Feaverish Photography Blog

Today’s interview is with Ana Cuba, who hails from Barcelona. I’ve long admired Ana’s lovely portraits on Flickr, and her blog was a big inspiration for my own. When I read that she’d switched from digital to analog, I thought it’d be fun to sit down (over IM, of course) and talk to her.

Aaron: Hi Ana.

Ana: Hi! What would you like to talk about? Analog vs. digital?

Aaron: Sure, that’s a good place to start. It’s kind of funny because I actually thought most of your photos were film.

Ana: Ah really? That’s the best thing you can tell me! That’s what i’ve been looking for with the post-processing. But finally I gave up and changed to analog.

Aaron: Yes, I love those Mamiya photos you took in Andorra. But the look and tone of your film photos is very similar to your digital photos. The post-processing on the digitals is very subtle, I mean; it doesn’t look overly processed or stylized.

Ana: Some pictures are so post-processed that i feel bad sometimes! If you saw the original one for example you’d shock:

Aaron: Haha. Well, digital cameras don’t have much personality on their own, you have to add it with the post-processing. With film, it seems like each combination of film and camera and lens has its own personality.

Ana: Yes! That is what I love the most about film.

Aaron: I also thought you shot a lot of medium format, I think because so many of your photos are square. Did you look for a square composition when you were shooting, or was it something you decided on after the photo had been taken?

Ana: No no, most times I looked for it. Maybe at the beginning it was more a decision in the post-processing, but then I started to look for it in the process of taking the picture. Now square format is weird to me again. With the 6×4.5 format of my Mamiya, which I really love, I’ve forgotten a little bit about the square format.

Aaron: What appealed to you about the square format?

Ana: The square itself I think, and maybe, above all, the fact that it gave a more film aesthetic to my pictures.

Aaron: It did make it seem much more like film. You also have a lot of portraits that are done in profile or from the back (there’s that whole section on your website called backs&mountains). What appeals to you about that kind of portrait?

Ana: It’s more a question of logic, I think. When I do landscape photography I don’t like to put the people looking at the camera because it doesn’t make sense to me. I like to take the photo of what he or she is looking at. It all depends on what is more important to me, the subject, or to represent that he’s in a place, looking at the awesome landscape.

Aaron: That makes sense.

Ana: In the example of my series backs&mountains, (btw I don’t really know if I will maintain that title)…

Aaron: I like it!

Ana: With that series, the important thing was to represent the subject in that place, and not the subject itself. The landscape was as important as the person.

Aaron: Well, even in your portraits where you can see the person’s face, they aren’t looking right into the camera. I was wondering why.

Ana: Uhm, that question is hard for me to reply to! Let me think about it. I have to go, you are interviewing me and I’m in class!

Aaron: Haha ok.

[THE NEXT DAY…]

Ana: You made me think about my work yesterday! It was weird. You made me think about things I didn’t know I did!

Aaron: Like what?

Ana: Like the last questions. I don’t have a real reason for not taking portraits with subjects looking directly at the camera. Or the thing about square format; it’s weird to explain reasons for something I didn’t know had a reason! But I think a person looking directly at the camera gives the picture another dimension. The subject is looking directly to you as a viewer, and that’s a strong connection.

Ana, cont.: Also my portraits have a melancholic way to most of them, and to put the model looking at the camera I think would change that; if he is looking at you, that makes him stronger. I mean, a portrait with the model looking to the camera has a strength I don’t want to show in most of my portraits. I like to do portraits you can see with complete freedom, without that connection I told you about. It has a voyeur point too, I think, but it all depends.

Ana, cont.: I have some portraits like my self portrait with the towel above my head [SEE ABOVE], in which I look directly to the camera, and I did it like this because in that case I wanted to establish that connection we speak about. Like, hey, this is me, and this is all. It all depends on the sense and emotion I want for each picture. For the bed portraits, because of the environment itself, and the light conditions, I wanted smooth and melancholic portraits. Please change the question because I’m starting to confuse myself!

Aaron: Haha, sure. Now that you’ve switched from digital to using medium format film, what’s next? Are there other formats or styles you’d like to try?

Ana: I’m saving for a Contax T3 [35mm] right now, that will probably be my next purchase…if a Polaroid SX-70 doesn’t cross my way before! (Cross my way? I bet it has no sense. I mean that if I had the chance to get a good Polaroid SX-70 before then…I would buy it too!)

Aaron: “Cross my way” is good. Sometimes people say “cross my path”. Same thing.

Ana: Hahah ok! Well, my next steps will probably be to try 35mm, and specifically Contax, which results I love. But Polaroid appeals to me a lot too, and up ’til now I haven’t dared to buy one, because of the format disappearing and all of that. But each time i see a picture taken with a Polaroid SX-70 I desire one! So…yeah, it’s a bad moment for Polaroid, but I really want to get it off my back.

Aaron: On your blog, you said something about not going back to digital any time soon, now that you have your Mamiya. Why is that?

Ana: Well, everything’s changed since I tried analog…as I said, all my post processing in digital was based on the idea of achieving an analog aesthetic, and once I tried real analog and specifically medium format, I finally achieved what I was looking for in digital.

Ana, cont.: Apart from that, taking pictures with analog cameras changes the way you work. You start to value each shot, instead of shooting almost everything like with digital. That makes you think about the picture you are taking much more. It’s good, because with digital if you composed a picture badly, you can just do it again. With analog, you care much more when you take the picture, and you develop your photographic eye. It’s a little bit the Pavlov’s Dog reasoning; with analog you get some kind of “punishment” when you don’t pay attention (you lose money, time, the chance…) so you start to think twice before taking the picture. Of course, this is only valid for the kind of pictures I’m taking nowadays; I love photographers who can “catch” the moment! But I usually prepare the picture before.

Aaron: How long have you been a photographer?

Ana: I started less than 2 years ago.

Aaron: Oh wow! I’m impressed! What made you start?

Ana: Salva, my boyfriend, got a camera (in that moment I had no money and I had not thought about photography, either), but then he started to improve and he wanted another camera (he had the Canon 400D ) so he bought the Canon 40D and sold me the 400D for a very good “boyfriend price.” I can’t deny myself! And it all started then.

Aaron: Haha, yes, the boyfriend price is hard to pass up! Well, thanks for taking the time to talk with me. I hope it didn’t interfere with your studies too much!

Ana: Ahaha don’t worry about that! I never pay attention in that class.

You can see much, much more from Ana at her website, blog, and Flickr page.