Any reason to bring a camera?
 

Is it foolish never to bring a camera when travelling? Would my travels be more relaxed and filled with more experiences if I had one? Is it silly to claim that there are so many high-quality cards and prefabricated videos to shop out there that your own never can compete? Or will a vacation behind a camera lens add value to my travels? <BR>B

B, <BR> <BR>For years I carried a ton of camera <BR>equipment on trips. Not any more. I <BR>now tote a Kodak throw-away or two. <BR>They're cheap (at Wal-Mart especially), <BR>and perfectly adequate. <BR> <BR>Gerry K <BR>

Good question. Presume you're not speaking of trips with the kids where most everyone would want a camera. <BR> <BR>For just the two of us traveling, though, given the quality of my photos, I often wonder why I bother. Postcards, slide collections, books sold on street corners ... all provide far better pictures than I can produce. <BR> <BR>Still, there is that odd moment when the neighborhood urchins are splashing in the fountain with the light just so, or that special moment with the rising sun shining splendidly on St. Peter's. <BR> <BR>I think most of us would not really miss a thing if we took no camera at all ... though I still take a decent 35mm with a good zoom and try to have it with me always ... for just "that" moment.

We take a small Elph camera with us - we like to put sort of a collage of each trip on our wall. <BR> <BR>However, we have one rule - the picture's not worth taking unless one of us are in it. I never understand those people who take lots of pictures of the sea or a building, but don't ask their wife to get in the picture. If you're going to do that, you should just buy a postcard.

B, I always take a camera. When we return from our trips, I put the best of the photographs in a photo album in a chronological order. When we go with others, maybe my wife's parents or my brother-in-law for example, I make up identical albums for them, also, as a keepsake. <BR> <BR>I either take our Olympus 35-70mm auto zoom or the OM-B semi auto camera with three lenses, a wide angle 28mm, a 52mm and a 70-210mm lense. I'm not a great photographer by any means, but those albums can be enjoyed over and over again. <BR> <BR>Sometimes I luck out and get a shot worth enlarging. We have one of the (reputed) oldest house in Rothenburg, a Paris flower shop and another of a muralled home in Oberammergau. <BR> <BR>I pack everything in a fairly small bag and just take it with us. I'm so used to it, I almost don't know that I have it. Everyone is different, but I actually enjoy taking those pictures. <BR> <BR>I think that the bigger camera is going with us to Amsterdam in May as I didn't get the shots that I wanted with the little automatic last November in Prague and now regret it. I may never get back...

There is no right or wrong answer to your question. It's really a personal thing. For me, the many photographs I take (and I do take a lot) are an integral part of MY experience. Each time I look at the photographs, even years later, they still bring back vivid memories of a trip. I'm not saying everyone should do it, but for me, it greatly enhances and prolongs the memories of each trip.

When I said I never brought any camera, it is'nt quite true. But the few times I did (way back in silurian ages), I got so upset to shoot all the right things at the right moments. <BR>Became a squarehead, literally, all the time busy with evaluating wether things and everything would fit into my 24 times 36 mm frames in order to bring me nice memories. <BR>Nowadays, without the camera, I fell able to absorb and thus more able to recall and to tell folks at home. <BR>And I never have to let the group wait for me while on sightseeing. <BR>I even happpen to get aquainted with the "locals", and my handwritten postcards, carefully selected and forwarded to my home address give perfect travel descriptions..... <BR>B

I have always believed that "the best pictures are always just the ones in your head". <BR> <BR>Even so, on my last trip, of 7 people, one had a video camera (which he used rather well), and the other five had their own cameras. so I never took a single picture - - I figured - - well, this is "their" trip more than mine, and I'll get doubles of any of theirs that I want. <BR> <BR>And we have never gotten around to it. It's not like I haven't seen them since - - we just keep saying, yeah, we'll sit down and look at pictures together some time. I don't have a single picture from that trip, and I kinda regret it. And since I don't have any to contribute to this swapfest, I will never pester them about it. <BR> <BR>I won't make this mistake again. <BR> <BR>

