When you travel, do you do the things you want to do or the things you think you should do?

Do you see a church, a museum or a ruin as a sight you should do when visiting a destination or are they places you actually want to visit? And do you consider chatting with a taxi driver, tour guide or security guard as an equally engaging and rewarding experience that can reveal as much about the destination as the sight you're visiting? The way we travel and how we experience places is something I find myself continually pondering, especially after reading the comments to my post Vanity Portraits of Today's Young Ego-Trippers, along with the responses to the Travellers vs Tourists debate on Eric's TravelBlogs.com. In her thought-provoking comments to my post, Sandy writes: "The discussions about going into yet another church/museum/ruin that they would never have visited in their own towns was a discussion I recall overhearing 25 years ago. I am also reminded that we aren't very well trained to be tourists. I know that for all of the travel I've done, it took me fifteen years to work out, as you have, that the destination and the moments unique to a site are enriched by engaging with locals in a non-touristy and meaningful way." While I have to admit that after three months of researching books in Italy, I was less inclined to visit "yet another" church than I was at the start of the trip, I normally like to see Italy's churches as art galleries, hiding wonderful masterpieces within, but I'm a fan of art and architecture. I only visit museums I really want to experience; I love contemporary fashion, design and technology museums in particular. And get a kick out of exploring archaeological ruins, especially those that are more than just a pile of rubble or are atmospherically located; I like to imagine how people might have lived, and believe the history of a place reveals so much about its present. But I often wonder why people work their way through the highlights lists in guidebooks, ticking off the must-do attractions if those things don't really interest them. If you love churches, museums and ruins, go for it! But if you don't, then only seek out things that interest you. If you're a sports fan in Milan, skip the Duomo and fashion quarter and see a football match at San Siro Stadium or take a car for a spin around La Monza. If you're a foodie in Dubai, give the malls and desert safari a miss and do a tour of the city's shwarma stands and Indian sweet shops. You like meeting locals? Enrol in morning language classes then spend your afternoons at the local markets, cafes and bars. I've always wanted to write a kind of anti-guidebook, a guide to all the things that are worth experiencing in destinations that are left out of the books. What do you think? Now what kind of traveller are you? When you visit a place do you do the things you think you should do or do you focus on the stuff you want to do?

Pictured? When we were in Alice Springs a few months ago we spent an evening at the speedway - right after we watched a local football match.

Sightseeing: taking time to take in the sights - or not. How do you 'see' the sights when you travel?

When you're visiting an attraction, how long do you spend at a sight? I'm talking about a specific museum exhibit, an individual painting, a natural phenomenon and so on, at scenic attractions, ancient ruins, historic churches, city museums, art galleries and the like. Are you a stroller? That's to say, do you stay in motion, wandering around the place taking in the scenery as a whole, glancing here and there, but all the time you keep moving? Or are you a stop-and-starter? You stop, look, think, perhaps have a read of an interpretive sign on the wall or the description in your guidebook or a pamphlet, take another look, then you start all over again, stop at the next sight, look, think, etc? You get the picture. It's something I find endlessly fascinating. Sometimes I spend more time taking in the way people experience attractions than I do taking in the place myself. I've always wanted to sit with a stopwatch and see what the average length of time is that someone spends in front of a painting. And compare a highlight with a standard sight, say, the Mona Lisa with a painting by an unknown artist. I enjoyed seeing these people, pictured, taking it easy and enjoying the rugged beauty of their surroundings at The Twelve Apostles earlier this week on the Great Ocean Road (in stark contrast to the young tourists I wrote about here). I also found amusement in a family who were taking photographs... the father snapped a pic of the mother and one of the children in front of a rock formation, while the teenage son was looking in awe at the size of the waves. The youngest daughter had obviously had enough, however, and started skipping back up the path to the car. "It's not time to go back yet, Ruby. We're not done here yet," her mother shouted out to her with a bemused smile. Well, Ruby was certainly done. How long does it take you on average to do a sight? And how do you prefer to do it?

Point and shoot: is a spoiled photo opportunity a spoiled vacation?

By Terry Carter*
When we were last in Beijing a few summers ago and were visiting the star sights, including the Great Wall of China, the air was filled with a thick grey-brown smog, making decent photos impossible. But we still had a great time. In Italy recently, it also seemed like every significant sight in every city was covered in scaffolding, again making good photos impossible. It became a running joke between Lara and I that to find the duomo (a town's central cathedral, usually situated in the main square) we just had to look for a crane, scaffolding, or men-at-work signs. When you’ve been commissioned to shoot photographs of these sights it becomes more than a little frustrating. Instead of sending the book editors beautifully framed images of important attractions, we’re going to be sending way too many small detailed shots, to get around the scaffolding. Or sending snapshots from Lara's point-and-shoot camera to show the construction carnage with a suggestion that the editors procure a stock image for the sight if they want a wide-shot. As travellers (rather than travel writers), while we love doing the sights, we’re much more interested in exploring fascinating local neighbourhoods, seeking out bespoke shops and local artisans, and visiting restaurants that serve authentic regional foods and wines. But how does it affect your trip? What if you went to Paris and the Eiffel Tower was covered in scaffolding? Or Big Ben was having its clocks repaired? Or the Leaning Tower of Pisa was being propped up by engineering teams? How much does seeing - and photographing - the key sights matter to your travel experience? Do these things simply spoil your photo opportunity or can they spoil your trip? While holding the Olympics in Beijing during its smoggy summer period didn't seem to bother the International Olympic Committee, would you change your schedule if you knew a city's star attraction was invisible or out of order? We'd love to hear your thoughts.

*Terry is my husband, co-writer and a professional travel photographer.