There’s a strange article up on PetaPixel entitled Stop Making Digital Look Like Film by Bimal Nepal, that I want to offer a rebuttal to. I understand that there’s only so much that happens within the photo world on any given day, and on the slow days you might put out a controversial piece (a.k.a. click bait) to get views and such, especially when ad revenue is a major part of the business strategy. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that—after all, I have written some controversial articles, and I also have advertisements on my website—but I do think PetaPixel should be careful not to overplay it, or they risk losing credibility. I can’t imagine that the editors actually agree with this piece (I hope not), but they’re certainly promoting it. An article that explores why people like the film look when using digital cameras would have been significantly more interesting. Published just one day later, Film Photography in 2025 Is Bluer and Less Saturated is actually quite fascinating, and (ironically and surprisingly) somewhat related to the article in question. My guess—based only on the number of comments—is that the click bait article got a lot more attention, and I suspect that will encourage more similar content in the future, unfortunately.
The main problem with Bimal’s piece is that it demands you change your photography. You aren’t doing it right. The title is second-person declarative: “(You) stop making digital look like film.” It’s a command, and you are being told what to do. The body of the post continues the sentiment. It would not be controversial had the author simply stated, “This is why I don’t make my digital pictures look like film.” That’s great. We all have our reasons for doing what we do, and maybe we can even learn from each other. But the article is more like: my way is right, your way is wrong. It’s just like the whole “You must shoot RAW” thing, which is tired, outdated, inaccurate, and needs to stop. It would have been equally as wrong if the author had demanded that everyone apply (say) VCSO filters to their pictures.
There’s no right or wrong way to do photography. There are thousands of paths, and you might take multiple trails at various times. If something works for you, that’s awesome! That’s what matters—finding what works for you personally. If someone tells you that you are doing photography wrong, and especially if they tell you that you must do it their way, I strongly advise you to take that advice for what it’s worth, which is not much of anything, certainly not two pennies (or a click to PetaPixel). You do photography however you want to do photography, whatever that looks like.
I might be reading too much into this, but the author seems to dislike Fujifilm, and especially the Fujifilm Recipe community (that’s you and I), which is known for analog aesthetics on digital images. He never states Fujifilm specifically, but what caught my attention was the mention of Film Simulations. In another PetaPixel article, he seems to dislike mirrorless cameras, or—perhaps more accurately—prefers DSLRs to mirrorless. Fujifilm, of course, does not make DSLRs (at least not since the S5 Pro, which was built on a Nikon D200, and is long discontinued), and all of their cameras for the last 20 years feature Film Simulations. Like I said, I could be connecting dots that were never meant to connect, and making much more of this than the author intended, but it seems like Fujifilm photographers in particular are doing digital photography all wrong, if you were to ask Bimal.
So let me get to the rebuttal. Below are five reasons why a photographer might prefer to make their digital photographs look like film—five reasons why you may want to continue making your pictures appear analog.
Digital is Clinical
Modern digital cameras are really good. They produce images that are especially clean and clear, free from defects and artifacts, which was nearly impossible in the film era. It’s great but also sterile, like a hospital room prepped for surgery. This might be preferable, but I find it boring, lacking character. Adding an analog aesthetic to digital pictures can make them less perfect, which can more easily convey certain feelings or moods. This is just my opinion, and it’s perfectly ok to disagree with it. There’s no right or wrong answer here, just personal preferences. Personally, I don’t like my pictures to appear so perfect, so clinical, so digital.
Film is Appealing
The reason why I like the aesthetic of film is because it has character. It has texture. Each emulsion has unique qualities. There are emotions that each look conveys to the viewer. It can be serendipitous, with wonderful surprises. Film photography requires much patience and thoughtfulness. One must have a willingness to fail and an acceptance for when that inevitably happens. Those are good qualities, but they’re born out of frustrating circumstances. I love the look of film, but not always the process of analog photography.
Digital is Convenient
A common response to this article is going to be, “If you like the look of film, just shoot film.” Yeah, that’s great and all, and certainly something I have done for many years, but digital is much faster, more reliable, more flexible, and probably less expensive (depending on how many rolls of film you shoot). Digital cameras are so much more convenient than film, and that’s why I like digital photography. If there’s a way to get the best of both worlds—the convenience of digital with the look of film—that’s a major win-win. And, thankfully, you can get the best of both worlds. There’s nothing wrong with digital photography, there’s nothing wrong with film photography, and there’s nothing wrong with mimicking film-like looks with digital cameras.
Authenticity is King
The pictures produced by Fujifilm cameras feel authentic and film-like because they reflect in-camera processing designed by Fujifilm utilizing their renown film heritage. When you use Film Simulation Recipes, what you see is what you get, and the pictures don’t require manipulation—they’re not “photoshopped” (which, right or wrong, has become a bad word in recent times). Like using a particular film across a series of photos, choosing one Recipe can give your images a cohesive, intentional, and stylized aesthetic. Not having to edit allows for a simple and efficient workflow, which can save you a lot of time while increasing your productivity.
