Analogue Photography

The Negatives

Shooting film in the digital age seems to be an anachronism. Neither is it cost efficient nor is it time efficient. And with recent developments in the field of image sensor technology, film is no longer better in terms of image quality. Only the look of an analogue photograph usually differs greatly from that of its digital counterpart.

The analog look is maintained even if the negative is digitized (OM-2N; Fuji Superia 200)

The Positives

My OM-2N built in 1979 still working like new

So why do we at panta rhei still use film extensively? I have to admit that I have a very personal and emotional connection to film photography. I grew up with film cameras and one of my first memories of using a camera is looking through the rangefinder of my father’s Leica M camera (probably at the age of six) and watching him changing film. I also spent a lot of time with him in the darkroom and soon started to take pictures on my own. My first “real” camera was an Olympus OM-2N, which I got from my father. It still one of my favourite cameras today. Furthermore, the process of taking pictures with a film camera is different from taking pictures with a digital camera no matter which one. Apart from the different handling and certain restrictions, there is one unique aspect to it. Every time the photographer releases the shutter, a picture is imprinted on the negative permanently, no matter whether the photographer took a good one or a bad one. There is no delete option; the act of creating something in the physical world is permanent and cannot be undone, even if one does not print the picture.This is the most important aspect of film photography, because it emphasizes the severity of the act of photography. The act of creating

a frame to freeze the flow forever