Film photography, a choice guided by the past

Why film ? Because it brings me back to where digital technology had lost me, by carrying several constraints that structure my work. But not only.

Who says film, says grain. And I like grain. I like the texture that it brings to the image, as opposed to the smooth perfection of digital. For me, this is the little extra of film. I generally use high ISO films (generally 400 or 100 pushed to 400) for a fairly noticeable grain.

Sometimes also, old cameras have a certain personality. The images they produce, defined by their own characteristics (light measurement, optics, etc.), give a very specific result that can’t be obtained with another one.

Film obviously requires careful consideration before shooting because every image counts. Of course, you can (and must) also think in digital world, but if the result is not satisfactory, nothing prevents you from starting again at will. This triggering rule, associated with the uncertainty of capture since the resulting image is not visible, leads me to a certain form of acceptance once the trigger has been triggered. What is done is done. It’s somehow liberating and relaxing !

Eventually there’s the wait. Some time to submit the film to the lab, some to develop and receive the scans… And the discovery of the result. Unlike digital, it’s a “cold mind” discovery, far from the context of shooting, therefore with another look, another emotional state too.

Structuring rules

The preparation stage is crucial. It’s a sort of conditioning depending on the context, the duration of the shoot, etc. But I always preserve a part of “freedom”, in order to be able to step out of the context and take advantage of an unexpected subject. In the context of a trip, and therefore multiple possible situations, preparation is even more “complex”.

Depending on the objective of the shoot, I will therefore choose the type of film (or several different films), the sensitivity(s), the number of rolls of film to take, the optics, any filters, a tripod perhaps , or even additional tools such as an angle viewfinder, a flash, etc. It is not always easy to bring a lot of equipment, choices generally have to be made.

Then, shooting time. And the rules didn’t change since the 19th century.

Unlike digital, the choice of ISO sensitivity applied to the film loaded in the box is crucial because it will remain identical for the entire roll of film, it can only be “forced” when loading, otherwise the development of the film will become unmanageable. No white balance, no advanced technology to adapt the machine to the context, here it is rather the photographer who adapts!

And then you don’t take the same photo 10 times with different settings to see which is the best, already because we can’t verify it, but also because it’s a luxury, given the price of films. At best it’s 3 views for “bracketing” (or even 5 on some cameras). When we continue, it must be for a good reason (sports photo or need to capture the moment).

Obviously, beyond the technical choices of shooting (aperture, speed, focal length, etc.), it is necessary to take care of the framing, the focusing, the measurement of light in the right place (sometimes several measurements combined), to be careful in the background, at the desired depth of field (which depends on the aperture), and if you are on a living or moving subject, it is even more complicated because you have to capture the moment. We can also make more specific technical choices such as superposition, or the use of particular filters for specific effects, such as color filters to reinforce contrasts and modify the gray scales (in the case of black and white) or still neutral density filters to manage movement, …

Then comes the moment to trigger, to assume responsibility for your choices in a fraction of a second, and to have only a vague idea of ​​the result ! (This is even more true in black and white, because in the viewfinder, it is the color that I see and interpret).

Digital approach, mirroring film

For digital, which I only use for color, I follow the same rules as for film. Because I like to do it this way, and because my film cameras are reserved (and usually loaded) for black and white.

My only digital camera (excluding the smartphone which is only a backup tool) is an old APS-C SLR from 2004, very similar in design to my favorite film camera, and with limited capabilities (see Toolbox section / Megapixels).

My settings are therefore similar, with obviously a fixed ISO for the duration of the shooting, and framing through a classic viewfinder and not on a screen (we tend to forget that framing on a screen completely changes perception, and that’s not necessarily positive).

Obviously if the situation requires it, I will take advantage of the possibilities of digital to get the best result, but given the age of my camera, the choices are limited anyway (apart from ISO and white balance settings) !

Note: in the “OFF FRAME” section, some images are produced with a smartphone (very average quality). Necessity of the moment (I don’t always walk around carrying my SLRs), need for illustration rather than artistic approach, it’s obviously practical, but having no real control over electronics I’m not a fan, even if it sometimes gives me interesting images.

The “development” phase

As already mentioned, my films are developed then scanned in high resolution by a professional lab. Then I “develop” the images on a computer.

The use of computers is for me a way to free myself from the “little chemist” aspect of which I am really not a fan, but also from a need for gear and space, while respecting the principles of work of the “elders”, the only difference being the tools I use.

I never modify the content of the image (additions or deletions) except in exceptional circumstances (framing constraint imposed by the environment, with unwanted “object”). I don’t superimpose layers, I don’t use special effects. If there are image superpositions, they are always made when shooting (and only on film). Obviously, i don’t use AI.

I just refine my framing, clean the images as best I can of dust and other small defects in the film, then I work on the contrasts, the lights, the gray scales, generally using masks, as the photographers did before the digital age. The difference here is that my masks are no longer made of cardboard, and the flexibility of IT makes their use easier, faster and offers more possibilities.

Finally, some images are treated with a slight color shift, in tones of yellow, blue or brown depending on the case. Here again, technology has replaced the chemistry of the pioneer era. I also use this process for processing some of my “blue” colored images.

But beyond these technical aspects, another major parameter comes into play in my way of processing the image, it is the energy of the moment, my sensitivity, my emotional state. Processing an image can take me 10 minutes… Or several days!

At last, the most difficult thing, as probably true for any artistic work, is knowing how to complete the process, to finally be satisfied with the result. I admit to having a certain weakness on this point …

Working process