I used to travel with a tripod and a large camera bag. The bag could store my EOS 650, three lenses, my Olympus OM-G with its 28-80 zoom (as a backup camera), a micro cassette recorder, a set of warming filters in two different sizes, and a partridge in a pear tree. On a solo trip I felt like I was married to it. The bag was constantly with me, and it filled the empty chair when I ate dinner alone. The micro cassette recorder let me log each picture I took, with description and complete technical details. Transcribing the recordings gave me something to do between dinner and bedtime.

Increasingly tyrannical airline restrictions on carry-on baggage forced me to reconsider my travel companions. 400-speed negative film made the tripod mostly unnecessary. Joining the tripod on the shelf at home is the 50mm f/1.8 that I originally got with the EOS 650. I keep it around for those few times when I know I’ll need it for available light.

While the micro cassette machine and logs were somewhat helpful for keeping track of where I had taken pictures, I found I had no use for all the technical information. It was easier to forgo the recorder and just keep a concise record of where I had been and what rolls of film I had exposed that day.

I bought a small Tamrac “Explorer 2” bag in 2000, for my trip to Provence. About the size of a handbag (I sometimes call it my “man purse”), it can be carried with a shoulder strap, with a handle on the top of the bag, or with a belt that goes around the waist. It held my Elan II (with the 28-105 lens attached), the 22-55 lens, and either the Minolta Freedom Zoom Explorer or the 70-210 zoom. There’s also room for spare batteries, lens tissue, and a circular polarizer (all my lenses took 58mm filters). I ditched the warming filters because I can easily adjust the color balance of any image after I’ve scanned it.

The “man purse” works just as well for digital (and fits nicely under an airplane seat as a “personal item”). I currently use two lenses, a Canon 28-135IS and a Tokina 12-24. The Digital Rebel XT fits in the top of the bag with one lens attached and pointing down into the center compartment. The other compartments hold the other lens and the SmartDisk FlashTrax hard drive. Unfortunately, the center compartment isn’t wide enough for an attached lens hood, so I have to remove it and store it with the other lens. The front pocket has plenty of room for a spare battery pack, an extra memory card, lens cleaning supplies, and two polarizers. There isn’t room for the chargers for the camera battery and the Flashtrax, so those indispensable items go in my carry-on bag.

The x-ray scanners for carry-on bags generally won’t harm film. But never put film in a checked bag, since damaging film seems to be the only thing those million-dollar baggage scanning machines can do reliably! A carry-on bag scanner actually subjects film to less radiation than it gets from natural cosmic rays during a flight. But since repeated “safe” x-ray scans (and flights) can cause cumulative damage, it’s best to avoid any unnecessary risk.

A federal regulation at 49 CFR 1544.211(e)(4) (you might have to search for it if that link has changed) gives passengers at American airports the right to a hand inspection of their film. It also requires the placement of a sign near the x-ray machine informing passengers of that right. Amazingly, this regulation remains in force even with “Enhanced Security.” But screeners sometimes ignore or deny it. That might be entirely justified when a crowd of passengers are waiting at a checkpoint. But sometimes, even if there’s no queue and you arrive early, they just don’t feel like being inconvenienced with extra work.

Some photographers carry a copy of the regulation to show recalcitrant screeners. But I think that’s the wrong approach. When screeners have the power to bar you from your flight, select you for “secondary screening,” fine you, or even have you arrested or detained, it means that the rules (and your rights) are exactly what your particular screener decides they are at that particular moment. Arguing about the regulations, or insisting that the screeners on your last three flights hand-inspected your film, is likely to be futile.

What might work is, first, to arrive extra early. Then ask the screener very politely if he or she wouldn’t mind possibly doing you a favor by hand-inspecting your film. Emphasize that you’ve got plenty of time and are willing to wait until it’s most convenient for him or her. Asking nicely for a favor (in full recognition of and deference to the screener’s absolute and unchallenged authority) rather than asserting a “right” may increase the likelihood that he or she may deign to grant your request. If the screener says no, resign yourself to having lost your one chance. Apologize profusely for having bothered the screener, smile graciously, and immediately surrender your film to the x-ray. The film will almost certainly survive unscathed, and you’ll have avoided unnecessary trouble.