Using Recipes is Fun
Last but far from least, shooting straight-out-of-camera JPEGs using Film Simulation Recipes is fun. A lot of people do it because they enjoy it. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me that using Recipes has made photography fun for them again. You should be enjoying the process of making pictures, and if you’re not, it might be time to ask yourself why, and consider if you should make any changes to your process. Maybe you don’t find Recipes and camera-made JPEGs enjoyable, and that’s ok. Different strokes for different folks. But a lot of people do find it fun, and it’s become a big part of the Fujifilm appeal. The Fujifilm Recipe community continues to grow and grow, and for good reason.
These five points highlight why a Fujifilm photographer using Film Simulation Recipes might love making their digital images look like film. Recipes combine some of film’s iconic character with digital’s convenience, consistency, and immediacy. There’s a very large community who appreciates the aesthetics of film and use it to purposefully convey certain feelings and moods through their pictures, but they also appreciate the ease of digital. The ability to combine both into a simplified workflow is quite attractive, which is why so many people are making their digital pictures look like film—and, no, unless they want to, they should not stop.
Honestly, whileas Film Simulations are nice to play with – i prefer the real Deal. Shooting film since 41 1/2 years, i dislike digital fakery. I don’t push my digital RAW files from various systems to “film-esque” look. And these days of AI, i especially love to shoot 35mm Film! Film is real, Film is emotional, Film is a haptic medium. Whatever you do with your digital files – it’s never gonna be the same, even it would look 90% like film.
The real deal (in my opinion—everyone has different opinions) is the best option for aesthetic; however, it also has a lot of drawbacks, too. If time and money and convenience were no issue, I’d still be shooting film exclusively. I still shoot film occasionally (actually, I recently purchased 15 rolls…), because I like how it looks.
Digital and film are inherently divergent, but 90% similar is still pretty close. I think that’s probably a good average—some Recipes are closer than others. A fun story someone shared with me is that he posted some pictures on IG captured with one of my recipes that models a certain Kodak film; a popular account that is specifically about film photography commented on his post, telling him that his photos were a great example of the film, not realizing that the pictures were a Film Simulation Recipe and not the film itself. Sometimes it can be close enough to inadvertently trick someone who is extraordinarily familiar with the film (not that tricking was ever the point), and sometimes it’s only so close. Much more important than that is whether or not the photographer likes the aesthetic, and if it fulfills the vision of their art.
I appreciate the comment.
Who remembers the wonderful film “Blow UP”. A masterpiece!
The “Famous Photographer” shot his recreational shots in the local park, hyperfocally.
By happenschance he caught an active murder in the deep background.
It seems he printed everything, at least 2′ x 3′. Excellent! Hand held 35mm, not so much..
My Dad, “Pinsharp Ted”, Fleetsteet, thoroughly approved although he scorned the 35mm camera.
Still for adventurers or a toy for boys. No Leica on the moon. Work was done with the Rolleiflex TLR.
Science Pros did mount the Exacta into bellows. Sports and surveillance did use a Novoflex rig.
The authorities regularly pored over the backgrounds of press photographs. I witnessed it at Keystone.
Got anything for us Ted? Partially, a reason for letting the Press be so intrusive.
Backgrounds needed to be sharp and quite right too.
Policing a city. Who should and shouldn’t be there.
Bokeh is interesting but you are not “Banksie”.
A Photographer is accuracy and visual credibility. A record keeper with a duty to maintain visual trust.
In my case, I am English and I consider sharp backgrounds my Patriotic duty.
Controversial enough for you? LOL.
Interesting. I have never considered a photograph’s depth-of-field to be a political feature (but I’m on this side of the pond). I bet you have a lot of stories involving your dad and photography.
I thought the exact same thing when I read that yesterday – they’re just doing it for clicks. You’re better than that, PetaPixel!
I published a YouTube video recently about how much I’m enjoying the recipe capability on the X-E5 FS dial – it does bring some of the fun back. Then the comments started coming in…”if you just shot RAW you wouldn’t have to deal with that…”.
People just don’t get it, and that’s fine, I just wish they stopped telling others how to be a photographer. I enjoyed your rebuttal points.
Some certain articles lately on PetaPixel have made me wonder what’s going on over there. I have no idea, but I’m curious if bringing on Chris and Jordan is causing a bit of a financial strain, and the trickle effect of it is ridiculous content that’s clearly for clicks (a.k.a. ad revenue). I really don’t know, but whatever it is, I don’t appreciate it personally, and I would encourage them to be careful with publishing too much of that type of content in the future (not that they read this website…).