To let you know where I am coming from -I always take a camera (actually at least two), even on business trips. Even on the business trips, I manage to squeeze out 4-5 rolls during the early morning and early evening hours, when the light is best anyway. As Howard said, it is a very personal decision. Sometimes, I don't take the camera and just enjoy myself. Sometimes, I will admit I can get frustrated if I visit a place at a time when the light just isn't quite right for good photos. That is when I am most likely to buy a postcard. I can provide at least five good reasons to get into the photography part of a trip: (1) a postcard can never capture what was happening at the moment you were there, (2) a postcard will never have you in it, (3) taking photos and looking for photo opportunities helps you see everything in a whole new way - you notice the quality of light and subtleties that you might otherwise overlook, (4) most postcards fail to capture a place the way you see it, and (5) how much fun is it to pass on your postcards to future generations? <BR> <BR>I usually buy several postcards from every place I visit, but now it is mostly either because it was too much trouble to take a photo (e.g., museums or at night when I would rather leave the tripod at the hotel) or just to add to my collection. Most postcards just show the main sights and don't move me the way a non-postcard shot can. Now, a good photo book on the location comes closer to accomplishing that.

On my last trip, I hardly took any pictures. Less than 2 rolls spread out over two weeks. <BR> <BR>Other than pics of the kids, I have imposed a moratorium on more pictures until we organize the pictures we have. They are positively everywhere -- in every drawer, spilling out of cabinets, in boxes. We recently had a basement flood, and I discovered soaked pics I didn't know I had. <BR> <BR>So no pictures of pretty churches in Europe until I get control of the pics that already fill the house.

I agree totally with Howard. On a glum cloudy day I'll pull out an album of a trip to Hawaii or Mexico and see the sunshine. Also often relive our trips to Europe through our albums. I buy postcards for places that don't allow photography, but other than that even though it is sometimes distracting to use a camera I won't give it up for the above-stated reasons. <BR> <BR>I had a similar experience to Rex's, ending up with no photos of a trip and won't risk it again. Many friends end up with boxes of photos and always give me a hard time because I arrange my albums as soon as possible after we return home. <BR> <BR>It is a subjective thing, but I have my film and extra batteries ready for our trip to France next month. <BR> <BR>Joanne

Camera equipment is a drag - but I wouldn't do without my own photographic interpretation of my vacation. I have a great photo of Tuileries - B&W in winter, three trees, bare of leaves. In the foggy distance, the Eiffel Tower is barely visible. I have a wonderful color photo of an elderly couple shopping at a vegetable market in Luxembourg. Some great shots of the bird seed at the Sunday market in Paris, and a delightful one of a friend drinking hot chocolate in Brussells. I enlarge these, frame and hang. Or give them as gifts, although it's difficult now without access to a darkroom. Virtually nothing goes in albums, although I have good intentions, because I can't take a quick tourist-type snapshot worth diddly. If I don't plan on taking these "art" photos, I carry a point and shoot, develop the pictures, throw most away, and wonder why I bothered.

I've traveled both ways. More recently, I tend toward a decent quality 35mm of the compact variety. There are cameras today with which nearly anyone can shoot excellent photos available for well under $200. When I used to do some freelance articles for magazines, I had to bring a little more firepower. Now, it feels too much like a "job" to carry all that stuff around. I gravitate more toward trying for decently composed pictures with good quality rather than trying get something I can sell to an editor. It takes a lot of the pressure off and saves a lot of film. By far my best photos were taken when traveling alone and I could really focus on what I was doing (no pun intended). And no, I do NOT insist on having a member of my traveling party in most pictures. That is simply not what my pictures are about, although that is fine for others who choose that type of character to their photos. Post cards could not provide the same thing for me as pictures that I have taken myself.

<BR>Definitely do not bring a camera, not even a disposable. Just keep a journal and buy postcards- but no more than one per city. On second thought, nix the journal, too much interference with your experience. The postcards will guarantee that the memories of your trip will be identical to everyone else's. You most certainly don't want low-quality personal photographs interfering with your "experience." Nor do you need to "prove" to anyone that you were in Europe. <BR> <BR>In fact, don't even take a suitcase, just the clothes on your back and an ATM card, as this will maximize the relaxed nature of your experience. If you really want to be relaxed, don't read any guide books or make any plans whatsoever prior to your departure. Just wing it like the Europeans (never mind that they come loaded with film and guidebooks when the visit the US - don't let that distract you). The only thing that you need to decide is which airport. Nothing else matters. <BR> <BR>Twenty years from now, you will be thrilled that you didn't take a camera.