Again, you’ll have the easiest time if you cheerfully submit your film for x-ray scanning and don’t give it another thought. If you’re going to a foreign country, that will be your only option on your return flight; most other countries don’t allow hand inspection. But if you can’t avoid worrying about the very small risk of x-ray damage (especially if your itinerary involves multiple flights), you can easily avoid the risk. Buy film at your destination, and have it processed there. X-rays can’t harm processed film. Or else regard airport “security” as your excuse to switch to a digital camera, since x-rays can’t damage memory cards or computers.

Whatever you do, keep a careful eye on your camera bag during the screening process. Distraction is inevitable while you’re taking off and putting on your shoes, and when the screeners inspect your clear plastic bag of toiletries, pat you down, or inflict the latest indignity they’ve added in reaction to yesterday’s threat. The TSA’s definition of “security” extends only to the threat of terrorism. When it comes to the far more common threat of thievery, you’re on your own.

Some professional photographers avoid airport worries entirely by shipping all their equipment to and from their destinations with an air freight carrier. They often have no other choice, since strictly-enforced limits on carry-on baggage mean that valuable equipment would otherwise go in unlocked checked bags. Even if you don’t have a lot of costly equipment, the peace of mind might make this option worth the significant cost.

I wrote this commentary in response to a post in Arthur Frommer’s blog. I suggest reading it first. Arthur Frommer achieved fame and fortune with Europe on $5 a Day, a guidebook that convinced millions of Americans that they could afford to visit Europe. His blog normally offers cogent commentary and sensible suggestions for travelers interested in value for money.

Until very recently, a hometown vacation was unfairly relegated to people who could afford nothing “better.” Or it was piously prescribed as a penance for those who must “give up travel” so they can get out of debt, save for a down payment on a house, or learn “financial responsibility.” But in 2008, the deteriorating value of the dollar made international travel too expensive for many Americans who had regularly enjoyed it. The costs of both airfare and driving skyrocketed with the price of oil, making any long-distance trip unaffordable for many. So vacationing close to home officially became a “trend,” which remains trendy as the Great Recession and its “jobless recovery” continue into 2009 and beyond. It even got a trendy (and execrable) new name, the staycation.

As with anything trendy, a lot of ink and bytes have been devoted to expounding on the “staycation.” Opinionated pundits range from respected travel writers like Arthur Frommer who needlessly denigrate it, to bloggers who take this “trend” to ridiculous lengths. And plenty of retailers are eagerly (or perhaps desperately) cashing in on it. It’s likely that both the “trend” and (one can only hope) the ditzy name will fade away. But the concept of a low-cost, low-hassle vacation that doesn’t require flying or traveling long distances is a very sound and sensible one in this Brave New World of economic meltdown, metastable oil supplies, and global warming. Shorn of its former stigma and current faddishness, it deserves an honorable place among vacation choices for all budgets.

The main problem with the term “staycation” is that it’s so fuzzy and imprecise. It can refer to at least three distinctly different concepts.

Home is Where the Heart (and the Vacation) Is

The most restrictive kind of “staycation” is the vacation at home, where “vacationers” leave their house or apartment only for necessities, which may include trips to the local fast food joint or movie theatre. Families can spend quality time around the pool (if they have one), camping out in the back yard (if they have one), or perhaps watching videos. Couples can enjoy some romantic time together, and singles can catch up on reading or deferred projects.

“Cocooning” (to use another trendy synonym) can provide the cheapest sort of vacation. It also avoids all the hassles associated with travel. For those reasons, it has its devoted adherents. Many people in high-pressure jobs who lack the time or inclination to plan a “real vacation” welcome it (or at least accept it) as a necessary respite to prevent burnout.