I saw your video (and even linked to it in an article). Well done. For those reading this who didn’t watch it, here it is: https://youtu.be/EMjENfmALGc?si=fAcGdHgMzrH9zjny
There are people who “don’t get it” and that’s ok. Recipes aren’t for everyone. But I’ve had a lot of different people tell me that they didn’t “get it” until one day they tried, and it was like a lightbulb wen’t off. I think sometimes people have misconceptions that makes them standoffish to the idea, not realizing what they’re missing out on. But everyone’s journey is unique. Some of these people might come around someday, some might try Recipes and not like them, and some might not ever try them, and all of that’s ok. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Everyone makes their own choices, and hopefully they find (or have already found) a process that works well for them, whatever that is. For me, it’s Recipes.
Thanks for the comment!
A lunatic. Just like the irritating ones who tell people to shoot “raw” only and everything has to be in bloody focus!
PP is low quality, trashy articles nearly every day.
Well, my wind up has clearly worked.
Always truth behind it though.
Best Rgds.
There’s not much truth found in the PP article, mostly just gatekeeping, ignorance, and condescension. Maybe I just misunderstand your comment, though.
PP has always had some low quality, really questionable content from time-to-time. The frequency and maybe even low depth of that content seems to have gotten worse recently (at least to me it seems). They have good, high quality content, too. I would encourage them to focus more on the high quality stuff, and less on the trash. Right now, you’ve really got to weed through it, which is unfortunate.
Ok it’s a PP clickbaity article but I’ll bite…
Bimal Nepal seems to be creating some false truths by exaggerating how film simulations* are making images that are ‘softened or hazed…’ Whereas he argues that pure digital is crisp, clean and authentic*. (Both interpreted by a sensor). They certainly aren’t mutually exclusive. I might shoot something that is tweaked or has a film simulation but I might also deliver press images untouched. Both live in the same world.
It’s like saying stop driving a retro styled EV Renault 5 because there’s a EV BMW.
As for colour tweaks how about Nadav Kandar’s extremely fine grain images on film – a whole career built on dense blue / green images. Are they not valid also?
Maybe Nepal should stop scrolling social media cliches and start checking out real photographers.
Press style images are our raison D’etre,
Images from our fancy may be our dalliance.
We have a duty to posterity to produce the former,
We might prefer our legacy to be the latter.
Either way, go big or go phone.
Rgds.
M.D.H.
I don’t agree that press style photographs is our purpose or mission or reason to be photographers. I’m sure it is for some people, but only a fairly small number of people. You personally and those in certain professions may feel or find it necessary to produce such images as a duty, but that’s going to be less than 1% of all photographers. Most people have no duty or allegiance to that, nor should they. Suggesting that they should is just as ridiculous as the PP author demanding that everyone stop using Film Simulations, which incidentally is very difficult to do on a Fujifilm camera, even as a strict RAW-only photographer. At the very least, you are shooting with Provia/STD, and are using that Film Simulation as the base for the final edited image (unless you quite purposefully circumvent that, which is uncommon). Even the staunchest Film Simulation haters, if they are using a Fujifilm camera, are likely (and ironically) using at least one Film Simulation.
I think clean, crisp, sharp, neutral photos are legitimate and have their place, but so do all the other possible aesthetics and processes and outcomes. There’s not one that’s inherently or universally better, only what the photographer prefers personally. If something works for Bimal, that’s great. But he should not expect that everyone else should feel the same way about it, that’s just ridiculous.
All photos have a different reason for being.
How boring would photography be if we all shot at f/11 and kept our colors & contrast “neutral, accurate, and lifelike”?
Photography would be incredibly boring and lifeless, and wouldn’t hardly be anything thing today if that were the case. Certainly it wouldn’t be considered an art form, only a science for science sake.
Ah! There’s the rub.
Is it primarily an art form?
I sincerely hope not. I do though, appreciate the craft skills.
It is however, a medium for both archiving and political influence.
Who doesn’t remember the burned little girl running down that road in Vietnam?
The TV clips, back in ’48, of millions of refugees wandering hopelessly in Europe, were woolly but are still in my mind 76 years later.
In my work, documentation, especially at higher magnifications, can certainly be visually arresting.
Art, I think not.
Enough on this, I have seen too much.
Best Rgds.
Malcolm Hayward.
Yes, it is primarily an art form, and has been for a 100 years now. That should not be controversial. It does not mean it isn’t strictly documentary at times, or that art and documentary don’t blend—in fact, most photographs contain elements of both (some leaning more one direction, some leaning more the other). Even Napalm Girl was developed and printed in a darkroom by the AP, and they had to make choices on chemicals and contrast that weren’t likely strictly clinical, so even that photograph, which is an example of strict documentary, has at least a tinge of art at the fringes. It’s not a well-defined line that separates the two seemingly opposing takes on photography, but a very wide and fuzzy line, with most photos falling somewhere on it.
