discuss

"which is better" artistically, only the logistical aspects of traveling with either in the ways mentioned. It will also depend on style of

shooting, and that's also not something I want to discuss, or expect anyone to really be able to help me with.

 

That's a lot of verbiage. Thoughts?

<p>I've done both, film and digital for periods of about 3 weeks without power, but not at the same time. Film before 2005, digital more recently. I would never mix film and digital, just too cumbersome. I have my doubts about solar power, mainly whether it delivers enough power to charge camera batteries. I would buy a few more batteries. I guess there are still a few places without a power grid but they become more scarce by the day. Consider a car charger. A place without mains power may be scarce but a place without cars would be hard to find. And even in the Himalayas (Mustang/Ladakh) there were occasional places with a mains outlet.</p>

Jos-

 

Thanks for your reply. I guess that is true, power is becoming increasingly common. How did you manage your film

inventory back when you shot film? We're you constantly traveling abroad, or was it a three week trip here and there and

then back home?

<p>Some years back we saw a slide show, put on by someone who had explored the length of THREE Canadian rivers that feed into the northern sea. He used solar panels draped on his kayak for charging his batteries. He took a few videos as well.</p>

<p><a href="/travel-photography-forum/00FDVk">http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00FDVk</a></p>

<p>Mostly it was/were 4 week trips, with 2 camera bodies and a bunch of lenses. It was just a matter of recording the camera number every day and keeping track of the rolls of film, giving each a unique number and recording every roll change. I'm quite sure that I can't track all slides after all this time :-)<br>

On the other hand digital is easier, together with GPS and geotagging. I just have to remember to set the camera's clock in time (in different time zones). Last time I forgot this, and when I did so I accidentally changed the year as well. Correcting this took almost as long as tracking slides when using film.</p>

<p>I've traveled with both film and digital. I think if you like shooting film that much you should go for it. Get ziplock bags and x-ray bags and look up stores to buy it at in the cities you'll be in. Bring the Fuji too, it's small and you'll have the best of both worlds. Go on Amazon and get a set of two spare Wasabi brand batteries with a charger that has a car adapter for $25.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I look at the work of someone like Bruce Percy or Steve McCurry and all I ever want to shoot is film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

McCurry has been primarily digital since 2009. Given that most people never noticed, it seems obvious that the medium has little to do with his work. The big exception was the last roll of Kodachrome project he did, but that was a few years back. I wouldn't use someone else's work as a reason to choose what to shoot.<br>

<br>

I was in southeast Asia in 2001 and couldn't find much medium format film when I ran out. I doubt the situation has gotten better; it's probably much worse. If you have someone who can ship it to you if you run out, lose it, etc., then it shouldn't be a problem, but it probably isn't a good idea to expect to find it there.</p>

<p>Also remember that short of going really fairly far back to the old classics (Nikon F and sunny-16, etc.), modern film cameras also require batteries.<br>

Then the film has to be kept cool, the humidity down, x-rays and gamma rays dodged. If you run out, getting new film is no breeze- even in 1973 in the back areas of Nigeria, getting film was harder than getting electricity (the lights were at least on for a few hours a day).</p>

<p>It was my experience in 2004 with film, fogging, etc. that was the proximate cause of my switching to digital in the first place.</p>

<p>Jeff-<br>

I only mention other photographers as inspiration, thats all. If I go with film, its not because of others. I like not being able to see my photos right away, it forces me to focus better on the scene around me. Granted digital doesn't stop one from doing that, its just a bad habit.<br>

JDM-<br>

I guess thats true, film is sensitive. I hadn't thought of that, as I have only traveled with it once.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I live in Southeast Asia. I held onto film for quite a while, but now shoot only digital. You can still find a bit of 120 film here in Bangkok, but processing is an issue. <br>

I think digital is the way to go for a trip like that. I am about to hit the road for a month around Cambodia and have a 5DMK2 with 3 lenses and my Lumix GF1. Great little travel kit. </p>

<p>Life is full of choices. I would suggest that in making your choice you consider the costs of shooting film - cost of the film, cost of developing the film, costs of prints if desired or costs of scanning inorder to post process if desired. I now shoot digital exclusively and I know that I could not afford to shoot film. It is very easy to share digital photos with others. Film is much more difficult to share with others.</p>

<p>I just shoot scapes on holiday, I like slide film so that is what I shoot, I don't shoot heaps, 3 rolls of 35mm last me a week. I only shoot at low light, I pick my times, whenI walk around I don't shoot that stuff.... also too self conscious to shoot people.</p>

<p>Only you can answer what you do. For me I like the proess too so I still shoot film, I love the look of slides. I shoot less with film but I enjoy it ...</p>

<p>I purchase film from USA via mailorder and export to the USA for development very $$ here. Steve McCurry, used to use Kodachrome and Ektachrome both of which are discontinued.</p>

<p>Edit - to ramble. I love film cameras, they are cheap these days and if you can shoot less the d+p are not too bad. How much are digital cameras again? Haha. I have a D600 too recently a big diff from my D70 but then again I use the D600 when I need to like low light but seldom b/c I do scapes mainly for this hobby of mine. D70 is still ok. Even better are the slides :D The Mamiya is one of the costier ones ...</p>

Years ago when I was shooting film, I took a trip to New Zealand. I had 10 rolls of 36 exp Kodachrome 35mm and 20

rolls of 120 film total of about 600 shots. I figured that would easily last the 2 week trip.