I often see a view which I would like to capture, not generally something available on postcard, but I am often disappointed with the photograph. So recently I have taken up painting. I do not feel I want to waste holiday time painting on the spot, so I take the photo - it only needs to be a quick snap - and "improve" on it at home. It has become a very rewarding pastime - I can re-live my holidays for hours on end. I'm working my way through our Mexico holiday at the moment

To: Dan Woodlief <BR>Thank you for putting into words, so much better than I did earlier in this thread, how I feel as a photographer while traveling and what the taking of photographs and their later viewing means. <BR>TO: Jim Rosenberg <BR>Thanks to you, too, for also conveying the "why" of photography while traveling....and also for pointing out that you don't need expensive equipment to take good pictures--a $200-$250 camera with a zoom lens and a somewhat creative mind can do the job! <BR>To: Cindy <BR>The obvious secret is to put the pictures in an album right away, while the memories are fresh, and avoid amassing a big pile!

To me, not taking a camera would be sacrilegious. Travel is definitely an obsession for me, and I relive my trip through my photos after I return by arranging them in a nice photo album. On my last five-day trip to London, I used about two rolls of film a day. <BR> I don't haul a tripod or a huge camera with me to Europe, just my regular point and shoot camera. I think my camera is an Olympus Stylus. It's small and the photos are of very good quality. <BR> If I'm in a nice setting, I will take a photo with me or my travel companion(s) in the photo. But not all the time. Someone earlier said that they have a rule about always having someone in their photos. This is where people differ in their tastes. I really love photos of European buildings, streets, etc. These photos give me the atmosphere of Europe. I love architecture, so I love looking at photos of buildings. I also take photos in museums (if it's allowed, usually without flash), of art that is beautiful--just to remember it and to remember what pieces I really enjoyed seeing in the museum. I think it would be really strange to see a beautiful, heart-wrenching sculpture, like Michelangelo's Slave in The Louvre and get in the photo with it. I know I was there, that's not the reason I take photos. It's more to recapture the feelings I had when first seeing this object which brought me to want to take it with me through a photograph. <BR> I'm not a big shopper, so photographs are my souvenirs.

Photo taking should enhance the trip, not detract from it. If you spend your entire trip looking at the world through the view finder, you need to rethink. If you depend upon purchased postcards and videos to relive your trip, you need to rethink. I have two beautiful books of the interior of Versailles; I also have a photo I took of two workmen, in those ubiquitous denim jackets and caps, repairing some of the detail around an interior window. I wouldn't have missed that photo op for the world. <BR> <BR>On our last trip, a new member joined us. She's a professional photographer...and brought a point and shoot digital camera. We watched her work - her talent was recognizing a photo op, not necessarily the best angle, not walking around with the camera up to her face.

You are so right, Elvira. The key is not to see the world through the lens, but to see the world as a photographer sees it (or a painter). Until I took up photography seriously, I never completely noticed the play of shadows, the golden light of a clear morning, the beauty of fog, the patterns and shapes that are all around us. I have learned to recognize when to pull the camera out to take a photo, and for a photographer there is something magical, almost sensual, about the moment that perfect shot comes into focus in the viewfinder and you hear the click of your shutter, knowing that you captured that moment forever.

As many others here have said, a camera is worth taking, even if it's small or you use disposables. I used to lug an old, heavy, manual 35mm with me, with different lenses and filters, etc. Back problems have proscribed that now, so I use a little Olympus Stylus that fits in my jacket's breast pocket and never gets in my way. I don't get the more personalized photos I used to, as there's only so much you can do with an automatic camera, but I've gotten some nice results, and the freedom of a little camera is terrific. Postcards make good supplements in a photo album later; but I've never seen a postcard of a holy well in Ireland or little boys chasing peacocks in a park in Cascais, or many other people/places sights that have struck me--and surely there are no postcards of my boyfriend beaming over his java on the terrace of Samaritaine with the Eiffel Tower in the distance. The key is, as elvira said, don't set your vacation behind a camera lens. You're not apt to capture an experience with tons of photos anyways ... often the telling detail says far more or simply a "perceptual moment," perhaps something fleeting captured on film. So I suggest bring a camera, but don't obsess. <BR> <BR>Ann: Great idea!