Because it lacks the most important aspects of a vacation— in particular, getting away from home— many people find a vacation at home less than satisfactory. But it does have its place. After several years of trips to Hawaii and Death Valley during the Christmas-New Year week, I decided that travel during The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year is best left to the hordes who clog the airports and roads, paying premium prices to either join or escape their families. So I now look forward to ending the year at home, reading books and watching video movies I haven’t had time for. “Stay home for the holidays” is what I unhesitatingly recommend for anyone who has this time off from work.

If you are planning a vacation at home, check with local officials about any scheduled construction work near your home. I once took a week off from work, intending to spend some relaxing time at home. But I was unaware that a sewer renovation on my street would begin that week, until the jackhammers started tearing up the pavement under my bedroom window at 7 AM on Monday morning. When I called City Hall (from a payphone around the corner), the official told me that I wasn’t the first to call about it. The contractor had apparently neglected to send required notices to area residents. So my week off ended up entirely different from anything I had planned.

A Real Vacation In Your Home Town

A “staycation” most often means a vacation spent exploring your home town or a nearby major city. This is what Arthur Frommer disparages as a “shameful second-rate substitute for travel.” He is entitled to his opinion, but to me this statement sounds ignorant and arrogant. An international trip charged to a credit card at 30% APR and paid off over decades can be “boring, enervating, [and] vapid.” Conversely, an inexpensive local vacation can be an exciting, fulfilling adventure that creates memories to cherish for a lifetime. Despite what airlines and chambers of commerce desperately want us to believe, the enjoyment of a great vacation does not necessarily correlate with distance and expense!

The secret of a great “staycation” is to prepare and plan— and eagerly anticipate!— a local adventure just you’d plan an exotic foreign trip. Buy some guidebooks (or check them out from the library), identify interesting places and attractions, and develop a detailed itinerary. You’ll very likely end up with a list of places you’ve never visited, possibly including famous tourist attractions. Think of those clichéd stories of native New Yorkers who have never visited the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building. And you could discover an equally long list of places you had never heard of before.

Again, planning and research are the key. Knowledge is power— specifically, the power to transform a “staycation” from merely “moping around the towns in which we live” into a genuinely exciting vacation! For that matter, research and preparation can help you get the most enjoyment from wherever you visit.

Also, consider taking a sightseeing bus tour, and then go back those places you found most interesting. Visit the local zoo, museum, or theatre you’ve overlooked. Go to a farmer’s market. Perhaps spend a little time wandering around the park you pass every morning on the way to work. In other words, do exactly what you’d do on any other vacation.

Still, the town in which you live is an unavoidable consideration. If you live in or near a popular travel destination (e.g., New York, Chicago, or San Francisco), you’ll have an easy time planning an exciting “staycation.” It will probably be a matter of winnowing an impossibly lengthy list of choices down to what you can reasonably do in the allotted time. You can save the rest of the list for future “staycations.”

If your home town or region isn’t known for its vacation appeal (e.g., Topeka, Des Moines, or Fargo), finding interesting things to see and do will require more effort and creativity. But remember, that’s actually fun! Although you can almost always find something interesting to do wherever you are, if you look for it, I’m not denying that there surely must be places where any possible “staycation” will indeed be “boring, enervating, [and] vapid.” I don’t have any solution to that problem. (And I don’t mean to pick on Kansans, Iowans, and North Dakotans. I went to a bookstore, thumbed through a couple of “USA” guidebooks, and chose some places that were sparsely discussed. That could merely reflect the publishers’ ignorance, and those cities may be great places to visit. Some day, when I’m able to take that three-month cross-country solo road trip I’ve always dreamed about, I’ll find out for myself.)

If money is of paramount concern, taking a series of well-researched day trips from home can provide an interesting low-cost vacation. You’ll also avoid the hassles of packing and unpacking, and end each day in your own bed dreaming of the next day’s adventures. But unless your budget truly requires it, a vacation with home as a base may be false economy. The familiar environment, the daily “commute,” and the quotidian distractions of chores, routines, mail, and phone calls can all significantly diminish the experience of “being on vacation.” Telling people at work that you’re on vacation and can’t be reached, unplugging the phone and the computer, and requesting a “vacation hold” of your mail at the post office can be helpful enhancements to a home-based itinerary.

