Statia

I average about 1 to 1.5 rolls per day. We also take our digital, but don't use it as often as the 35 mil.

I still prefer the printed photos from regular film over digital. I guess it's due to the enjoyment I get from putting together and looking at all my travel photo albums. It just seems that it would be a pain to print out hundreds of digital shots from my computer.

Diego13

One roll a day, in average.

wombat7

I found some wonderful photo albums that take one letter sized picture per page. So, after each trip I go through the numerous digital photos that i have taken and pick out the best 100 to print onto letter sized paper. These go into the album.

Doesn't always work - for my last trip (Vienna, Budapest and Bratislava) I used two albums becuase I could not narrow down to 100 for all three places

Ryan

Depends. In Africa, I went through at least 2 a day.

But, now that I purchased a high end digital, film is one less thing to worry about.

strass

I used to take about three rolls a week, but I have a feeling we'll be taking a lot more now that we have a digital camera! I'm definitely less "conservative" with it. I love the fact that we can easily upload all our photos to ofoto.com and get high-quality prints... in color, black and white, or sepia, too. I'm a true convert!

sfowler

I've gone from film to digital -- mostly because my pictures usually end up on the web and digital is faster

Let's see...
18 days in SE Asia -- 900 images [c. 50 per day]
2 weeks in Macedonia/Serbia -- 400 images [c. 29 per day]

sandi

I average about 12-15 rolls of 24 & 36 regardless where I travel. I would have thought I had more for my trips to Africa, but as it turns out I took more photos in Jordan/Egypt and in Provence. In all instances since there are two of us traveling, we manage to get an amazing amount of photos without both of us just clicking away.

As to digital, we're not there yet (can't manipulate those itty bitty tiny buttons with my long fingernails), but I recently figured out how much has been spent for rolls of film and developing for trips taken in the last 10-years. Sorry to say, film has been cheaper and fast. When we added up what a friend had paid for their digital, cost of memory cards/magic sticks, batteries, photo paper, photo ink and the time to do it all on his own - we won with film hands down.

We even get our developed film the day after arriving home - I don't need it any faster then that.

BowenLinda

Now, I feel like a photog-loser.

Last fall, I shot 3 (count 'em, 3) rolls over 17 days in Italy.

For me, snapping photos takes away from the experience of viewing/enjoying, and since I'm lousy at it anyway, I pretty well just take photos (bad!) of travelling companions. I then buy the professionally shot postcards, throw it all into a box, and swear that some day I'll organize it all in an album.

Oh well.

L

wombat7

This topic is a wonderful illustration of the variety that makes travel great. From the "digital converts" to the "digital nonsense" - from the snap-happy to those who find snapping detracts from the experience.

Variety is indeed the spice of life - though we might not agree what spice..perhaps that could be another topic.