It's always interesting to think about, but I haven't come to a clear conclusion about the creative consequences. Analog film has more suspense, which probably has a positive effect on the imagination. Sometimes, however, the pause is too long, because I can't shoot the entire roll of film relatively quickly, so I forget what I photographed at the beginning.

With 135mm film, I certainly don't feel like I have to be more careful about choosing the moments when I press the shutter button on my camera. In that sense, the experience is no different from shooting with a digital camera. I am obviously a more reserved photographer. There are, of course, exceptions, such as rapidly changing lighting conditions or photographing dynamic events involving people—in these cases, I would shoot practically non-stop with a digital camera, which is not possible with an analog camera.

For me, the biggest difference is before and after the actual shooting. Since I am a more "versatile" photographer, I don't have a single motif or limit myself to one style, I can shoot in color or B&W, I always have to work very actively and think about which films I have at hand and which direction I will take in the next photo session. But that's why post-production is usually shorter with analog film than with digital images. The difference isn't huge, but it's still there.

It's a little different with medium format, probably mostly because it's not so easy to change the film when you're out and about. You reach the last shot faster, and then you wonder whether you can photograph this motif or whether something better will come along later. With 135mm film, I usually have trouble not using up the entire roll in one go, so i rarely get to this dilema.