I took a two-week “staycation” in October 2007— nearly a year before the “staycation” officially became a “trend”!— driving from home to various destinations in the Los Angeles area. I visited places I had never been, or hadn’t visited in decades, despite living in Southern California my entire life. I discovered several places I had never heard of before. And I found photographic opportunities that were genuinely as satisfying and exciting as anything I’ve seen anywhere. This was definitely the cheapest vacation I’ve ever had. It cost me only the expense of driving my own car several hundred miles, parking (most of which was free), some nominal admission fees, and a few lunches.

Despite all the interesting discoveries, the daily commute to and from home on the nation’s most congested roads made this “vacation” more stressful than enjoyable. I spent too much of it in my car, going nowhere. I chose to commute from home not specifically to save money, but simply because there would have been little advantage to staying somewhere else. Southern California’s numerous attractions are scattered in all directions over a huge area, so there’s no convenient “central” place to stay. And there’s no real alternative to driving.

Based on what I learned in 2007, I’ll plan and research shorter “staycations” to explore individual small sections of Southern California’s giant crazy quilt. And I’ll stay in conveniently-located accommodations so I can enjoy it without the daily commute. That might be a good approach for a “staycation” in any large city, if your budget permits it.

Expanding Circles

If budget constraints don’t require commuting from home, a “staycation” can be an opportunity to stay at a local hotel, and to try some local restaurants. Even if it’s close to home, a hotel might provide better access to public transportation, or a location that lets you spend your time at the places you want to visit rather than in a car or bus. You’re also getting away from home, an important aspect of a vacation that’s inherently lacking when you’re commuting. You could also use some of what you’ve saved on airfare and car rental to buy better accommodations, meals, or shopping.

Staying in a hotel— or in a vacation rental, condo, campground, or anywhere other than home— opens up the most expansive definition of “staycation.” That means a trip not necessarily in your home town, but within two or three hours from home by car, train, or bus. That’s too far to commute from home, so the trip provides a true “travel” experience. But it’s close enough not to require flying. This definition can accommodate a variety of regional trips. For example, from Los Angeles it could include San Diego and Santa Barbara, great destinations that also happen to be the only places to which Amtrak offers reasonably usable service.

Though purists would balk at calling this sort of trip a “staycation”— and yes, there are “staycation” purists— it’s clearly within the more inclusive definition some writers use. But families, couples, and even single people were enjoying “staycations” in cities, parks, resorts, and campgrounds close to home long before Satan spawned the originator of that pernicious portmanteau. This is possibly the most popular type of vacation for Americans. It’s the most practical choice for the long weekends (or even short weekends) that are too often the only option for American workers with meager vacation time. Plan to linger longer— and possibly take advantage of “mid-week” hotel rates that can be much lower than on weekends— anticipate and enhance it with research, and you’ve got yourself a vacation that by any standard is the Real Thing. But that needn’t stop you from applying the “staycation” label if you insist on being trendy.

Expert Advice, To Heed and To Ignore

Once you’ve decided on any form of “staycation,” do yourself a favor. Ignore the pundits and “experts” who claim to have a Definitive Standard of What a Vacation Must Be. Their “Definitive Standard” is almost always based on promoting a specific agenda. They want you to be miserable if you don’t buy what they’re selling!

I’ll certainly agree with Arthur Frommer about the merits of international travel. I’m appropriately grateful to have enjoyed the “extraordinary privilege” of doing some of that, back when cheap oil and a strong dollar made it easily accessible. But that era seems to be over. The pervasive and persistent fallout from the mortgage greeding frenzy has made any kind of long-distance vacation inconceivable for too many Americans. A “staycation” allows even people enduring economic hardship to enjoy a break without breaking their finances.