Stop expressing yourself in a way that is different from the way that I have chosen to express myself. That’s wrong and bad.
Same as it ever was.
Same ol’, same ol’… Thanks for the input!
Wow. I feel dumber for having read the article you’re responding to. The author lost all credibility right off the bat (“I shoot digital. I don’t do film, and I have never touched a film camera…”). The rest of the article is an unintelligible mess of logical fallacies and bizarre, unsubstantiated assertions. People make all kinds of photographs, for all kinds of reasons. They’re all “valid.” His assertion that photojournalistic work is somehow more important, “truer”, or “more authentic” than anything else is utter nonsense. That’s the sort of pablum that art school freshmen have argued about for decades, and it’s ultimately meaningless. If you made it, with artistic intent, it’s “real” and “valid” and “authentic.” Next subject, please.
I could see the beginnings of a literate argument about how to use digital tools from a sort of “truth to materials” standpoint (eg. let digital look digital, art needn’t hide what it is or how it’s made). Letting photographs LOOK like photographs (and not paintings, lithographs, etc) was a big issue in the art world at the beginning of the 20th century. Only he doesn’t seem to know that, and doesn’t actually make that argument. He mostly just disparages a “look” he doesn’t like, while describing it poorly, and ignoring the fact that there really isn’t a single “film look” or “digital look.” That’s not how either emulsions or digital sensors work.
If we’re just going to play his game, I went and looked up his work. It looks like every ad in the travel magazines you used to find in the back pockets of airplane seats. It’s technically proficient, but so what? I don’t care in the least what equipment he used, because his pictures are boring… :p
It was a terrible article. The sad thing is that he mentions in a comment elsewhere on PetaPixel that he has even more content lined up to be published on PetaPixel, and this article was a big success because of all the attention it received. Sadly—but predictably—it’s mission accomplished and even rewarded.
He feels incredibly vindicated for having been published in PetaPixel, and digs in even further on his Instagram page, refusing to acknowledge there is any room for creativity in image processing for anyone.
Back in the late ’50s an artist lady of great skill and I would say brilliance, provided for educational purposes, technical depictions of biological and zoological preparations and dissections.
At the time, photography didn’t come close in uncluttered clarity.
Regrettably her work is now seldom used but it took the post processing of the digital era to produce education aids close to this clarity.
Some might say this post processing is art. Either way, this is not the old school air brushing of a transparency by
Tothe best paid people in the business, but a skillful and tasteful re-work to improve the usefulness of a photographic image.
High end Cookery Books still indulge in the massive transparencies.
Rgds.
I definitely don’t feel we need another divisive voice in the photo world, but I’m sure he’ll get rewarded for it.
Thanks for calling this out. You did not read too much into it. I remember seeing the article a couple of days ago and felt a little triggered by it and it’s high-horse tone, but didn’t care to expend the energy to discuss it anywhere. Your article puts the perfect bookend to some of those thoughts.
It’s really crazy that people have these types of opinions, but even crazier that PetaPixel would endorse it and encourage it. Shame.
Proud S5 Pro user here! Feels refreshing to be mentioned every now and then. I may not have access to the film simulations of modern Fuji cameras, but I’m still having fun out there with its older film sim modes and the quirky sensor! Being so far behind in sharpness and detail compared to the newer cameras really helps you let go of the whole “images *need* to be sharp and clinical” bit, I feel.
I think it would be super cool to try an S5 Pro out someday. It was quite innovative with the Super CCD sensor.
The mentioned article is utterly dumb, also on PetaPixel page, comments there are much less than kind, suggesting that words might have been generated by a language model. But as said above – mission accomplished, we all are clicking :-D, reading, wasting time…
So many comments also here, and no surprise – people are attracted by negativity and shocking events (I’m not saying that I am different). What makes me sad a bit – look at number of comments here and in recent post about Nostalgic Neg sim and related recipes comparison. Isn’t this THE idea where Ritchie deserves more of our attention?
Yeah, sometimes the most helpful articles are not the most popular. But, on Fuji X Weekly, by far the most popular articles are Film Simulation Recipes. The most viewed article on this website in 2025 that’s not directly related to Recipes is about the WCL/TCL X100 conversion lenses, and it’s not in the Top 50. All of the Top 50 are either Film Simulation Recipes or are discussing Recipes (such as how to program, or which to try). So there is some hope….
As someone who has shot film and digital, Id just like to say the article is rubbish. Some of us are more into the experience of being out with the camera instead of editing flat RAW files. I’ve been there done that and love the fact that what Id do post processing is now in camera. I tweak my simulations, none of them look the way he described
It was definitely an ignorant article. Thanks for the input!