"Analog photography" is a bit of a hollow term (just like "digital photography") - it's all exactly the same. In my view, the only difference is the storage medium. There are pros and cons to both, but it's such a personal choice that it's pointless to argue one over the other. In that respect, film is simply perfect for what I want to do with it. It's about feeling, and that's the heart of photography. That feeling is hard to explain, except that it feels better for me, and the visual result aligns more closely with my idea and vision of what I want to achieve with a photo.
Why photography
I've always been fascinated by images, drawing, nature, and discovery – incredibly curious and a visual thinker. I literally think in pictures. It helps me understand things; from everyday objects to the complex molecules and reactions at work, I "see" things happening. And this happens automatically, strangely enough, I don't even think about it. And I'm fascinated by images themselves; as a child, I drew a lot and loved it, and eventually this turned into a love of photography.
During my professional training, my interest in photography grew. When I did my graduation internship in 2004, my father's camera went with me to Switzerland, and from then on it was basically decided. I bought my first camera in 2006, one of the first-generation digital SLRs. And from there, it steadily grew into a hobby that I invested a lot of time in and found a lot of satisfaction in.
In 2011, it really started to get serious. I dared to take the step to buy my first "professional" lens for a considerable amount of savings. Shortly after, something unforeseen happened that completely changed my life, and turned it upside down like a stable ship on a calm sea – my father passed away. The following years were incredibly difficult, and shaped and changed me in many ways. My perception of the world, the way I saw the world around me, and the choices I made, right down to the way I functioned emotionally, and ultimately even on an existential level. By taking refuge in nature and photography, I was able to keep my head above water. It was a calm and peaceful refuge for me, where I could express myself and find peace to let everything in my head settle.
From 2015, I slowly started to switch to an analog/digital (hybrid) way of photographing – capturing images on film, and scanning the negatives for editing. Nowadays, I don't shoot with a digital camera much anymore. Not only are they expensive to maintain, but it also doesn't do anything for me anymore. Technically, the digital camera may be superior in terms of the image quality it delivers, but for me, the look of a fully digital image often feels too tight and almost "sterile".
That's why I currently hardly ever use a digital camera, it's usually just for convenience. In addition, I can only say that there's nothing like the feeling of putting a new roll of film in your camera, taking a picture, the excitement of waiting, and finally pulling a well-developed film roll out of my developing tank. Medium format film in particular gives me a lot of satisfaction. The other advantage of shooting on film is that it's "slower"; I've become more selective in taking a picture, because I have to do it with a limited number of shots on a roll. As a result, I'm much more present in my surroundings and the "here and now", instead of constantly seeing the world through a camera.
The connection I have with photography runs deep and has become very important to me. It's a part of my life and my thinking, and I honestly couldn't live without it. As I go through new or challenging situations and periods, I find my balance – I can't always practice or apply it as I might envision, but it always finds a way to be a part of me again, albeit in an adapted or evolved form. It grows with me.
My process
Working with film emulsions and older cameras is a breath of fresh air for me when I compare it to a digital capture. They offer a more natural and organic feel, and my chemistry background makes me feel incredibly comfortable developing film myself. A good film scanner is a valuable investment to get the most out of my negatives—I like to have full control over the process. The cost of film? It's actually quite reasonable. Maintaining a digital system is more expensive in the long run. However, it is noteworthy to tell I primarily use black and white film.
I frequently use Ilford films (FP4+, HP5, PanF, Delta, and Kentmere) with developers like Rodinal or Kodak HC-110. Occasionally, I'll use Kodak Tri-X, and I've recently been experimenting with Rollei film and infrared film (Ilford SFX and Rollei IR). Rodinal is a fantastic developer for experimenting with different formulas and development times. You can give a film a different look by adjusting development, often achieving exactly the feel I'm looking for. Kodak HC-110 is great for its effect on contrast, tone, and grain, producing a slightly sharper and more even image. Both developers are wonderful to work with. The choice of film and developer is never a given—do I want a dreamy or harsh look, soft or hard, do I want to emphasize the grain, or should I push or pull the film to play with contrast?
My camera choice depends on the subject, occasion, and my mood. For 35mm, I use Nikon cameras as I started with Nikon digitally. Most of the lenses I've "collected" are interchangeable, giving me flexibility. For medium format, I have a Mamiya from the 80s and a Hasselblad from the 60s; I love both for different reasons. It's not just the camera; ultimately, it's a combination of camera, lens, and film type that determines the feel or aesthetic I'm looking for. Sometimes I'll deliberately choose a soft lens, other times a razor-sharp one, or simply for the convenience of a modern zoom lens. The film type and developer complement the final image—it's never a simple choice but always a combination of factors.
I scan my film with an Epson flatbed scanner. Digitizing gives me the most control over the final result. This way, I get the best of both worlds, and why not?