Increasing numbers of people who aren’t necessarily suffering economically are so disgusted with the ordeal air travel has become that they refuse to subject themselves to it. Unfortunately, visiting another part of this big country without flying could involve quite a bit of time in a car, train, or bus. If you don’t have the time or patience for that, a well-planned “staycation” offers a way to enjoy a good vacation without the needless stress, discomfort, and dubious “security” hassles that go with flying.

That said, if the Legendary Chicken Fairy offered to give us whatever vacation we wanted, I doubt very many of us would choose a “staycation.” (Possible exceptions are people who travel for a living, or those who recently moved to a new city and might relish a chance to explore it before the novelty wears off.) Mr. Frommer does make the valid point that someone who has experienced international travel could well scorn a “staycation” as a “second-rate substitute,” since it can’t provide the experience of a different culture. There’s unfortunately no way around that reality, especially if you choose to focus on it.

And let’s face it, when you forgo your “dream vacation” in favor of a more practical or affordable “staycation,” some disappointment or resentment is almost unavoidable. But the simple, inexpensive, and fun strategy of preparing for your “staycation” exactly as you’d research and anticipate a foreign trip can mitigate both difficulties, though it might not completely eliminate them.

Another mitigation strategy is to plan your “staycation” around sharing the experience with family, friends, or a significant other. That’s often what makes any vacation special and memorable, irrespective of where you go. This is obviously impractical if you vacation solo. But if you usually end up going alone because you can’t find a compatible companion who has the time, money, and interest, consider inviting a friend to join you in discovering places you’ve overlooked in your home town. You might actually have an easier time finding a compatible companion for a low-key, low-cost, local adventure than for one that involves a significant financial commitment.

If that doesn’t work, a solo “staycation” can become a self-improvement project. For example, dining alone is the bête noire of many solo travelers, even for some who delight in everything else about going alone. Slay that beast (or least muzzle it) by treating yourself to dinners at some local restaurants during your “staycation.” And if you have always wanted to take a solo trip but are hesitant to do it, a “staycation” by yourself is a simple, practical, and inexpensive first step toward overcoming your apprehension.

The one worthwhile thing about the “staycation” as a trendy fad is that you can feel good about telling your friends and co-workers about your exciting plans for a local vacation. They’re likely to be doing the same thing! But “country-collectors,” and others whose main motivation for travel is bragging about exotic destinations to envious associates, deserve no salty tears if economic concerns “reduce” them to taking “staycations” that provide no bragging rights.

Avoid the Fake-Cation

The other advice to ignore comes from advocates of what can only be called a fake-cation. Can’t afford that Caribbean cruise? String up a hammock in the backyard, play some reggae on the boom box, drink some rum, and you’re in Jamaica, mon! Is a romantic anniversary trip to Paris beyond your budget? Cook some French toast, rent some French movies, sip some wine, et voilà! And then there’s the virtual vacation conducted entirely on the Internet, which I fear may eventually surpass the “staycation” as an inane “trend.” If you genuinely enjoy playing “let’s pretend,” I certainly wouldn’t want to spoil your fun. But that kind of fake-cation— including the infamous “family camping trip” in a backyard tent— can become “boring, enervating, [and] vapid” very quickly.

Conversely, if you enjoy cooking you might have a great “staycation” devoted to experimenting with the cuisines of some foreign destinations you dream of visiting. That’s not a “fake-cation” at all, since you’re enjoying the very real activities of cooking and eating. You can resume the daily grind of counting calories when the vacation is over.

Also, if you live in a big city with interesting ethnic enclaves, you might be able to hop on a bus and experience a reasonable facsimile of Taipei or Tegucigalpa. But otherwise, trying to make your home or your home town into something it’s not only invites disappointment. You’ll have a better time if you enjoy your local destination strictly on its own terms, without false pretenses. Once again, the key is to research and plan your local trip just as if it were on another continent.

Finally, I’m not suggesting that you should take only “staycations,” on some lofty principle. I’m merely suggesting that the “staycation” should be valued rather than denigrated, as a useful travel option that can sometimes be the right vacation choice. And of course, enjoying inexpensive “staycations” can help you save up for that international trip you really want to take.