 

New Zealand is so incredible, I burned through all my film in the first 4 days. That's when I found out that 120 file is rarer

than pixie dust in rural environments.

 

My recommendation would be to stick with digital, bring a solar charger, lots of memory cards

<p>The challenge is that at this point you don't know what you don't know. You're going some place you've never been (I think) and you could stumble over something that you want to spend a month documenting, or experimenting with light on, or whatever. Film is wonderful as a medium but could restrict from that kind of thing in a remote place.</p>

<p>You have to do what makes you happy. But I could not see shooting film for a trip like this. As you've noted, it means carrying dozens of rolls and having uncertain chances of being able to get more if you run out. You have the issue of exposure to heat for prolonged periods of time out in the boonies. And while a couple of x-ray scans might not be an issue it sounds like you've talking about multiple trips through airports and they are cumulative. you won't be able to see what you've got or do any editing until you get back. If you were talking a big pro DSLR vs a Leica I could see the difference in size and weight, but medium format doesn't help you over digital in that respect. As for electrical power, haven't been there but I agree with others that you should be able to find enough power often enough for long enough. Finally, not to argue film vs digital, but I think pictures are entirely about their content, not what kind of camera they're shot with.</p>

<p>Where exactly are you going that is without electricity, I'm just curious? </p>

<p>A Mamiya 7 for one year on the road. Do you have a plan for a backup film camera if the one you have decides to 'give up' half-way through your trip?</p>

<p>You will have to decide on digital or film, several large memory cards take 'not much area' in your travel pack. A few dozen rolls of 120 film will not carry as well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In 2001 I hauled a film camera through Nepal for two months. My film bag weighed more than a pound, maybe two pounds. I'd love to redo that trip with a DSLR sometime.</p>

<p>Now, you're considering a MF film camera and a pocket-sized digital camera. How about the other way around: a DSLR as your main camera, plus a small 35 mm rangefinder?</p>

<p><em>digital cameras are bit more fragile in these environments</em><br>

No they are not. I have hauled a drebel through the jungles of central america for months at a time, se asia in the hot season, couple of months, plus countless other trips, and I have never had a problem. However I have had roll after roll of film get scratched by grit in my camera.</p>

<p>edit to add: don't edit digital pics on the go - do it later. That'll save weight and need for power.</p>

Thanks for the feedback everyone. David-that's a good point. If I stumble on something I want to document, it could be

hard to do on film. Since that really is the point of this trip, it might be best to do digitally.

 

And it's true, pictures are ultimately about the content. But the type of camera/lens will have an impact on the aesthetic

qualities of the photograph, which is very important to me. I think it is probably best to stick with what I know best.

 

Thanks for your help anyone. If you have any recommendations for things to see in Asia feel free to suggest! I've been to

China multiple times, but not anywhere else in Asia. Thanks again!

<p>Asia could be very similar, but also very different. It depends on what you want, it's vast...I type as I sit on a "toilet" in "Inlay Lake"...</p>

<p>btw Myanmar is changing fast, I'd swing by before too long...</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>'ve been to China multiple times, but not anywhere else in Asia.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, your perception of "boondocks in Thailand..." is just a (false) perception. And where in China have you been? Easy or difficult parts of China? It makes a big difference, say, if you're talking of Shanghai, than, say, Guizhou...</p>

<p> </p>

I lived in Chongqing for a summer, spent time in Xining and a number of other western China cities. And I speak some

Mandarin. I'm not looking to be a tourist, I have no problem roughing it, and yes, I've used a squat toilet. I don't think my

perception is unrealistic, I've spent time there, and not as a tourist.

<p>Scott, what I meant was your Thailand perception, I've been all over and there is electricity everywhere. And Chongqing is a modern city...not really all that difficult. As I said, it depends on what you are looking for. If you like "roughing it," I'd *not* choose Thailand. Thailand for the most part, is easier than China. In fact, Thailand is probably the easiest country of all Asia to foreigners. That said, Thailand is great value and the main reason why there are many expats there...</p>

<p>"Roughing it" (to me) brings to mind...Mongolia, rural parts of Cambodia, India and far western China and the 'Stanses.</p>

<p>Easier, less hectic, less people and more chill: Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal</p>

<p> </p>

My apologies. Thailand was a bad example. I don't have specific plans in Thailand, just want to be prepared. Thanks for

your input!

<p>No problem, Scott. Another vital bit is to plan your route with climate in consideration. It has a much larger impact in Asia than, say, the US. There is less AC, more walking and reliance on public transportation. For instance, I can only walking around for 90 mins at a time in this Myanmar summer heat/humidity... </p>