Yesterday I emptied the chest freezer in the garage, to check whether there is any 35mm film at the bottom of it; I thought there might be and turns out I was right about that. Thing is, I find myself in a bit of a bind just now. I have a mountain trip coming up later this spring, and can’t decide on what camera to take!

My first pick for something like this would be what has become my point-and-shoot camera of choice in recent years, a Rolleiflex: it is built like a tank, the optics are excellent, with some decent ISO400 film I can forego a tripod even with an orange filter on, and, most importantly of all, the 6x6 negative is big enough to print to my satisfaction. Yes, definitely the Rolleiflex …

Except, I forgot to mention that the trip in question is a ski touring trip, and the TLR form factor is somewhat awkward for that. I have a way to carry a camera in a bag on my chest, which is very handy, but the TLR is just a bit too big for that. I can see it getting in the way both skinning and skiing and so can foresee the camera ending up in the bag. And a camera in the bag is no good to me on this trip.

So I have, very reluctantly, decided to dust off my grandad’s Leica III; it’s a camera I have not used for a while. Not because it’s a bad camera; in spite of being 90 years old, it’s an excellent camera with lovely optics. But 35mm is just not my thing: the negatives are too small to print the way I like to print, and I don’t like the 3:2 image ratio. But thanks to the folding lens it will fit into a small pouch on the waist belt.

And so I have, reluctantly, concluded that on this particular trip it might indeed be the biggest camera I can carry.

(The biggest camera I can carry adage is, IIRC, one of Adams’. I have observed that when it is quoted it is often assumed it was meant as a joke, but any large format photographer forced to contemplate the use of a 35mm camera will understand there is nothing remotely funny about it; Adams might have been a joker, but this is him at his most serious.)

Thing is, by now I have been at this point of the argument several times. The next stop is, ‘why not take both cameras?’ Why not indeed? (Mostly because if I am are struggling to make a good use of one camera, I’ll certainly not make good use of two.) Then comes, ‘MTFU, take the TLR’.

There is, of course, and additional fly in the ointment — the CT scanners now in wide use at airports ruin film; unlike the old X-ray machines, they are so bad that even a single pass causes visible damage (see Linna Bessonova’s report on this). And, unfortunately, I have witnessed the staff at EDI refusing to hand check film the last time I flew through, and that’s just the first of the four checks the film will have to go through. Leaving aside the ruined photographs, a week’s supply of 120 film is quite a substantial expense, and it’s probably this factor that will swing the argument in the end. But I still have a couple of rounds in me, I expect.

I feel, I should also address the elephant in the room: some might wonder why just not take a digital camera instead … well, I am: I will, of course, travel with my phone, and that’s all the digital camera I ever need these days. Film is a means to an end, and the end is a silver gelatine print. And I suspect this trip has a potential to produce a decent print, given half a chance.