mari5, that is interesting that your disposal camera took good photos. I have wondered about that and have heard pro and cons both ways. Thanks for sharing your experience.

I know this is strange, but I like to take pictures of food. I have snapshots of restaurant meals, street vendors selling crepes and sausage sandwiches, street markets with fruits and vegetables, etc. I also like to take pictures of locals going about their daily routines (tram drivers, commuters, kids with their booksacks, the guy behind the hotel reception desk). All of the famous tourist sights, palaces, cathedrals, etc I either buy picture books, postcards or I download professionally-done images from the internet.
But the thing I enjoy the most are my tape and digital recordings of ambient sounds (church bells, clanking trams, street sounds, the little chimes they use when announcing arrivals and departures at the train stations).
If only I could digitize the smells.
Well, one day.

Platzman, it doesn't sound strange to me at all. Actually some of the favorite photos I have taken has been of food!! One of my favorite photos is a a seaside cafe in Sardegna. Ordered shrimp. Head and all was included of course. Dishes, along with grilled peppers etc. put on the table along with a bottle of wine. Seaside and water in the background. Spectacular photo!

What an interesting question! My first reaction was to say that yes, of course we always take our camera, but then I thought about it and realized that it's only the European trips that we bring it for. Other places that we'll be likely to get back to more often, well, sometimes it's a yes, other times not.

Some places also seem to 'require' a camera because they're so scenic or interesting! Charleston SC and Paris come to mind for lots of picture-taking. I can hardly keep the camera in its case. Thank goodness we've switched to digital and I don't have to worry about carrying canisters of film.

Giselle, if you haven't bought a camera in recent years, you should really take a look. They're not the least bit cumbersome anymore. They've gone teeny-weeny! And even the point and shoot varieties have really wonderful clarity. We've tossed most of our old cameras since the new ones are so advanced.

Platzman, food can be really beautiful. I don't you're nuts to take pictures of it! The only time we were without our camera in France was the night we had our best dinner. The food looked gorgeous on the plate! I really wished we had gotten a photo.

dln, yes, I have a small digital camera and enjoy it.

It's not something I'm going to worry about. I just think it's funny that on that most memorable of memorable trips I didn't have a camera; that I didn't miss any subsequent pictures one bit after over 20 years; also that I can remember the trip so clearly.

Now I'm wondering if there are any black and white disposables? :lol

My finest camera is being repaired.
My backup camera goes everywhere I go.
I have an upgrade camera in my sights for Q1, 2005.
Camera-less? No.

My suggestion would be to buy a digital..they are virtually weightless, easy to use, have a large capacity, and fit easily into a shirt pocket.

Platzman: I second the idea of taking pictures of food,street markets etc AND people going about their daily lives. (though sometimes one has to be discreet about it). And the recordings of sounds would be great.
You seem to be a VERY good and interetsing TRAVELER, as opposed to "tourist".

Giselle: In regard to your original question, I guess it's certainly not necessary to ever take a camera if one doesn't want to....It's up to you. We usually look at our pictures once or twice, and just occasionally get them in an album. We show a few to interested friends and family...and that is it. I personally enjoy seeing other people's travel pictures,,,but truly not everyone does.
If you feel comfortable about not taking pictures, then I wouldn't bother. And that is OK!

Giselle, I haven't quite made it but personally do think it is an admirable goal (going camera-less)!

I use disposable cameras & take 1 or 2 for a two/three week trip. I have done this for YEARS and get great results (for those wondering above). I supplement this by buying a few postcards.

Because I am fortunate to spend much time in Europe visiting friends and am adopted into their daily lives, it feels strange to pull out your camera and start snapping away at a nice dinner party or while shopping at the farmers market (for example).

my goal when traveling is to try to blend in and enjoy the culture...the sites are almost secondary for me. for my last trip i bought and digi elph...best purchase. get a canon specific bag and it's unnoticable when put around your belt.

but as for you question, i'd prefer not to take one...and sometimes i haven't. plus i really don't look at the photos myself anyway. i think its for others to look at. like you said i have an image stored in my brain forever...and that's what i look at. there's more to it that a photo can't capture...the feeling, sensation, mood...i can find the photo online taken by a pro anyway.

I might as well walk around nude as to go without a camera. Being an avid photographer, it is too much of the experience for me. Actually, I notice a lot of things even more because of having a camera, and taking the photos is just as much fun as looking at them later. However, I do like to have lots of time when I am not thinking about taking pictures, especially in the evening. A good blend works best for me.

Giselle- good question. There are points in my trip where I just stop clicking, nothing to do with etiquette, as in a cathedral during services, and just try to enjoy taking everything in, and imprinting what I am seeing in my mind. So that this year when I rounded the corner at the Pantheon, I remembered standing at the exact spot a year before, without camera, and what I remembered was the feeling.

I find that memory does need to be prodded. So, I would probably bring a camera. One benefit is that on my return home, just as I am still thinking a little in another language, I also tend to "see photos" all around me, changes my perspective a little for the first few days back.

Also-if there is someone at home, a friend or family member that you would like to share your trip with..

Do you find it makes a difference if you are on your own, or if you are with someone? If I'm traveling by myself, I do find it just a bit of a nuisance to juggle water, guidebook, snack, bag, and camera and get my camera into position. If there are two people traveling together, there's way less juggling involved.

It's been fun to read people's take on travel with cameras.

Scarlett, people at home have either been there or are going or I don't want them to know I'm going! (hee-hee) AND I'll go again. ALso, good remimder that one can always buy a paper camera when there.

If you're a professional, like Dan, or also adore photography this subject is meaningless.

The trip I went without the camera was special. It was a month long trip. I really do remember it without any pictures to jog my memory. I loved just living it, not documenting it. But perhaps that was a special case.

Yes, I have a small digital camera. Recently, what turned me off was when I was in Mexico at a public market and snapped a colorful stall. The proprietor sneered at me. I don't blame him. Like I was saying his business was "cutsey". It made me think even taking pictures at all had a philosophy about it.

I don't think I read anyone who said they hadn't taken a camera with them. Anyone?

Thanks for the cyberspace to discuss this, especially with none getting nasty about a subject near and dear to we traveler's heart's.

Well, since I carry a camera with me at all times, you can guess my response. One never knows when that magic moment or sky or sunset is going to happen. I cannot imagine traveling without one. I take even more now that I have a digital and don't have to worry about the cost of printing until I have the final product to view. I always mean to write a journal but never get to it, so my photos serve that purpose.