Untitled— A collection & conversation with Rachel Lemoine

The following is a series of photos and conversation with Rachel Lemoine, a high school photographer who works primarily with film. Her photography captures a vibrant underground music scene; bloomy neon color palettes, suffused shadows, and a unique, up-close and personal perspective define her style. We spoke with her about the inspiration behind her subjects, the purpose that drives her work, and the ways film photography shape both her process and perspective.

The Journal: What drew you to photographing the Dallas underground music scene?

Rachel: I’d been involved in my local music scene since I was about 14 or 15, before I really got into taking photos. I’d see all this interesting movement on stage, and I’ve always loved music. There’s so much emotion physically shown in those performances—people thrashing around, getting lost in the music—and I was just really drawn to it.

The Journal: Do you see your work as more documentation or storytelling?

Rachel: I’d say it’s mostly documentation. I don’t do as many show photos now, but when I do, it’s really just whatever I find visually interesting. Sometimes that means straightforward concert shots; other times it’s double exposures or using cheaper, more experimental cameras. So it’s concert documentation, but not just for the sake of having a photo of a concert.

The Journal: Do you want your viewers to take away something specific from your work?

Rachel: Not particularly. When I first started, I didn’t show my photos to anyone—it was just for me. Even now, sometimes I don’t even show them to the band. I started during a film photography class because I loved film, and I was going to shows a lot. Over time, I just kept doing it, kept experimenting, and enjoyed it more and more.

The Journal: Why film instead of digital?

Rachel: Film is harder, and it’s expensive, but I have access to a darkroom, and printing there is a lot of fun. With digital, I feel disconnected—it’s just a photo on a screen. With film, I can develop it myself, make physical prints, and it feels like a piece of art I truly created. Film completely changed how I think about photography. You can’t see what you’re gonna get in the moment, and you only have so many frames, so you put more thought into every shot—your shutter speed, aperture, lighting. There’s so much room for error that when you finally get something you really like, it’s way more special.

The Journal: What role do imperfections—like grain, blur, or light leaks—play in your work?

Rachel: A big one. Some of my favorite photos have been double exposures—like a roll I shot in a Seattle garden, then shot a concert over, or one with flowers layered over a show. You could replicate that digitally, but film just looks different. I’ve also shot shows on a Holga, which uses 120 film. Holgas kind of suck—the light leaks, the blur, the lack of background detail—but I love how those photos look. They’re so different from a regular concert shot.

The Journal: Any favorite cameras, lenses, or film stocks?

Rachel: For the photos I sent, not really—I was shooting with what I had. I recently got a 16mm fisheye-style lens I’m excited to try. Some of my favorite shots came from slightly expired Ektachrome my teacher gave me. It’s tungsten-balanced slide film, so it picks up light differently, and the negatives look really cool. But honestly, I usually shoot whatever’s cheapest.

The Journal: How do you handle flash and lighting at shows?

Rachel: It’s been a pain. A lot of my early flashes were bad and would misfire, so I’d get half-dark frames. And at shows, people are slamming into you, so troubleshooting is tough. I recently found a flash at school that works perfectly with my cameras, so I’ve been experimenting with bouncing light depending on the space. Sometimes I rely on venue stage lighting, which can look cool, but other times I’m shooting in someone’s backyard.

The Journal: Do you plan shots before a show or just react in the moment?

Rachel: Mostly in the moment. If I’m doing something more experimental—like double exposures—I plan a bit more. I also know which bands move in ways I like to shoot. If I’m familiar with a venue, I can picture where I want to be. But a lot of it is just figuring it out as I go.

The Journal: You mentioned recurring themes—can you talk more about that?

Rachel: I try to shoot women as much as possible. In my local scene, there aren’t many, and I think the way they perform and express themselves is so passionate and visually striking. They create a good contrast with the rest of the band. I also love when bands move like crazy—jumping around, screaming on the floor—because it’s such a physical display of emotion, something you don’t see every day.

The Journal: How does your other visual art influence your photography?

Rachel: Outside of photography, I mostly paint. In both painting and photography, I’m drawn to purples, reds, and blues. When I shoot color film, I try to bring those tones in, either through the film stock or in editing. And again, femininity is a recurring theme—most of my portraits are of my friends, who are usually girls.

The Journal: How did you start shooting film?

Rachel: I’ve been shooting film for about two years. At first, I just carried a camcorder around, filming my friends and concerts because I liked documenting things. I’m a sentimental person, so I like being able to look back on moments. I signed up for my school’s photography class without knowing it was film, and I ended up loving it—especially because of my teacher, who’s a big inspiration. I got my own camera after that and have been shooting ever since.

The Journal: Are there photographers who inspire you?

Rachel: Michael Ackerman is a big one—he works mostly with Holgas, and his photos don’t look like “normal” photographs. They feel like works of art. I’m also inspired by photographers in my local music scene. I love seeing how we all approach the same show differently, using different gear and styles.

The Journal: How do you edit and scan your photos?

Rachel: When I started, I didn’t have a scanner, so everything was printed in the darkroom—black and white only, since color processing is different. Now, for black-and-white, I develop it myself, scan it, and do light contrast tweaks. For color, I usually get scans from a lab, but sometimes I scan my own negatives and adjust color balance and contrast in Photoshop. I’m not great at Photoshop, so I keep it minimal.

The Journal: Has shooting changed how you see the world?

Rachel: Yeah. It’s made me slow down and notice things more—like how light hits a wall, or the way my friends move when they’re laughing. I’m always thinking about how something would look as a photo. It keeps me in that mindset of seeing beauty in small, everyday things.